ILNews

Lawmakers to look at marijuana penalties

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Along with debates over the state budget, education, healthcare and the economy, the 2013 session of the Indiana General Assembly will likely have marijuana on the agenda. Two senators have said they may introduce legislation regarding marijuana laws and a study commission’s recommendations include changes to the marijuana crime penalties.

Many maintain Indiana leans too conservative for radical changes to marijuana laws. Yet, while the arguments over the drug continue, there is a growing chorus that the Hoosier state needs to address the issue.

lawson Lawson

Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Ogden Dunes, authored a bill in the 2012 session reducing the penalties for possession and use of small amounts of marijuana. The proposal received a hearing but did not get a vote, and she has indicated she intends to re-introduce the bill this session.

Across the aisle, Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, has been floating the idea of reducing possession of less than 10 grams from a misdemeanor to an infraction.

Democratic Floor Leader Linda Lawson, D-Hammond, believes marijuana-related legislation may get some traction this session. She does not believe Indiana has the appetite to embrace legalization like Colorado and Washington, but she does see a possible willingness to reduce the penalties, especially for small amounts.

“I hope she (Tallian) and Brent Steele will be able to do something about this,” Lawson said.

Compelling argument

Reducing penalties for marijuana is still a novel idea in the Legislature, said Rep. Ed DeLaney, D-Indianapolis. Advocates for revamping the law fall into two categories: those who have a Libertarian bent and those who believe marijuana is akin to alcohol.

Outside of these two groups, the money spent on law enforcement and incarceration, in particular, is becoming the most compelling reason for decriminalization.

A 2010 report from the Council of State Governments Justice Center highlighted Indiana’s alarming trend in sentencing. It found that while the state’s crime rate fell from 2000 to 2008, the prison population grew by 41 percent. Along with that, the appropriations to the Indiana Department of Correction increased by 24 percent to $616 million.

Money is also a common reason cited by advocates outside the General Assembly. Resources are being spent for police officers to arrest and process low-level marijuana offenders, the court system bogs down under the volume of these cases, and the prisons fill with non-violent inmates who each cost $20,000 to $30,000 annually to keep locked up.

Although DeLaney has doubts about lowering the consequences for marijuana, he concedes the financial aspect raises a key question. Namely, is the state spending taxpayer money to put people in prison for, in his words, a relatively minor offense?

Steele cited the amount of state dollars being spent as his main reason for taking a closer look at marijuana laws.

“As a practicing attorney, I’ve seen a significant amount of state dollars spent on prosecuting and incarcerating individuals caught with small amounts of marijuana,” he stated in a press release. “We have to ask ourselves if this is the best use of our criminal justice resources.”

deLaney-ed-mug.jpg DeLaney

Indianapolis-based defense attorney Ross Thomas added that the resource issue is not just about dollars but also about how law enforcement is spending its time. Arresting and processing someone for having a joint takes the police officer off the street and prevents acting on more serious matters like property crimes and violent crimes.

“If I have the choice between having a police officer respond to a domestic violence situation and respond to some young adults smoking pot,” Thomas said, “I want him to deal with the domestic violence case.”

While the savings in the criminal justice system might be easy to measure, the question remains whether the cost would truly be reduced. If smaller amounts of marijuana were decriminalized would the price shift to problems like higher rates of absenteeism at work?

That answer is not known and likely would require a study being done, said Geneva Brown, professor at Valparaiso University Law School. However, she pointed to California as a possible indication that the savings would be absolute. When medicinal use of marijuana became legal, the underground activity moved above ground and the state was able to collect tax revenue.

“I think we spend so much money on incarceration and with the economy the way it is, we’re going to have to be smart about how we’re spending our resources,” Brown said.

Recommendations to consider

The Criminal Code Evaluation Commission Work Group that reviewed Indiana’s criminal law and ultimately offered a proposal for sweeping changes did recommend changes to marijuana penalties but stopped short of decriminalization.

The work group advised reducing all possession of marijuana to a misdemeanor. Currently, possession starts as a Class A misdemeanor but jumps to a Class D felony if the amount involved is 30 grams or more, or if the person has a prior conviction of any marijuana offense.

daniels Daniels

Under the recommendations, possession would not rise above the misdemeanor level. More than 10 pounds would trigger the harshest charge, a Class A misdemeanor. The penalties for dealing marijuana would begin at a Class B misdemeanor and rise to the maximum of a Class C felony for amounts over 10 pounds.

It did not recommend decriminalization or reducing lower levels of possession to an infraction. That is what the work group thought was appropriate, said CCEC work group chair Deborah Daniels. If the amount is large enough to constitute evidence of intent to distribute, then the individual can be so charged.

Formerly a U.S. attorney and U.S. assistant attorney general, Daniels does not support decriminalization of marijuana. She has worked drug cases and seen the corrupting influence as well as violence tied to marijuana. As for recreational use, she believes it not only is a gateway drug but has more significant short- and long-term effects on individuals because its potency has been greatly enhanced.

Thomas and criminal defense attorney Andrew Maternowski, both in solo practice, have represented defendants in marijuana cases across Indiana and they maintain the penalties are too stringent for a drug they see as harmless.

For example, if an individual pleads guilty to a misdemeanor for a small amount of marijuana, that person will have a criminal record which could hinder his or her ability to rent an apartment or get a job. Having marijuana in the car with children can lead to the parents being charged with neglect.

Also, drivers could lose their licenses for 90 days which, in turn, could hamper their ability to go to court-ordered treatment or meet with their probation officer. It could balloon into a larger issue if the individual loses his or her job as a result, then with no paycheck, gets behind on child support payments.

The attorneys are most concerned about how easy it is for someone to get charged with a felony and face jail time.

“We’re calling a significant number of people in our society, who aren’t hurting anybody, felons,” Maternowski said. “We’re doing more harm than good.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • harmless offenses
    Beyond pot Indiana needs to ammend its sex offender laws. In the first place a person can't commit a sex offense without engaging in sex and looking a a picture certainly is not a sex offense. Possession of child porn is not a sex offense since the possessor did no harm to anyone, if there was any harm done at all!
  • It's already widely used
    If you walk into any gas station in indiana, in any community in the state, there will be rolling papers for sale at the front counter. Usually there will be multiple brands of rolling papers, and sometimes there will be glass pipes. These things are not for rolling cigarettes. It is long past time that the law caught up to people's behaviors. Keeping marijuana illegal, and enforcing it with the fervor we do now merely leaves too much power in the hands of police to search and make crjminals of the youth. When I ride a motorcycle in the summer I will invariably smell the odor of burning marijuana. As often as not, the smoker is driving a nice car, is middle aged or older, and never gets stopped. The people I see on the side of the road having their cars searched are always black or brown, and young.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT