News (Media Awareness Project) - US IL: Is City's Drug Possession Ordinance A Bust? |
Title: | US IL: Is City's Drug Possession Ordinance A Bust? |
Published On: | 2009-12-22 |
Source: | State Journal-Register (IL) |
Fetched On: | 2009-12-23 18:22:18 |
IS CITY'S DRUG POSSESSION ORDINANCE A BUST?
More than 10 months ago, Springfield aldermen changed the rules so
getting caught with a small amount of marijuana or drug paraphernalia
wouldn't automatically result in a criminal record.
But since that Feb. 3 vote, city police haven't issued any ordinance
violations for those two offenses, instead opting to continue to cite
people under the state statute, which makes it a crime.
That means the change, pushed by Ward 2 Ald. Gail Simpson largely as
a way to generate money for the city, which faces a
multimillion-dollar budget crisis, hasn't brought in any extra revenue.
Simpson, who has asked for status updates periodically in recent
months, said she didn't realize that not a single ordinance violation
had been issued.
However, Springfield police say that so far this year, 335 people
were cited for possession of marijuana under 2.5 grams, and 219
people were ticketed for possession of drug paraphernalia, under the
state statute.
Based on a fine of $300 for each offense, that conceivably could have
generated $166,200 for city coffers.
"I'm not real concerned about it," Simpson said. "I view it as a
long-term process. I prefer that they go into it with all the police
officers being on the same page in terms of what they are supposed to
be doing, and everybody writing the tickets on the same ordinance,
not some writing on the state and some writing on the city ordinance."
Springfield Deputy Chief Doug Williamson said the department had
received a new batch of forms for writing tickets just before the
February vote. Given the tight budget situation, the department opted
to use those tickets before ordering new ones to reflect the changes
the city council approved.
Officers still had the option to check the "other" box and cite the
offenses as ordinance violations, Williamson said, but all opted to
cite under state law because it's easier since most have the statute memorized.
The department is in the process of ordering new tickets, he said.
Simpson's proposal, which was approved by a 7-3 vote, originally
began as a way to generate money for the city when in the midst of a
$12.5 million budget shortfall. At the time, she also said it would
be good for "those individuals who do silly things and get in
trouble, but they're not going to be stigmatized."
[SIDEBAR]
State law
Under state law, possession of marijuana under 2.5 grams is a Class C
misdemeanor that comes with a maximum fine of $1,500. Getting cited
under the city's ordinance comes with a $300 fine.
Possession of drug paraphernalia, under state statute, is a Class A
misdemeanor, punishable with a $750 fine minimum. Under city
ordinance, the fine is $300.
Tickets at a glance
Number of tickets written by Springfield Police Department, under state law:
Possession of cannabis -- under 2.5 grams
* 2009 (to date): 335 * 2008: 293
Possession of drug paraphernalia
* 2009 (to date): 219 * 2008: 231
Source: Springfield Police Department
More than 10 months ago, Springfield aldermen changed the rules so
getting caught with a small amount of marijuana or drug paraphernalia
wouldn't automatically result in a criminal record.
But since that Feb. 3 vote, city police haven't issued any ordinance
violations for those two offenses, instead opting to continue to cite
people under the state statute, which makes it a crime.
That means the change, pushed by Ward 2 Ald. Gail Simpson largely as
a way to generate money for the city, which faces a
multimillion-dollar budget crisis, hasn't brought in any extra revenue.
Simpson, who has asked for status updates periodically in recent
months, said she didn't realize that not a single ordinance violation
had been issued.
However, Springfield police say that so far this year, 335 people
were cited for possession of marijuana under 2.5 grams, and 219
people were ticketed for possession of drug paraphernalia, under the
state statute.
Based on a fine of $300 for each offense, that conceivably could have
generated $166,200 for city coffers.
"I'm not real concerned about it," Simpson said. "I view it as a
long-term process. I prefer that they go into it with all the police
officers being on the same page in terms of what they are supposed to
be doing, and everybody writing the tickets on the same ordinance,
not some writing on the state and some writing on the city ordinance."
Springfield Deputy Chief Doug Williamson said the department had
received a new batch of forms for writing tickets just before the
February vote. Given the tight budget situation, the department opted
to use those tickets before ordering new ones to reflect the changes
the city council approved.
Officers still had the option to check the "other" box and cite the
offenses as ordinance violations, Williamson said, but all opted to
cite under state law because it's easier since most have the statute memorized.
The department is in the process of ordering new tickets, he said.
Simpson's proposal, which was approved by a 7-3 vote, originally
began as a way to generate money for the city when in the midst of a
$12.5 million budget shortfall. At the time, she also said it would
be good for "those individuals who do silly things and get in
trouble, but they're not going to be stigmatized."
[SIDEBAR]
State law
Under state law, possession of marijuana under 2.5 grams is a Class C
misdemeanor that comes with a maximum fine of $1,500. Getting cited
under the city's ordinance comes with a $300 fine.
Possession of drug paraphernalia, under state statute, is a Class A
misdemeanor, punishable with a $750 fine minimum. Under city
ordinance, the fine is $300.
Tickets at a glance
Number of tickets written by Springfield Police Department, under state law:
Possession of cannabis -- under 2.5 grams
* 2009 (to date): 335 * 2008: 293
Possession of drug paraphernalia
* 2009 (to date): 219 * 2008: 231
Source: Springfield Police Department
Member Comments |
No member comments available...