District Attorney Kim Ogg: No jail for marijuana misdemeanors

chromium said:

These aren't compatible, because somewhere (probably in the south) you'll have insane DAs. The only real way to approach a broken system is do away with it. This is why i favor ending the war on drugs completely and take it out of the DAs hands

Click to expand...

I agree with ending the War on Drugs but the DA can't do that on her own - that's the legislature/Governor's job. So I applaud this DA for doing what SHE can with the power vested in her.

JasperL said:

I don't know the law in Texas but around here the DA has a lot of discretion with how to handle small time offenses like pot possession. We have what's called informally at least a "drug court" and the judge with recommendation from the prosecutors can divert those people to alternatives other than jail. If the DA down there has similar discretion, I can't see how she'd get in any trouble.

Click to expand...

Harris County (where Houston is located) has a similar program, STAR (Success Through Addiction Recovery), which includes a drug court as well as diversion to treatment, aftercare, a network of "halfway house" facilities, trauma counseling, and job training/employment assistance.

But there is a finite limit to the number of times you're going to send someone through such a program before it becomes cost prohibitive.

It would be appropriate for a first offense, and maybe even a second or third offense if the drug user demonstrates a willingness to get clean, but after a certain point, or if the drug user is flat out opposed to even the idea of getting clean, then what's the point?

I would have to figure that there are an awful lot of people arrested for possession multiple times where you've got to look at them and their history and say, "Yeah, we'd just be throwing good money after bad with this guy, so let's not put him in the STAR program a fourth time".

And even when that's the case, and it makes the most sense to keep the guy in a criminal court rather than divert to a special drug treatment court, I still don't think your "run of the mill" street level user deserves to go to jail.

I'd much rather the DA announce a blanket approach to all such cases than leave it up to case by case discretion, where you can figure middle class and above people who can spend $20k on a lawyer to negotiate a simple deal get the most benefit, and some poor black kid with a public defender who has 500 other cases more likely gets a jail sentence.

Click to expand...

So something like mandatory minimums?

You're aware of how disproportionately those things effect the African American community, right?

No thanks.

I want to the criminal justice industrial complex to ALWAYS have some degree of discretion when it comes to prosecution and sentencing.

For every "black kid with a public defender" who ends up a worst case scenario to also wind up with one who comes out as a best case.

When you're dealing with mandatory sentencing everyone loses.

I'll say it again - the desired end state, for me, is that all Schedule I narcotics are fully legalized and we put this stupid, expensive, and completely ineffective "war on drugs" behind us.

We've lost, end of story, and there is nothing we can do, or ever could have done, to win it.

It was a governmental and law-enforcement-industrial-complex power/money grab from day one and never had any hope of improving "America" in any way.

But until that day comes the best we can hope for is a gradual loosening of the hold that government is keeping on such power.

This policy by the new Houston DA represents a slight loosening.

I'll take it.

Sometimes the best is the enemy of good enough.

AlbqOwl said:

But if the law includes mandatory jail time and he overturns that, I see that as inappropriate. Change the law, yes. But ignore it. No.

Click to expand...

The law doesn't include mandatory jail time.

According to TX law, possession of marijuana under 2 oz. is classed as a "B" misdemeanor.

All Class "B" misdemeanors, regardless of the nature of the offense, carry the same penalty, not more than 180 days in a county jail and/or a fine of not more than $2,000.

soot said:

The law doesn't include mandatory jail time.

According to TX law, possession of marijuana under 2 oz. is classed as a "B" misdemeanor.

All Class "B" misdemeanors, regardless of the nature of the offense, carry the same penalty, not more than 180 days in a county jail and/or a fine of not more than $2,000.

Click to expand...

If that's the case, even for repeat offenders, then the D.A. is okay. When you Google it using Bing, "Texas Law Marijuana" however, you get this initial quick response at the top of the list:


Would the DA be lenient re 4 oz possession?

