San Francisco to dismiss thousands of pot convictions

[webfact]

San Francisco to dismiss thousands of pot convictions

By Chris Kenning

 

File photo

 

(Reuters) - Thousands of San Francisco residents convicted of marijuana offenses since 1975 will see those convictions dismissed or reduced under an effort announced on Wednesday by the city's district attorney.

 

California's Proposition 64, which legalized recreational pot use and possession and reduced criminal penalties, allowed people to ask a court to reduce or dismiss past marijuana convictions.

 

But top San Francisco prosecutor George Gascon said on Wednesday he would not wait and would instead dismiss 3,038 misdemeanors and consider reducing an additional 4,900 felony marijuana charges.

 

The move is meant to make it easier for people who would otherwise have to retain an attorney to file expungement paperwork for convictions that can scuttle employment and housing opportunities and have disproportionately affected African-Americans, he said.

 

"Long ago we lost our ability to distinguish the dangerous from the nuisance, and it has broken our pocket books, the fabric of our communities, and we are no safer for it," Gascon said in a statement.

 

Gascon said relatively few Californians had petitioned courts to have convictions expunged since the legalization measure was passed in late 2016.

California Lieutenant Governor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gavin Newsom tweeted his support on Wednesday.

 

"This example underscores the true promise of legalization – providing new hope for those whose lives were derailed by a costly, broken and racially discriminatory system," he said.

 

Nine states plus the District of Columbia have legalized the drug for recreational use, while dozens of others permit its medicinal use. California finalized its licensing, regulatory and tax structure to allow cannabis shops to open for retail sales this year.

 

Earlier this month, however, the U.S. Justice Department rescinded an Obama administration policy that had eased enforcement of federal marijuana laws in states that legalized the drug, instead giving federal prosecutors wide latitude to pursue criminal charges.

 

“While drug policy on the federal level is going backwards, San Francisco is once again taking the lead to undo the damage that this country’s disastrous, failed drug war has had on our nation and on communities of color in particular," Gascon said on Wednesday.

 

(Reporting by Chris Kenning in Chicago; Editing by Peter Cooney)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-02-01

[boomerangutang]

Good.  Now, can San Francisco taxpayers get refunds (from state coffers) for the hundreds of millions of dollars spent (during past decades) on prosecuting/jailing people who caused no harm to anyone.

 

A friend of mine in northern California killed himself a few years ago. The reason:  He got busted a 2nd time for dealing pot, and was spooked by the idea of having to go to prison for many years.  I wasn't around to try and talk him out of taking his life.  He was one of the finest guys I've had the pleasure to know. 

[mamypoko]

Bark all you like Mr. Attorney General, but Cali gets the last word

[spidermike007]

It is a glorious moment in time, when a tiny man like Jeff Sessions, gets a repudiation on this level. This creton is doing everything in his power, to support the private prison industry, obey their lobbyists, and make sure as many Americans as possible, get locked up for pot offenses. San Francisco, and all other cities and states are doing the right thing, by refusing to bow down to his nonsense, and extreme ignorance, and letting these incredibly minor offenses go. 

 

The last thing in the world the US needs, is to add to the 2.2 million people already in prison, nationwide, by convicting people of minor offenses like these.

[timendres]

It is becoming difficult to resist moving back to San Fran...

[Dap]

Outstanding!

[MrMuddle]

Good news for a lot of people !

Thai Visa is a much better forum, when one can ignore all of the right wingers, who try and dominate every topic, with their ridiculous puritanical views.

[Trouble]

4 hours ago, MrMuddle said:

Good news for a lot of people !

Thai Visa is a much better forum, when one can ignore all of the right wingers, who try and dominate every topic, with their ridiculous puritanical views.

It's obvious where you stand on the subject. Honestly its not about ridiculous puritanical views as much as it is about safety. I don't have much of an opinion on the use of pot, alcohol, cocaine, etc. one way or another. I am pretty much a libertarian when it comes to such matters.

 

However, I will say this. In the 60's and 70's when I was much more inclined to use pot, it was against the law and I knew that at the time.  It was considered a drug like it or not.  Yes, I smoked it on occasion and took a risk.  Society makes rules like, it or not, and if one is going to choose which rules to obey, then there is no point in having rules.  Doing away with convictions of lawbreaking at the time does not seem to be the proper way to deal with the subject unless the law at the time was not lawful. The laws were not found unlawful in passing the proposition. Seems like our society has gotten to the point that it's okay to break laws and not be punished but that's another issue.

 

I am not sure I completely agree with making pot legal because personally I see it becoming another problem with people using and driving, just like alcohol.  So let's see how many more road accidents and deaths are now created by the irresponsible users.  Remember one thing, it is not the responsible use of alcohol, pot, or other drugs that is the problem.  It's that some people can't handle the use and become addicted to it.  Before anyone says pot is not addictive, think about alcohol addiction. Unfortunately for all too many use of pot will become addictive and will be harmful and will cause unforeseen problems and somewhere along the line the liberals will be asking for tax money to help treat those that do become addicted. Hopefully I will be proved wrong on this but only time will tell what we are getting into. The plus side in legalization may be that the crime associated with growing the stuff may go away.

[boomerangutang]

in response to Trouble's post, above:

 

If there are ridiculous laws, then they shouldn't have to be obeyed, and should be challenged.

Similar to a captain who, if given a ridiculous (or illegal) order by a superior officer, should disobey that order.  

There's a true story about a group of US soldiers in Vietnam. They had cordoned a group of motley VN villagers, incl. old women, in the corner of a house.  Their platoon sgt was angry and left. The soldiers asked what they should do, as the sgt was walking out the door.  The sgt said, "off 'em" (kill them).   Left on their own, the soldiers debated heatedly for a few minutes.  Then one soldier started shooting at the innocent peasants, and immediately all the others did the same.  More than one of those soldiers has had deep and serious psychological problems ever since.

 

Back closer to topic:  Hemp is an illegal drug in most States of the US.  Possession of a small amount can land a person in prison (in the US) or be executed in S.E. Asian countries.  It so happens, no one has ever gotten stoned on hemp because it has nearly no THC.  You get the picture?  Some laws are stupid and cruel, and should not be heeded.

 

Currently, there are dozens of young Thai women doing long prison terms in S.E. Asian prisons.  Their crime?  doing something stupid one time: usually involved carrying a package from one airport to another.   

 

[Credo]

3 minutes ago, Trouble said:

It's obvious where you stand on the subject. Honestly its not about ridiculous puritanical views as much as it is about safety. I don't have much of an opinion on the use of pot, alcohol, cocaine, etc. one way or another. I am pretty much a libertarian when it comes to such matters.

 

However, I will say this. In the 60's and 70's when I was much more inclined to use pot, it was against the law and I knew that at the time.  It was considered a drug like it or not.  Yes, I smoked it on occasion and took a risk.  Society makes rules like, it or not, and if one is going to choose which rules to obey, then there is no point in having rules.  Doing away with convictions of lawbreaking at the time does not seem to be the proper way to deal with the subject unless the law at the time was not lawful. The laws were not found unlawful in passing the proposition. Seems like our society has gotten to the point that it's okay to break laws and not be punished but that's another issue.

 

I am not sure I completely agree with making pot legal because personally I see it becoming another problem with people using and driving, just like alcohol.  So let's see how many more road accidents and deaths are now created by the irresponsible users.  Remember one thing, it is not the responsible use of alcohol, pot, or other drugs that is the problem.  It's that some people can't handle the use and become addicted to it.  Before anyone says pot is not addictive, think about alcohol addiction. Unfortunately for all too many use of pot will become addictive and will be harmful and will cause unforeseen problems and somewhere along the line the liberals will be asking for tax money to help treat those that do become addicted. Hopefully I will be proved wrong on this but only time will tell what we are getting into. The plus side in legalization may be that the crime associated with growing the stuff may go away.

Pretty much every drug and many food/nutrition supplements are dangerous if misused.   I know a person who died from the overuse of aspirin.   He took a lot every day over a long period and ended up with complications as a result.   I also know a few people who can't handle caffeine, with even small amounts causing them physical problems.   

 

The two points are, is the danger worth the cost of enforcement and is enforcement effective in mitigating the danger, or is it just resulting in filling jails.  The long history of usage would suggest that the enforcement battle is pretty much a failure and the cost of enforcement is not worth the cost.   

 

The 2nd point is should people who were made criminals and had a criminal record because of a law that has changed continue to be penalized.   Many of these people can't get a lot of jobs because of a criminal conviction.   Dismissing those charges and convictions open doors which have, IMO, been wrongfully closed and won't affect future generations.

 

The legalization of pot will bring about other problems.   Nothing is risk free.   Most states have amended their laws to read 'impaired' rather than 'drunk'.   Impairment can be from any drug, including prescribed drugs.   

 

Recently, I read a report about some grade school students who were given medical marijuana candies, by accident.   Some kid brought some left over candies from Halloween and they were edibles, so no way to find out where they originated.   So, will there be problems?   Yes, but they will likely be more manageable and less costly than before.    

[greenchair]

On 2/1/2018 at 8:30 PM, boomerangutang said:

Good.  Now, can San Francisco taxpayers get refunds (from state coffers) for the hundreds of millions of dollars spent (during past decades) on prosecuting/jailing people who caused no harm to anyone.

 

A friend of mine in northern California killed himself a few years ago. The reason:  He got busted a 2nd time for dealing pot, and was spooked by the idea of having to go to prison for many years.  I wasn't around to try and talk him out of taking his life.  He was one of the finest guys I've had the pleasure to know. 

My brother has never stolen, assaulted anyone or committed any crime against the state or another human being. 

Went to prison for growing pot in his garden. 

Millions of peoples lives ruined for choosing a personal path. 

It's heinous what the state has done. 

Around the world.