HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ 1/HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ.iso/drugs/smoke.a.joint.article

Internet Message Format | 1996-05-06 | 6.4 KB

From: Jim Rosenfield <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: "Smoke a Joint" in Calif
Message-ID: <APC&1'0'58740e38'[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 1994 21:24:46 -0800 (PST)

`Smoke a Joint, Lose License' Law in Effect

By CARL INGRAM
LOS ANGELES TIMES STAFF WRITER
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1994

Crime: Drug offenders face six-month suspension of driver's rights
for any Conviction, even if unrelated to driving. The measure is
expected to affect 131,000 people in the next 12 months.

SACRAMENTO - Since the 1970s, California's scales of justice have
equated the severity of possessing less than an ounce of marijuana
to running a red light. All that changes starting today.
   As of 12.01 a.m., offenders face a six-month suspension of their
driver's license for any drug conviction, including marijuana and
all other illicit drugs.
  The tough state law enacted this year - dubbed the "smoke a
joint, lose your license" law is expected to snare the licenses of
131,000 drivers during the next 12 months, whether or not their
offenses were related to operation of a motor vehicle,
  It applies to state and federal drug crimes, ranging from
felonies punishable by long prison sentences to the so-called
decriminalized misdemeanor - possession of less than an ounce of
marijuana, which up to now has been punishable by a citation and
$100 fine, less than the fine for many traffic violations.
  "It's going to complicate prosecution cf minor crimes," said Dale
Gieringer, California coordinator of a national group that
advocates decriminalizing simple marijuana offenses. "People are
going to be contesting charges in court because the loss of your
license is more cf a concern than a fine of $100."
  The new law, Gieringer asserted, is an attempt to bypass
legislation enacted in the 1970s that made possession or
cultivatien of less than an ounce of marijuana for personal use
subject to the $100 fine and citation.
   But officials from the Wilson Administration. which pushed for
the law, say a 1993 Department of Motor Vehicles study shows that
those arrested on drug offenses are prone to more traffic accidents
and violations regardless of whether their arrest was connected to
driving.
  California becomes the 19th state to comply with an extraordInary
federal law that requires states to enact the driver's license
statute or formally declare their opposition to such a law as 31
states have. States that remain silent on the issue risk losing
federal highway funds.
   For California, the cost of not taking action would have
resulted in the cutoff of 5%, or about $54 million, of its federal
road construction and maintenance money during the next year.
   The compliance bill, carried for Gov. Pete Wilson by Assemblyman
Robert Frazee (R-Carlsbad). was passed on the last day of the
legislative session, Aug. 31 - one month before the federal
deadline - and signed by Wilson. He called it an appropriate
response to illegal drug use, "regardless of whether or not the
individual was operating a moter vehicle."
   Unlike most statutes that become permanent, the new law will
automatically expire next Dec. 1 unless it is renewed by the 1995
Legislature, as expected.
  Judges in California have long had the power to suspend or revoke
the driver's license of anyone found guilty of a drug offense
involving the use of a motor vehicle.
   The new law makes a radical departure by targeting drug offenses
unrelated to driving, unless the judge finds a "compelling
circumstance" to make an exception.
   State Director of Motor Vehicles Frank Zolin, whose department
sponsored the legislation, estimates that 131,000 drivers will lose
their licenses because of drug convictions in the next year.
   The hill was also supported by the state Department of
Transportation, the California Highway Patrol and the Committee on
Moral Concerns, a Christian lohhy. Among opponents were the
American Civil Liberties Union, the Teamsters Union and the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).
  The ACLU and the Teamsters argued that suspension of a driver's
license should occur only as a result of offenses related directly
to operation of a moter vehicle. Opponents also warned that a minor
marijuana conviction, for example, could cost a person a job by
jeopardizing transportation to and from work.
  "The Legislature basically caved in to Wilson, who was insisting
on this bill," said Gieringer of NORML. "Every state west of Texas
opted out of this except California."
   Sean Walsh, Wilson's press secretary, said, "We say the bottom
line is, we've got to have a penalty.  This, by law, requires
people to act responsibly. We expect it will have the result of
cutting back on illegal drug use."
  In 1992, the Legislature passed a bill strengthening driver's
license restrictions but declaring the state's opposition to
suspending licenses of drug violators. Wilson vetoed it.
   Nationally and in California critics of linking the loss of a
driver's license to unrelated drug convictions have charged that
there is no credible connection between the two. But the Wilson
Administration says the DMV study shows there is a connection.
The DMV study looked at 106,214 people arrested in 1989 in
California on drug charges and charted their traffic records for
three years. The review found that those arrested had 1.6 times
more highway crashes as other motorists and three times as many
traffic offenses. -
  The study said those arrested on drug violations represented an
"elevated" highway safety risk. It concluded that there is a "nexus
between drugs and traffic safety."
  But NORML challenged the study as failing to build in a control
factor for age and sex. "It only confirms that young males are
worse drivers," NORML said.
   As for NORML's warning of a clogged court system, DMV spokesman
Evan Nossoff said the measure's potential impact on the judiciary
was not studied because officials believe it will have relatively
little effect.
  "Mainly, we looked at the impact of losing between $47 million
and $55 million," he said. "We don't see that this law will be a
major factor in courtroom calendars, but we do believe it will
provide a small but significant improvement in traffic safety."
   Highway Patrol officials offered only cautious forecasts on the
law's potential to reduce both drug use and traffic carnage.  "It's
worth a try," said Deputy CHP Commissioner D.E. (Spike) Helmick.
"If it has sone deterreni effect on youth, we felt it might have
some basis."