GOVERNOR ABBOTT’S CHOICE IS THIS GRUMPY OLD EX-COP’S CHOICE

Abbott endorses reduced pot penalties during Texas gubernatorial debate

By Scott Henson

Grits for Breakfast
September 29, 2018

An email from Texas NORML brings the news that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott endorsed reducing penalties for low-level marijuana possession in Friday night's debate.
Notably, the Republican Party of Texas earlier this year endorsed reducing the penalty for possession of small amounts of marijuana to a civil penalty carrying a small fine. However, Gov. Abbott endorsed a slightly different proposal: Reducing penalties to a Class C misdemeanor.

What's the difference?

There are collateral consequences under federal law that attach to any criminal drug conviction, one of the most significant being denial of access to student loans, among others. Creating a new civil penalty would avoid those collateral consequences, which are not triggered by a civil fine.

Gov. Abbott's proposal - simply reducing the penalty by one category-level to a Class C - would have much the same effect. Most people would receive tickets instead of being arrested, so counties wouldn't have to pay for incarceration or hire them lawyers if they're indigent. The maximum punishment would be a fine, not jail time.

The argument in favor of the Governor's approach: It's arguably a cleaner fix, legally speaking. Texas doesn't presently have civil penalties for much besides the Driver Responsibility surcharge, which itself is larded on top of criminal penalties, not levied instead of them. Indeed, even business regulations here are typically enforced via criminal statutes. That's why, for example, Texas has so many felonies its citizens can commit with an oyster. The Legislature avoids regulation so much, they even choose to criminalize discouraged business practices.

For me, the civil penalty is the better bill, given the two options. The issue of collateral consequences is a big one, and no joke. But either proposal would be a big improvement over the status quo, as presently more than 60,000 people are arrested and jailed every year in Texas on low-level marijuana charges.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Sorry Grits, but my choice is Abbott's choice - keeping pot possession a criminal offense. The law in Texas prohibits possession of pot. Right or wrong, that's the law. People who do not agree with a law, including what they believe to be a bad law, have no right to break that law. When they do, they have knowingly committed a crime and should be punished for a crime, not with a civil penalty.

As for the collateral consequences of a Class C misdemeanor, TOUGH SHIT! When one gets caught knowingly and deliberately breaking a law, he has no right to call the consequences a foul.

Henson responded:

BGB, the issue isn't offenders calling "the consequences foul," it's that, from the perspective of the ENFORCERS, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Why do you think it's a good idea to forbid pot smokers from getting student loans?

If you agree pot possession less than 2 oz should be a Class C misdemeanor, you agree it's basically not a very big deal in the scheme of forbidden conduct - as Gov. Abbott declared, not worth taking up jail space.

Given that, insisting pot possessors can no longer get student loans a) is a disproportionate punishment for a little-deal crime, b) harms the economy and the tax base because people who don't attend college earn less, and c) boosts recidivism among pot offenders. I'm not sure what benefit you see that outweighs those detriments, but maybe you'll tell us.

BGB responded:

Grits, I agree with Anon 11:07 when he says "everyone criminals and non criminals alike have a right to demand change." But until the law is changed. it's still a crime. Do the crime, do the time says this grumpy old ex-cop (Hey, I like that!).

"... harms the economy and the tax base because people who don't attend college earn less." OMG, the country could go bankrupt if we punish people for breaking certain laws.

Punishing pot offenders "boosts recidivism among pot offenders." Now that's rich, Grits, really rich! You've sure got this grumpy old ex-cop laughing with that joke.

What did you have for breakfast this morning, Grits ... marijuana-laced cereal?

(One of Henson’s Anons referred to me as a ‘grumpy old cop.’)

Henson came back:

BGB, didn't say punishing pot offenders in any way boosts recidivism, I said taking away access to student loans does. There's a significant correlation between education and crime rates - taking away people's future opportunities makes them more likely to commit crimes goin forward. FTM, I know you don't believe research if it contradicts your assumptions (one of the problems with grumpy old cops, in my experience) but there's a substantial body of research showing that incarceration of low-risk offenders like pot smokers INCREASES the likelihood they commit more crime. Doesn't really matter if you believe it.

CONCLUSION: Despite my grumpy old age, my comprehension of the English language remains firmly intact. Henson clearly implied that busting pot offenders "boosts recidivism among pot offenders," which is absurd to say the least

As for pot offenders not getting student loans, fuck ’em!

Scott Henson is so far left that I wonder what’s keeping him from falling off the western edge of this flat earth.