KINDER, GENTLER POT LAWS?

Supes Asked to Take Sting Out of Small Marijuana Busts.

REDWOOD CITY -- The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors will
consider making a stand Tuesday in support of lighter sentences for
people caught with small amounts of pot.

Supervisors are being asked to consider a resolution in favor of a
bill, proposed by local state Sen. Byron Sher, D-San Mateo, that would
reduce the charge for people caught with marijuana from a misdemeanor
to a mere infraction -- the level of a traffic ticket.

Under current law, a person caught with one ounce or less of marijuana
- -- enough for about 50 joints -- is charged with a misdemeanor, though
the penalty is that of a simple $100 infraction. But because it is a
misdemeanor offense, defendants can fight the charges and force the
county to pay for a jury trial, at the end of which the fine is still
$100.

That is the logic of San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Quentin
Kopp, who inspired Sher to draft the bill, known as SB 131. Kopp said
it is too easy for defense attorneys to take advantage of the system
by taking these cases to trial, getting paid and building experience
with no risk to the client.

"If I was a lawyer, especially a young lawyer, I'd try these cases
every week," he said. Sher's office has estimated SB 131 would save
the state up to $4.5 million per year in trial costs.

The bill is being revived after it fell four votes shy of passing the
state Assembly last September. The Assembly also defeated similar
legislation in 2000 and 2001.

It is opposed by some law-enforcement groups who fear it is a step
toward decriminalization of marijuana and say it would prevent
small-time users from entering into treatment programs under
Proposition 36.

Prop. 36, approved in 2000, diverts those convicted of misdemeanor or
felony drug offenses out of incarceration and into probation and
treatment programs, and clears the arrest records of those who
successfully complete the program.

"As soon as you downgrade marijuana from a misdemeanor to an
infraction, persons who are convicted are statutorily exempt from the
treatment options of Prop. 36," said John Lovell, a lobbyist for the
California Narcotics Officers' Association.

Lovell said there are simply not enough misdemeanor marijuana trials
to justify the change in legislation, and even the bill's proponents
cannot put a number on it.

"I think that argument is more theoretical than experimentally based,"
he said.

Of the 59,993 Californians arrested in 2002 for marijuana-related
offenses, 47,251 were charged with misdemeanors. The number of
misdemeanor arrests has more than doubled since 1991. It is unknown
how many misdemeanor pot arrests actually go to trial.

Marijuana possession is one of the only misdemeanor crimes that is
penalized like an infraction, according to Kopp. Usually, misdemeanors
carry fines of up to $10,000.

Under SB 131, those convicted of marijuana possession would have no
right to a jury trial and no criminal record. The prospect has gotten
the enthusiastic support of marijuana advocates.

"Its basic idea is to reduce the cost of prosecution of petty pot
offenses. It would bring it down to the level of a traffic ticket,"
said Dale Gieringer, spokesperson for the California chapter of the
National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws.

The bill has also collected the support of the county's District
Attorney's Office, responsible for prosecuting such cases.

"We're not trying to legalize marijuana, far from it. However, it
doesn't seem like it is a good use of our limited resources to spend
money on jury trials and appointed attorneys when the punishment is
the same," said Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe.

Kopp says he is also no fan of decriminalization, but the law simply
makes financial sense for cash-strapped counties that already have a
full calendar of criminal trials.

"These are days when you have to save money," Kopp said.