Council Makes Permanent Marijuana Ordinance
Cincinnati's ordinance beefing-up the penalties for marijuana possession isn't going anywhere.
It would have expired Wednesday, but council made sure that it didn't.
______________________________________________________________________________________
*Here is what happened last year:
______________________________________________________________________________________
Special Report! The Effectiveness of Ordinance 910-23 (The Cincinnati Anti-Marijuana Law)
After intense lobbying, I was able to convince Council members Jeff Berding and Leslie Ghiz to amend the ordinance with a sunset clause, which means the law will expire on March 29th of this year unless renewed.
Despite the solid evidence that increasing marijuana penalties would increase crime and despite the fact that not one citizen testified in favor of the new law, six out of nine City Council members voted for the ordinance. Vice Mayor Jim Tarbell and Council member David Crowley voted against it. Council member Jeff Berding was not present for the vote.
At the full Council vote on this ordinance, several council members expressed skepticism about its potential effectiveness. The history of the war on drugs shows that that skepticism was well-founded.
During the vote on this ordinance last year, two Council members made a promise. Cecil Thomas said: “And I promise you, if the statistics do not show that this is helping a year from now, I’ll be the first to say it’s not working.” Leslie Ghiz said: “And I promise you…in twelve months I will beat Mr. Thomas to the punch. If we do not have statistics it is working and it is curbing the drug crimes in this city, I will be the first to ask to have it repealed.” I called the offices of Mr. Thomas and Ms. Ghiz to ask for comments on their statements, but my calls were not returned.
3 comments:
Hypocrisy may be undeniable, but the logic behind reversing the legislation (or not renewing it) seems flawed to me.
The simplified version of this logic is that this law leads to price increases in the drug which leads 'users or sellers to rely upon burglary to cope' or switch to burglary because the risk of dealing/using the drug is too high.
Using this logic, we could say that increasing the penalty for burglary taking place in homes may lead criminals to either use force to avoid getting caught or opt for quicker purse snatchings or muggings followed by jay walking in escape, in turn increasing the number of crimes.
Or increasing the penalty for murder leads hitmen to raise their prices, leading customers to resort to burglary to come up with the funds.
The subject of the targeted crime aside, the fact remains that criminal legislation, increased penalties, increased investigations, etc. cause those committing these acts to change tactics. Just because criminals change tactics (shift to different crimes of preference), should the original acts be legalized?
This seems like a setup for a legislative double standard nightmare.
Only if you equate smoking a plant with murdering someone.
Voters want marijuana decriminalized. Government says "too bad".
States say medicinal marijuana is legal. Government says "too bad".
Doctors, scientists, and farmers say marijuana, hemp is beneficial. Government says "too bad".
Doctors and scientists say marijuana not especially harmful or deadly. Government says "we say it is".
Doctors and scientists say hundreds of thousands of people die from alcohol, cigarettes, and pharmaceuticals. Government says "too bad".
Current and former ATF, FBI, police say drug prohibition is a failure, war against poor and minorities. Government says "too bad".
Law, reality says government cannot legislate morality, personal liberty. Government says "too bad".
Government says "drugs are illegal". Government is responsible for the largest drug running operations in the history of illegal drugs.
Alcohol, cigarettes, and many pharmaceuticals are a huge control mechanism. Marijuana will end up the same way. Keep the masses numb and docile with "recreational" drugs. It would make a nice shiny thing to focus on. The best way to find out how it will work is to try legalizing it though. I think California is considering the debate of legalizing it, so maybe the tides are turning.
Post a Comment