But those quick references have sometimes been shown to be outdated or just generally wrong too.[/FONT]

soot said:

Harris County (where Houston is located) has a similar program, STAR (Success Through Addiction Recovery), which includes a drug court as well as diversion to treatment, aftercare, a network of "halfway house" facilities, trauma counseling, and job training/employment assistance.

But there is a finite limit to the number of times you're going to send someone through such a program before it becomes cost prohibitive.

Click to expand...

I'm involved in one of those half-way house facilities. It's not what we call it, but it's a residential facility. And I'm not sure if it does become cost prohibitive, especially long term when the alternative is jail, a lifetime record that makes getting most jobs nearly impossible, etc.

The sad reality is for a lot of addicts (to any drug including alcohol) it often does take more than one 'try' before it sticks. So any alternative program to jail that doesn't recognize this and explicitly allow for it by permitting multiple attempts at getting clean/sober isn't based in reality of addiction and what it takes for some people to get through it.

It would be appropriate for a first offense, and maybe even a second or third offense if the drug user demonstrates a willingness to get clean, but after a certain point, or if the drug user is flat out opposed to even the idea of getting clean, then what's the point?

Click to expand...

I agree to some extent - there has to be some indication the person will make an effort, if nothing else as a sort of carrot and stick approach. For example, we have guys coming from jail who use us as part of their probation plan, they arrive, stay a week, and then disappear. I frankly don't have a lot of sympathy for those guys because they aren't willing to even go through the motions. But that's different from the many we get who are there for three or four months, then go on a bender and have to be kicked out. Our group will welcome them back when sober again, because, again, it often takes that for them to make it long term.

I would have to figure that there are an awful lot of people arrested for possession multiple times where you've got to look at them and their history and say, "Yeah, we'd just be throwing good money after bad with this guy, so let's not put him in the STAR program a fourth time".

And even when that's the case, and it makes the most sense to keep the guy in a criminal court rather than divert to a special drug treatment court, I still don't think your "run of the mill" street level user deserves to go to jail.

Click to expand...

I agree.

So something like mandatory minimums?

Click to expand...

No, my fault for being misunderstood. What I applaud is EVERY person in Houston gets the same very lenient sentence. What I don't like is the person with the lawyer and who dresses up nice for court appearances getting a fine, but the poor black kid or poor white kid who gets an overworked public defender goes to county jail for 6 months, AND a record.

So no, I'm not for mandatory minimums, what I applaud is taking the discretion off the table to throw the book at some less 'sympathetic' defendants, which as you point out means the poor are the ones who most often get sent to jail.

I'll say it again - the desired end state, for me, is that all Schedule I narcotics are fully legalized and we put this stupid, expensive, and completely ineffective "war on drugs" behind us.

We've lost, end of story, and there is nothing we can do, or ever could have done, to win it.

It was a governmental and law-enforcement-industrial-complex power/money grab from day one and never had any hope of improving "America" in any way.

But until that day comes the best we can hope for is a gradual loosening of the hold that government is keeping on such power.

This policy by the new Houston DA represents a slight loosening.

I'll take it.

Sometimes the best is the enemy of good enough.

Click to expand...

I agree completely.

JasperL said:

The sad reality is for a lot of addicts (to any drug including alcohol) it often does take more than one 'try' before it sticks. So any alternative program to jail that doesn't recognize this and explicitly allow for it by permitting multiple attempts at getting clean/sober isn't based in reality of addiction and what it takes for some people to get through it.

Click to expand...

Speaking as a recovered alcoholic, if I had been insulated from the consequences of all of my actions I would never have been motivated to get sober.

For me, and I would imagine for a lot of alcoholics/drug addicts, my "drug" wasn't the "problem", it was the "solution" to all of the other problems that had been piling up over a lifetime because I didn't know how to do life.

It was only when alcohol stopped working as a solution and began to become a problem in its own right, both because of chronic drunkenness and the consequences that come along with being constantly drunk, that I had to concede that my way of life had been defeated and I needed to find a new way to live.

Many of those consequences weren't legal issues, but some of them were.

It took all of them to beat me in to a state of reasonableness.

I did "treatment" in my late twenties and eventually got sober in my early forties.

I don't discount treatment because it introduced me to a way of life which, when practiced religiously, ensures that I remain sober on a daily basis.

But I also needed to have the book thrown at me a time or two in order to bring that "bottom" up to a point where I became ready to throw in the towel.

Treatment gave me a little bit of knowledge about my disease and ensured that when I was ready to throw in the towel I knew where to go to get the kind of help I needed.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Treatment doesn't get one sober/clean or keep one sober/clean.

In my opinion, if long term recovery from drug abuse and alcoholism is the goal, there is absolutely a place for treatment, and I'm pretty active bringing 12 step meetings in to local treatment centers because I truly believe that.

But there's just as absolutely a place for pain.

Insulate the alcoholic or drug addict too much from the consequences of his or her actions and you're only "enabling" them.

My opinion.

JasperL said:

I'm involved in one of those half-way house facilities. It's not what we call it, but it's a residential facility. And I'm not sure if it does become cost prohibitive, especially long term when the alternative is jail, a lifetime record that makes getting most jobs nearly impossible, etc.

The sad reality is for a lot of addicts (to any drug including alcohol) it often does take more than one 'try' before it sticks. So any alternative program to jail that doesn't recognize this and explicitly allow for it by permitting multiple attempts at getting clean/sober isn't based in reality of addiction and what it takes for some people to get through it.



I agree to some extent - there has to be some indication the person will make an effort, if nothing else as a sort of carrot and stick approach. For example, we have guys coming from jail who use us as part of their probation plan, they arrive, stay a week, and then disappear. I frankly don't have a lot of sympathy for those guys because they aren't willing to even go through the motions. But that's different from the many we get who are there for three or four months, then go on a bender and have to be kicked out. Our group will welcome them back when sober again, because, again, it often takes that for them to make it long term.



I agree.




No, my fault for being misunderstood. What I applaud is EVERY person in Houston gets the same very lenient sentence. What I don't like is the person with the lawyer and who dresses up nice for court appearances getting a fine, but the poor black kid or poor white kid who gets an overworked public defender goes to county jail for 6 months, AND a record.

So no, I'm not for mandatory minimums, what I applaud is taking the discretion off the table to throw the book at some less 'sympathetic' defendants, which as you point out means the poor are the ones who most often get sent to jail.



I agree completely.

Click to expand...

Having a family member--a nephew--who has been incarcerated three times now not for possession but for stealing to support his addiction--those halfway houses have been a godsend for him. He slips now and then and gets thrown out on his ear, but eventually gets tired of being homeless and gets back on the wagon so he can qualify for such facilities again. Will he ever completely straighten out? Who knows, but I for one am grateful for the mercy shown him as the tough love is much more difficult to accomplish with family members. And to know he isn't homeless on the streets is a great comfort.

But with any addiction, it must be a one day at a time choice for sobriety and nobody can make any guarantees about any addict.

Still there is always hope. I had a dear friend--he has now passed--who went through alcoholism treatment seven times (!) before it finally took. Once he got the program, however, he turned his life around, and spent the rest of his life helping others get off and stay off the sauce. You wouldn't find a better guy anywhere.

But sadly, some never manage to find the way out until it kills them.

soot said:

Speaking as a recovered alcoholic, if I had been insulated from the consequences of all of my actions I would never have been motivated to get sober.

For me, and I would imagine for a lot of alcoholics/drug addicts, my "drug" wasn't the "problem", it was the "solution" to all of the other problems that had been piling up over a lifetime because I didn't know how to do life.

It was only when alcohol stopped working as a solution and began to become a problem in its own right, both because of chronic drunkenness and the consequences that come along with being constantly drunk, that I had to concede that my way of life had been defeated and I needed to find a new way to live.

Many of those consequences weren't legal issues, but some of them were.

It took all of them to beat me in to a state of reasonableness.

I did "treatment" in my late twenties and eventually got sober in my early forties.

I don't discount treatment because it introduced me to a way of life which, when practiced religiously, ensures that I remain sober on a daily basis.

But I also needed to have the book thrown at me a time or two in order to bring that "bottom" up to a point where I became ready to throw in the towel.

Treatment gave me a little bit of knowledge about my disease and ensured that when I was ready to throw in the towel I knew where to go to get the kind of help I needed.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Treatment doesn't get one sober/clean or keep one sober/clean.

In my opinion, if long term recovery from drug abuse and alcoholism is the goal, there is absolutely a place for treatment, and I'm pretty active bringing 12 step meetings in to local treatment centers because I truly believe that.

But there's just as absolutely a place for pain.

Insulate the alcoholic or drug addict too much from the consequences of his or her actions and you're only "enabling" them.

My opinion.

Click to expand...

Well, it's fortunate that we have another country that we can look at to see the result of the 'lack of jail time' for drugs. In Pourtugal, rather than jail sentences, they were forced to go into drug rehabilitation programs. The number of addicts dropped drastically, the amount of crime dropped, and the number of deaths via over doses dropped quite a lot.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/

Scrabaholic said:

Oh.my.effing.god. I hope the victim was acquitted.

Click to expand...

She is now. Kim Ogg beat the monster, Devon Anderson, in a landslide.

Mac77 said:

jail, probably

But according to this thead teenagers will not be sent to jail, correct?

Maybe 26 saturdays of picking up trash along the highway

But can we trust the liberals in houston to even do that?

Click to expand...

So don't institute laws you agree with becaaaaauuuuussse.... you don't like liberals. Flawless logic there sport.

azgreg said:

Yep, the ****ing night crew did all the work.

Click to expand...

Roman nightshifters...

longview said:

I am just a bit suspicious of their motives! I think it is a good thing,
but keeping the fines attached, means it is still a criminal offense.
To me this says, Ogg is ok with decriminalizing marijuana, but they would like to
keep a revenue stream flowing in.

Click to expand...

Just imagine the revenue saved simply by not jailing them. That could be huge.

Mac77 said:

I better understand the harm that illegal drugs do to society.

The wasted lives, the broken families,

The utter stupidity of drug addicts

Click to expand...

Lots of us opposed to the War on Drugs also understand the harm. I don't know about others, but I've been a volunteer and on the board for years of a group that takes in mostly homeless addicts, drugs and alcohol, so I see the harm regularly. I've also volunteered to bring addiction meetings into an area prison many times. I'm a recovering addict and meet other addicts weekly at least, most of them successfully leading productive lives. So don't pretend you have some special knowledge the rest of us do not.

The question is whether the best way to mitigate/lessen that harm is to criminalize the problem or treat it as a public health issue and given the now documented decades long failure of the War on Drugs, it seems self evident to me the better approach is to treat the problem as a public health issue.

soot said:

Speaking as a recovered alcoholic, if I had been insulated from the consequences of all of my actions I would never have been motivated to get sober.

For me, and I would imagine for a lot of alcoholics/drug addicts, my "drug" wasn't the "problem", it was the "solution" to all of the other problems that had been piling up over a lifetime because I didn't know how to do life.

It was only when alcohol stopped working as a solution and began to become a problem in its own right, both because of chronic drunkenness and the consequences that come along with being constantly drunk, that I had to concede that my way of life had been defeated and I needed to find a new way to live.

Many of those consequences weren't legal issues, but some of them were.

It took all of them to beat me in to a state of reasonableness.

I did "treatment" in my late twenties and eventually got sober in my early forties.

I don't discount treatment because it introduced me to a way of life which, when practiced religiously, ensures that I remain sober on a daily basis.

But I also needed to have the book thrown at me a time or two in order to bring that "bottom" up to a point where I became ready to throw in the towel.

Treatment gave me a little bit of knowledge about my disease and ensured that when I was ready to throw in the towel I knew where to go to get the kind of help I needed.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Treatment doesn't get one sober/clean or keep one sober/clean.

In my opinion, if long term recovery from drug abuse and alcoholism is the goal, there is absolutely a place for treatment, and I'm pretty active bringing 12 step meetings in to local treatment centers because I truly believe that.

But there's just as absolutely a place for pain.

Insulate the alcoholic or drug addict too much from the consequences of his or her actions and you're only "enabling" them.

My opinion.

Click to expand...

OK, there is a lot there I agree with but I'm not sure what you're actually advocating. As I've said elsewhere, I'm also a recovering alcoholic - nearly 10 years sober - but I don't think my recovery chances would have improved with a jail term, a permanent record, loss of my professional license and more because I was caught with a 1.75L of vodka, or drunk in public. And yet if my drug of choice was meth or cocaine, that would have been a possible consequence, even if I never drove high or otherwise put anyone else's life in danger or harmed them in any way. As you know with drinking, there are plenty of ways to hold addicts accountable short of a jail and a criminal record.

If you go into any city, you'll see people on the streets living the consequences. Our group takes them in with or without any ability to pay, no question asked (with RARE exceptions). However, if they use (drink or use drugs) while in our facilities, they get thrown out immediately. There is zero tolerance for that. That is a consequence! If they get sober, they can wait their turn and come back. If they STEAL while in our facilities, they are kicked out and with rare exceptions are not allowed a second chance. They have to look for a job and work if they can find a job. They cook, clean their rooms, etc. Those are all enforced standards and failure to do them means they get kicked out. Other consequences!

So I'm not arguing for no consequence addiction at all. I just don't see the benefit of making one of them a criminal charge, jail, etc.

JasperL said:

Lots of us opposed to the War on Drugs also understand the harm. I don't know about others, but I've been a volunteer and on the board for years of a group that takes in mostly homeless addicts, drugs and alcohol, so I see the harm regularly. I've also volunteered to bring addiction meetings into an area prison many times. I'm a recovering addict and meet other addicts weekly at least, most of them successfully leading productive lives. So don't pretend you have some special knowledge the rest of us do not.

The question is whether the best way to mitigate/lessen that harm is to criminalize the problem or treat it as a public health issue and given the now documented decades long failure of the War on Drugs, it seems self evident to me the better approach is to treat the problem as a public health issue.

Click to expand...

Especially when the flow of drugs inside of some prisons is almost as bad as it is on the outside. The sad fact is that forced or voluntary drug/alcohol treatment is only going to work for some. I don't pretend to know what turns the lightbulb on for those who get it--people like you--but it is a beautiful thing to see. As for the others, they may go right back to drinking or using when they get out, but at least they have been educated so it isn't as much 'fun' for them as it might have been before.

I am not an addict but went on the wagon out of solidarity with a loved one who was and who did get the program. Had that not happened, with my family history, I have no doubt that I would have soon crossed that invisible line into addiction myself. I was certified as an alcohol and drug counselor so that I could be an educator on the subject and work with families of alcoholics and drug addicts. The failure rate is disheartening, but those who are successful breaking their addictions are a beautiful thing to see.

In one Kansas town we lived in, the judges routinely gave offenders the choice of jail or in house treatment for at least 30 days. Most took the treatment. That was a good thing.

poweRob said:

Just imagine the revenue saved simply by not jailing them. That could be huge.

Click to expand...

There are many areas of potential savings, A ticket means lower/no court cost, ect.

AlbqOwl said:

Especially when the flow of drugs inside of some prisons is almost as bad as it is on the outside. The sad fact is that forced or voluntary drug/alcohol treatment is only going to work for some. I don't pretend to know what turns the lightbulb on for those who get it--people like you--but it is a beautiful thing to see. As for the others, they may go right back to drinking or using when they get out, but at least they have been educated so it isn't as much 'fun' for them as it might have been before.

Click to expand...

I think all of us around the problem have the same questions. One of my good friends early on had 13 years sober, went back out, and in 2 years drank himself into the grave. Nothing wrong at home, kids all good, great wife, business OK, and he chucked it all and didn't really try again. Sometimes he'd come to a noon meetings sober to see his friends, then we learned he'd stop by the liquor store on the way back to the office or home and was drunk by 3pm.

I am not an addict but went on the wagon out of solidarity with a loved one who was and who did get the program. Had that not happened, with my family history, I have no doubt that I would have soon crossed that invisible line into addiction myself. I was certified as an alcohol and drug counselor so that I could be an educator on the subject and work with families of alcoholics and drug addicts. The failure rate is disheartening, but those who are successful breaking their addictions are a beautiful thing to see.

In one Kansas town we lived in, the judges routinely gave offenders the choice of jail or in house treatment for at least 30 days. Most took the treatment. That was a good thing.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing all of that. It's also pretty uncommon for someone who hasn't been an addict to work so hard to understand the problem, and I'm sure those you help appreciate that significant effort. It is heartbreaking to see people otherwise fine individuals ultimately kill themselves because of some demon they can't shake. The director of our little facility (now about 130 beds) said recently he'd been to over 150 funerals for former residents, about 10 per year, most of them dying as addicts, but as you say, there are success stories and they're what make it worth the effort.

Just as an aside, we had a meeting one time and family history came up, so we went around the room. Out of maybe 25, all but 1 had immediate family who were also addicts or former addicts or exhibited signs of barely managing problem drug or alcohol use. That's not proof of anything, but it's clear to me there is a genetic part of the problem, and the science appears to support that as well, that genetics increases the risk significantly.

JasperL said:

I think all of us around the problem have the same questions. One of my good friends early on had 13 years sober, went back out, and in 2 years drank himself into the grave. Nothing wrong at home, kids all good, great wife, business OK, and he chucked it all and didn't really try again. Sometimes he'd come to a noon meetings sober to see his friends, then we learned he'd stop by the liquor store on the way back to the office or home and was drunk by 3pm.



Thanks for sharing all of that. It's also pretty uncommon for someone who hasn't been an addict to work so hard to understand the problem, and I'm sure those you help appreciate that significant effort. It is heartbreaking to see people otherwise fine individuals ultimately kill themselves because of some demon they can't shake. The director of our little facility (now about 130 beds) said recently he'd been to over 150 funerals for former residents, about 10 per year, most of them dying as addicts, but as you say, there are success stories and they're what make it worth the effort.

Just as an aside, we had a meeting one time and family history came up, so we went around the room. Out of maybe 25, all but 1 had immediate family who were also addicts or former addicts or exhibited signs of barely managing problem drug or alcohol use. That's not proof of anything, but it's clear to me there is a genetic part of the problem, and the science appears to support that as well, that genetics increases the risk significantly.

Click to expand...

Oh I am convinced that both genetics and psychological conditioning play a strong part. Just looking at my own family history--it is a very LARGE multi-ethnic family--there are some addicted to drugs or alcohol or both--some got clean and some didn't. At least one full blown gambling addict and a couple more I suspect. But the co-dependency handed down from generation to generation is also evident in the number of relationships and marriages that have involved other people trapped in addiction. The psychological/emotional dynamics are too complicated to go into here, but I'm sure you know all that. But I firmly believe it is real.

But ultimately we have no control over anybody else's choices or demons. All we can do is the best we can do ourselves and hope somebody may find some answers or help in that.

