Connecticut Decriminalizes Real Pot, Criminalizes Fake Pot

Today the Connecticut House of Representatives approved a bill, passed by the state Senate two days ago and endorsed by Gov. Dannel Malloy, that makes possessing less than 14 grams (about half an ounce) of marijuana a "noncriminal violation" punishable by a $150 fine. By the time the House acted, the Senate had moved on to another piece of drug legislation, voting unanimously to make possession of synthetic marijuana punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail. "For the life of me," said Senate Republican Leader John McKinney, "I don't know how I'm going to explain to my constituents one penalty for the fake pot and another for the real pot." The bill also bans salvia divinorum.

More on fake pot here. More on the salvia ban wagon here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    Morons

  • ||

    I sort-of agree with this.

    Real Pot: lots of science proving that it's fairly harmless

    Fake Pot: potentially very harmful because they haven't been extensively tested on humans (before the retail release, i mean).

    So, yeah. Legalize real pot, put penalties on selling fake pot as real pot...oh, wait, there's the difference between my policy and theirs.

    It's actually something close to a sane application of the drug laws we currently have: aspirin and weed are tested enough to be considered "safe" for OTC use, and more exotic and untested shit isn't available without participation in some study.

    Now back to reality: what Scruffy said.

  • ||

    (turns out Ian @ 6:40 beat me to this point....but it was sooooooo far down the thread.)

  • ||

    "but it was sooooooo far down the thread"

    lazy stoner

  • Ardy||

    So... criminalize everything until there is lot of science proving that it's fairly harmless.

  • ||

    If actual weed were actually legal, fake weed would be a non-issue because no one would smoke it.

    I think it's reasonable for the FDA at evaluate claims of efficacy and safety. And I'm happy to be an incrementalist about it and support loosening up the approval process before eventually replacing it with system of mere evaluation of claims. Or for the more pure of libertarian heart, eliminating the FDA altogether.

  • Amakudari||

    "I don't know how I'm going to explain to my constituents one penalty for the fake pot and another for the real pot."

    "Not like they'd ask."

  • AlmightyJB||

    They're too busy pissing and shitting in their public fountains. Oh and showering in them as well. Gross.

    http://www.newser.com/story/12.....hroom.html

  • Robert||

    Stick it, Eminent Domain Town!

    Remember the TV commercial for Soaky with the bum-type clown (Emmet Kelly rip-off) taking a bath with the product in a fountain and getting chased by a policeman?

  • ||

    If it's going to be a war on fake drugs, can't it at least be a fake war too?

  • National Lampoon||

    Oh, we could say we're smoking reefer on the radio,
    When we're really eating cookies, and you'd never know!
    We could tell you we look great
    When we're really overweight!
    You can get away with so much on the radio...

  • ||

    What the fuck is going on in their heads? Really?

  • ||

    They were driven to madness by yesterday's picture of Weiner's beveled pecs.

  • ||

    His pecs look like a shoggoth?

  • TRTB||

    "I don't know how I'm going to explain to my constituents one penalty for the fake pot and another for the real pot."

    "Yeah, it's pretty much a complete assclown circus over here." It's credible.

  • ¢||

    Two wins for Big Pot. Dude's on a roll.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The totality of legislation is like a delicate ecosystem. There's a precious balance that must be maintained.

  • ||

    I know it looks like a mess, but it's actually a very delicate ecosystem. You don't want to kill the rain forest, do you?

    Now, stay away from the red door.

  • Joe M||

    ...possessing less than 14 grams (about half an ounce) of marijuana a "noncriminal violation" punishable by a $150 fine.... possession of synthetic marijuana punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail.... The bill also bans salvia divinorum.

    One step forward, two steps back.

  • Jim||

    Try dealing with real estate default proceedings in CT courts sometime. It's what started me on the road to anarchy.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It probably should have started you on the road out of Connecticut.

  • Jim||

    I'm in Texas, but I had to work a CT portfolio for a long time.

  • ||

    The weird thing is that relative to the states that surround it, CT is actually less government heavy than you would think. I mean, compared to NY and Mass (RI is more like CT), CT is like a libertarian paradise.

    Yes, New York state and Mass are that bad. And to top it off, New York has county government as well, so you can live under the following levels of government all at once in New York:

    1. Village
    2. Town
    3. County
    4. City (New York City, for example)
    5. State
    6. Federal

    And they have law enforcement hired at all of those levels, even village level.

  • Almanian||

    Again, I say:

    PWNED

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Yes, CT truly is the northeast's tallest midget.

  • ||

    One incredibly annoying thing about CT being surrounded by NY and MA is that they are both terrible gun rights states that sometimes will ignore Federal peaceable journey laws, and so driving to Maine or PA or Vermont with your guns--especially handguns, even unloaded and locked--becomes somewhat nerve-wracking.

