New York's "Public View" Marijuana Law Ranked "Dumbest Drug Law" In America

[xchrom]

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/08/new_yorks_publi.php




Of all the ineffective, unfair and idiotic drug laws out there, New York's "public view" marijuana law officially is the dumbest -- according to a recent ranking of idiotic drug laws, anyway.

We've been covering the debate over the controversial law for several months. It essentially says that having small amounts of marijuana in your apartment is only a violation, while having the same amount of marijuana in the street -- for some stupid reason -- is a misdemeanor. In short, we've come to the conclusion that the law makes absolutely no sense and is often used to target minorities.

In any event, Reason.com -- which recently ranked the country's dumbest drug laws -- seems to agree with our assessment of "public view marijuana," and has given the Empire State the gold medal in terms of idiotic drug policies.

The website notes that "In New York, following a police officer's instructions can lead to criminal charges." That's because -- as we've noted in several prior posts -- if a person is stopped and has marijuana in their pocket, it's not considered to be in "public view" until they take it out. So, if a cop asks you if you have any drugs on you, and you answer "yes, I have weed in my pocket," it's only a violation (that's about as serious as a parking ticket). If the officer asks you to take it out, and you do, it is then in "public view," and is a misdemeanor, which could potentially land you in jail. If the officer takes the weed out of your pocket, you technically aren't the one presenting it in "public view," and therefor are only committing a violation.

[malcolmkyle]

1. Please Vote To Acquit!

If you sincerely believe that prohibition is a dangerous and counter-productive policy, then stop helping to enforce it. You are entitled to act according to your conscience: Acquit the defendant/s, if you feel that true justice requires such a result. You, the juror, have the very last word!

* It only takes one juror to prevent a guilty verdict.
* You are not lawfully required to disclose your voting intention before taking your seat on a jury.
* You are also not required to give a reason to the other jurors on your position when voting. Simply state that you find the accused not guilty!
* Jurors must understand that it is their opinion, their vote. If the Judge and the other jurors disapprove, too bad. There is no punishment for having a dissenting opinion.

“It is not only [the juror's] right, but his duty … to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” —John Adams

We must create what we can no longer afford to wait for: PLEASE VOTE TO ACQUIT!

[Fumesucker]

2. President Obama disagrees..

Indeed, he thinks such observations are worthy only of a humorous retort..

Edited for phrasing.

[xchrom]

3. I have such a high opinion of president Obama.

Ok - stop that chuckling.

[Comrade Grumpy]

4. We'll see how funny he thinks it is when it helps him lose Colorado.

Very tight race there.

Marijuana legalization on the ballot.

Libertarian Gary Johnson making a strong play there.