AlbqOwl said:

Oh I am convinced that both genetics and psychological conditioning play a strong part. Just looking at my own family history--it is a very LARGE multi-ethnic family--there are some addicted to drugs or alcohol or both--some got clean and some didn't. At least one full blown gambling addict and a couple more I suspect. But the co-dependency handed down from generation to generation is also evident in the number of relationships and marriages that have involved other people trapped in addiction. The psychological/emotional dynamics are too complicated to go into here, but I'm sure you know all that. But I firmly believe it is real.

But ultimately we have no control over anybody else's choices or demons. All we can do is the best we can do ourselves and hope somebody may find some answers or help in that.

Click to expand...

I have often wondered how much is genetics, and how much is family conditioning. I rather suspect from what I have observed there it to a large extent genetic.

RAMOSS said:

I have often wondered how much is genetics, and how much is family conditioning. I rather suspect from what I have observed there it to a large extent genetic.

Click to expand...

Studies on identical twins that live apart as adults do suggest a strong link but of course that would be a very limited study as there aren't all that many identical twins. But I have to believe the frequency of people from homes where one or both parent is chemically dependent who themselves become addicted or who are attracted to people who are or become dependent isn't just coincidence. The dependency itself is probably largely due to genetic makeup. The attraction to dependents would be pure conditioning.

It is pretty reliable that where addiction is found, it does too often become a family illness.

And the most important thing is that pretty much nobody who becomes a drug addict or alcoholic intended to be that. It is a genuine illness and not because people are necessarily bad or weak. But those who are susceptible, if they use or drink for a time, sooner or later it will happen.

AlbqOwl said:

Studies on identical twins that live apart as adults do suggest a strong link but of course that would be a very limited study as there aren't all that many identical twins. But I have to believe the frequency of people from homes where one or both parent is chemically dependent who themselves become addicted or who are attracted to people who are or become dependent isn't just coincidence. The dependency itself is probably largely due to genetic makeup. The attraction to dependents would be pure conditioning.

It is pretty reliable that where addiction is found, it does too often become a family illness.

And the most important thing is that pretty much nobody who becomes a drug addict or alcoholic intended to be that. It is a genuine illness and not because people are necessarily bad or weak. But those who are susceptible, if they use or drink for a time, sooner or later it will happen.

Click to expand...

They also have studies about identical twins who were raised apart.. small but very signifigent.

RAMOSS said:

They also have studies about identical twins who were raised apart.. small but very signifigent.

Click to expand...

True.

On my drive home yesterday, a local Houston radio station had the new Police Chief on talking about
this subject. The Police Chief said, He, the Mayor and the DA were all on the same page on this issue.
His comment was that less than four ounces (WOW) would just be issued a ticket, and this would free up
many hours of Police time, to allow the Police to address real crime.
I kind of like some of this new Chiefs ideas! one thing he requires is that every member of HPD do at least one day
in a patrol car per year, all the way up to and including the himself, the Chief.

Beaudreaux said:

It's not, for me anyway, an either or decision. I agree that jail for simple possession can do more harm than good. However, the article linked below, from the American Psychological Association says (among other things) the following:



I have no problem with legalization for adult use, but young people should not be allowed to use it because scientific research has shown that the brain does not reach full development until between the ages of 25 and 30. So allowing legal use should have a pretty high age limit.

So again, it isn't an either (jail) or (smoke 'em if you got 'em) choice for me.

Click to expand...

1. The high age limit would apply for the same reason to alcohol consumption, which is also quite bad on a developing brain. Do you support a 25 to 30 year age limit for alcohol?

2. No, the "effects" do not last for "days after the high wears off." I don't know where they got that and they didn't provide a link. BUT, I will say that immediately following what you quoted, they have this line: "But it's not clear that marijuana deserves the bulk of the blame." And then, a whole bunch of reasons why that might be completely wrong.



Anyway, I do agree with a 21 year old age limit, like alcohol. To the extent that any meaningful harm has been associated with pot usage, it's in minors who use heavily and chronically.