    Don't get pulled over.

  • ||

    i don't have that problem :p (federal legislation - i can carry in every state) - just as it should be for everybody else

  • ||

    Of course you can; carry permits are for little people.

    Can you carry in NYC?

  • ||

    anywhere in the country. the federal legislation supersedes any state or local law. :p

    new jersey actually was the worst state in my recollection... they prosecuted NYPD cop for a justified off duty shoot because he was carrying his gun (and hollow points- which were restricted to New Jersey LEO's only) in their state.

    speaking of rogue prosecution some seattle cop got into a justified off duty shoot with a hells angel in south dakota.

    they initally tried to charge him with perjury (they later realized what they claimed was a lie - wasn't) and even illegal carry , despite the fact that the federal law allowed him to carry there.

    they went way overboard. cop was eventually completely exonerated. thank god for their union lawyers!

    damn rogue South Dakota PROSECUTORS!!!!

    :)

  • ||

    So law enforcement territoriality hasn't gone completely away. Good. Better than you all being one happy national police force.

  • ||

    i agree. it is a feature, not a bug that we (the USA) does not have national police. Granted, the fan belt inspectors (FBI) like to pretend they are sometimes, and if the commerce clause keeps eroding... they might end up as one by default

    i laff at canada and their ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE.

    "they come down here in their faggy red uniforms and try to tell me how to do MY JOB!!! i eat breakfast within miles of .."

  • Meiczyslaw||

    The ex-officers I know here in California have told me that, should I shoot someone, I should expect to go to trial. Because of the way the civil laws in California are written, the prosecutor is doing me a favor (assuming I was justified, of course) by making everything a matter of record when I win.

    Don't know if this thinking applies to dunphy's stories, but it's worth mentioning.

  • ||

    in WA, it is the exact opposite. i've seen a few obviously justified civilian shooting and none went to trial (or grand jury or inquest)

    the cops responded, did an investigation and that was it.

    the worst thing that happens if you get in a justified shoot in WA is they take your gun until the case is submitted to the prosecutor for review and they decline. then, you get it back

    WA also places the burden on the prosecution to DISPROVE self defense (in most states, self defense is a defense. iow, the burden is on the defense, given a homicide, to show that the self defense exception burden was met)...

    also, in WA if you are brought to trial for a shooting, etc. and found not guilty, the jury is polled and if they agree that the shooting was self defense, the state must pay you for attorney's fees and lost wages!

  • Jim||

    You'd think that, Epi, but in regards to foreclosure case law, I can state emphatically that after working with both, CT is much, much, much worse than MA.

    More delays, more bullshit hearings involved, and hell they don't even have sales most of the time, they have automatic "vestings" which technically transfer title for $0, which fucks up our transfer processes (which are all designed to work with the other 49 states, that use regular foreclosure sales).

    And borrowers can show up and file bullshit motions with the court to extend their own foreclosure dates almost indefinitely; as long as they keep showing up with some new excuse and a promise to start working things out, the judges keep granting them.

    And they use terminology, that is universal in this business, in a completely different way, and it results in funds being sent to the wrong agencies all the time, etc. and then say it's our fault for not reworking our entire business model around their unique use of otherwise standard legal language.

    Hell, a buddy of mine there has to pay a yearly $400 "profession tax" just because he's a registered lawyer, even though he doesn't practice law.

    And check out where they sit on tax burden; depending on the source you use, they're usually #1 on the list, and never out of the top 5.

    I could seriously write a book about how horrible everything in that state is, and how much I hate it.

  • ||

    Their legal system is 400 years old and one of the oldest in the country; older than the country in fact. I'm just surprised that you don't have the same troubles from some of the other original 13 states.

  • Jim||

    The problem is their district courts (I can name the judges from memory) have waaay too much leeway in how they "interpret" the law in their district, so it's almost impossible to formulate a state-wide policy for how to deal with the legal proceedings, even within the state. Something that is perfectly acceptable in one town, will be completely tossed out just two streets over if it crosses into another district.

    Combine that with the need for a large multi-state legal enterprise to somehow integrate them into models designed for the 49 other states to use, and you get a real nightmare.

    Don't get me wrong; NE is one of the worst regions for this type of law, but CT is the worst of the bunch (except maybe NY; I haven't worked NY foreclosures, so I can't speak with any intelligence on their practices).

  • Wind Rider||

    Oh, you should see how much fucked-upedness they've managed to concoct in Virginia, even with the "reset" known as the recent unpleasantness. And yep, they've got that 400+ year headstart on teh schtoopid. . .

