Today's Camera headlines the Local Section with the decision to back-burner the pot fine increase topic in Lafayette. In the name of pragmatic time considerations - and weighing the relative import and impact of this topic against more important issues (like national immigration statements?), City Administrator Gary Klaphake is quoted: "That's such a huge distraction for such a minimal return".
While I agree that this doesn't deserve further discussion, it's curious that research into the current status of actual marijuana use in Lafayette (the kind of info Mayor Pro-Tem David Strungis requested be presented before City Council consider increased fines) and subsequent debate on increased deterrence and punishment would be pragmatically relegated down the list of priorities, while the hub-bub of a statement on national immigration policy - a symbolic statement - was championed by a majority of the Council.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Most likely this is getting dropped because it would mean an about face in Lafayette on drug enforcement.
In the nearly 20 years I've lived in the area, Lafayette has turned it's head on drug use in town.
Anybody who knows anybody in town can tell you where to acquire illegal drugs. If it's that easy for the average person to find this out, why can't the police?
Answer? They also know, but do nothing about it.
I'm not making a statement about whether that's right or wrong. It just is.
So, to make such a drastic change for no real benefit? Why?
Not surprisingly, no one is really interested in the facts about the ordinance that passed 6-1 on first reading.
It was to make marijuana possession subject to the same sentencing options as other misdemeanors in Lafayette. It was not to specifically make a new penalty for pot. And as Judge Buchholz has stated numerous times in the media since then, it was never intended to be a big deal, so fine if it gets dropped.
Say what you will about drug policy in general or the copious availability of drugs on any random street corner in Lafayette (which is, of course, untrue), my impression is that pragmatics have guided law enforcement in Lafayette historically, pragmatics prompted Judge Buchholz to suggest streamlining sentencing options, and pragmatics have relegated the political hot potato to the back of the line.
If someone really wanted to be brave about drug policy in Lafayette and what might appear to be the political will after all this hoopla, they would suggest repealing the local ordinance entirely. Then maybe we'd need to consider sending a resolution to Congress, since fussing over local ordinance in this case isn't going to make a difference one way or another.
Anon - I wasn't there that night. So the vote was 5-1.
Any way, when I feel like "harassing" my friends with young kids this is what I say: "Today its tattoos, body piercing, ecstasy and meth, hip hop and rap, and premarital s-- and STD at 12 or 14. What's this "morning after pill"? The divorce rate is 50%. What's it going to be like in 10 to 15 years?" Of course this is Boulder County and none of this happens here.
Oops, sorry Dan.
Pot is now twice as strong as it was a decade or two. Does any one think the police are raiding homes looking for less than an ounce?
I bet a $100 fine for repeat offenders really scares 'em.
Kerry- You mention several things that are way scarier in our society than pot. If you want to live somewhere where lives get destroyed by senseless regulation of "contolled substances", there are plenty of places that are worse than the US, but have worse drug problems, in spite of it. Given the politics of fear going strong around here, Canada is looking better all the time for me! $100 and a police record is way more damaging to a young person's future than pot, and has lead to a lot of people doing worse things, because their option have become limited.
Anonymous- blanket rules are not a good answer. It might be easy for lazy small town judges, but I'd rather they actually do their job and consider the options.
Drive the drugs back up to Bongmont, eh? The city council up there has eyes so red, they have to be smokin' weed. Mayor P. is a huge friend of the Bong, fo shizzle.
Blanket rules are not the answer, right.
Current Lafayette ordinance is a blanket rule. Nothing would have prevented imposition of the same $100 fine or less under the proposed scheme.
This is why I say the debate is clouded by larger politics, not the facts about the way things work in Lafayette. Truly, given recent precedent, it wouldn't be out of the question for a citizen to ask the council to pass a resolution directed at the people who really make decisions on the policy we're debating.
Cyclo - In this day and age, I don't know what the effect is of a misdemeanor for possession of an ounce or less. Many companies due drug testing as a condition of employment regardless.
An important question is how often drug use (include alcohol)escalates into something a lot worse. And how tough is law enforcement on possession? A guy I know was telling me about what was going on at Centaurus when his daughter went to school there. He had to ship her out of state.
Today on the radio they were talking about a guy out of state arrested for the 29th time for DUI with a suspended licensee. Really tough on that guy.
As for the penalties, just about every type of "crime" has a range and is invoked at the judge's discretion.
Anon - what kind of resolution? That would make it interesting.
FROM A POST ON THE DC TODAY:
Reported drug and alcohol use by high school seniors, 2006 used with in last 12 months:
Alcohol 66.5 % %
Marijuana 31.5
Other opiates 9.0
Stimulants 8.1
Sedatives 6.6
Tranquilizers 6.6
Cocaine 5.7
Hallucinogens 4.9
Inhalants 4.5
Steroids 1.8
Heroin 0.8
Source: Bureau of Justice, from a University of Michigan study.
But you don't speak to any evidence that it is more or even as harmful as alcohol. 29 DUI is really bad! but not anywhere related. My point is that you cannot equate alcohol and pot or any other drug for that matter. Had to ship their kid out of state? Sounds like a bad egg.
Surveys on drug and alcohol use are highly suspect. Everyone in high school lies about drugs and sex, in one direction or the other.
In my view, it often boils down to personal experience versue public policy.
I've had an ectasy addict wave a loaded Glock under my nose. I've pulled a dead kid (dui) from under his car that rolled on top of him. And I've seen how pot and LSD can screw someone's life up. (People think I'm such a boring guy.)
So the debate will always be protecting people from themselves and/or protecting people from the behavior of others. And the debate goes on and on.
Ask your local patrol officer. They have some interesting perspectives.
Dude. I've seen some phat pizza in my days.
Here's a scenario:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/drugs_now_legal_if_user_is
http://
www.theonion.com/
content/
news/
drugs_now_legal
_if_user_is
Ah yes. The Onion. Based in Madison, Wisconsin, home of the University of Wisconsin. I worked there for a summer to earn college money. I always wondered what that blue cloud of smoke was over the city on a nice summer evening. Better than the one at Red Rocks.
For the record, Madison does not have a brown cloud or blue haze.
And, as a Madisonian, I'm proud of what the Onion has become.
Why do people insist on arguing about the symptoms and not the cause? Does anyone seriously believe that that the trillions of dollars spent on drug enforcement has had any major impact on the production and availability of illegal drugs? Maybe we should start focusing on why people feel the need to take the drugs in the first place. Since it seems to start at a fairly young age, I would suggest that perhaps mommy and daddy need to adjust their priorities from chasing prairie mansions to providing more supervision of their children. While I cannot guarantee that my kids will never try it, it won't be because they are bored or unhappy that I am never around, or that I am more interested in money and prestige than them.
When one has raised their children to the adult stage and gone through the experience with other parents, you get quite a different perspective dealing with the reality. Those with preschool or elementary age children are just beginning entry into that reality.
Blaming the parents is a simplistic view of the world. Especially those 50% who aren't divorced (kids are not returnable). If one has a workable solution, call Dr. Phil. I'm sure he'd be interested.
Post a Comment