  • ||

    Well, Virginia IS a commonwealth, so i would except fuckupedness... like MA. The OP says CT is WORSE than MA. having dealt with the MA "legal system" i'd have to say - that's a pretty high bar (no pun intended) since MA has oodles of fuckupedness, but if CT is worse ... wow

  • Stormy Dragon||

    And they have law enforcement hired at all of those levels, even village level.

    That was just a disco singer in a costume, not an actual cop.

  • ||

    You left out the school districts, water districts, reclamation districts, parks authorities, canal corporations, transit authorities, etc.

    And of all of these can issue bonds and exercise eminent domain as well.

  • 0x90||

    And they all pay tribute right up the line. You could establish a taxing authority too if you wanted: you must first conceive of an unfilled need, define the lines of demarcation bounding the territory you mean to serve (i.e. extort), and proceed to negotiate with whatever structure stands directly above you, as to which services you will render, which you will require, and how payments will flow. As long as your premise is something that doesn't offend the so-called common sense of the population where you mean to implement it, you'll do fine.

  • ||

    That's what the different views are for, SimNoob.

  • omg||

    I live in CT and I've been thinking of this for a while. I mean, this state is totally awful and steeped in liberal bullshit...but the gun laws aren't nearly as bad as they are in MA or NY.

    If I get a new job I'm definitely going to shoot for something in VT or preferably NH, though.

  • ||

    The thing is, if you want to stay in New England, CT has certain (non-political) advantages; you are "close" (enough) to both New York and Boston; you can get to RI beaches (or at least CT beaches) quickly; and there's just more culture in general in southern New England. However, if you like to be off in the woods, NH or VT will work for you. Maine is solely for vacationing in.

  • Zeb||

    NH legislature is considering getting rid of the (shall issue) permit requirement for concealed carry. If that passes, VT will have nothing on us.

  • Ted S.||

    Villages, Towns, and Cities are separate political entities in New York. You can live in only one of the three at any one time.

  • Robert||

    I was sure there were villages inside of towns in NY.

  • Almanian||

    Connecticut Decriminalizes Real Pot, Criminalizes Fake Pot

    PWNED

  • Jerry||

    Damn, the title made me think I could finally sue my dealer when he tries to rip me off with some cut herbs again.

  • ||

    Fake pot is composed of research chemicals previously untested and unintended for human consumption. If you believe in criminalizing relatively dangerous substances to encourage consumption or relatively safe substances this makes perfect sense. Not that you would ever need to ban fake pot to get people to smoke real pot.

  • ||

    Apparently, fake pot was created with tax dollars.

    http://www.klpw.com/content/ta.....ed-teens-0

  • ||

    What's fake pot? Maple leaves?

  • ||

    maples are close enough to get you raided, right? So I don't think they'd classify as "fake pot".

  • ||

    tomatoes too.

    now, oregano, nobody will ever mistake that as excuse to raid your garden, so THAT could possibly qualify as "fake pot".

  • ||

    Can't be that bad--Canada has one on its flag.

  • ||

    Weed is the major crop of Canada, dude. That's just them being sly.

  • ||

    in hawaii, they used to sell "kook smoke" which was a certain plant that looked a lot like pot. they would press it and seal it in heat seal containers (which is the same way they sold real pot in my area).

    SALE of fake pot was a misdemeanor, but possession w/intent etc. was not a crime whereas mere possession of real pot was a misdemeanor.

    i knew one drug dealer, otoh, who was paralyzed after somebody he sold fake pot to shot him with a shotgun and some buck went straight into his spinal column.

    and he STILL sold (fake) pot... from his wheelchair to tourists in lahaina

    persistence!

  • not the Secret Service||

    "For the life of me," said Senate Republican Leader John McKinney, "I don't know how I'm going to explain to my constituents one penalty for the fake pot and another for the real pot."

    You're protecting them from toxic synthetic chemicals, man. Normal herb is organic.

  • violent_k||

    So...
    If you pick up a half and burn one with your guy you should be underweight even with the baggie.

    Nice.

  • Jennifer||

    I wouldn't have moved here if I'd known it was the Mississippi of the Northeast. I swear.

    On the other hand, "decriminalization of MJ" is the one reason I held my nose and voted for Malloy rather than stay home writing obscene puns. The legislature actually passed a medical MJ bill a few years ago, but our dimbulb then-governor vetoed it.

    Two steps forward, 1.9999 steps back.

  • ||

    So less than 1/2 ounce is a "non criminal" violation, but the state will still take $150 from you by force...that says a lot about what the war on drugs is really about.

  • TPTB||

    We have to get the sheeple used to the idea of being taxed on MJ.

  • Juice||

    Slapping a fine on something, to me, isn't decriminalizing. But, I guess it's better than having a record.

  • Nike Dunk Shoes||

    thanks

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement