That’s also the case for arrest rates across the board – not just drug possession. It’s absolutely true that drug laws are unfairly applied to minorities, but ‘soft’ pot decriminalization laws like this are being used all over the place very successfully; they cut the mountains of paperwork, they free up resources, cut taxes used for the ‘war on crime’, and don’t bog down the system. Knee-jerkingly making it a racial issue is unnecessary.
The fact that it’s a ticket not an arrest reflects that it’s a violation, not a misdemeanor. As such, it is not actually a crime under New York law, and there is no criminal record (provided the ticket is paid and other conditions are followed).
As @IanMcLoud points out, this is not a change in the law but a change (hopefully) in the enforcement of existing law.
1 Like
This much:
Pictured above: The doobie brothers.
1 Like
Wait a fucking minute here. This is incredibly misleading. Possession of small amounts of weed is a $100 citation and is not an arrestable offence in NY. The issue is that public display of it is a misdemeanor, punishable by arrest and up to 90 days in jail, and that police have been routinely frisking people (primarily minorities) and then taking weed out of their pocket and charging them with public display rather than possession. This does nothing whatsoever to change that. It merely means that when cops trump up charges against someone who they should have issued a ticket to, at most, they have the option to issue a court summons for those charges rather than arresting them. This article is misleading enough that I can’t imagine it isn’t a bald-faced lie, and this doesn’t address the real problem. Fuck the Police, and fuck this slimeball mayor for trying to weasel out of this, and fuck Cuomo for publicly standing against fixing the actual problem.
3 Likes
I think you’re being overly harsh, and possibly missing the forest for the trees. Yes, this is on its face not a new law, its at most a restatement of the enforcement policy. But keep in mind it’s not like the mayor could have done this in any other way - as you point out, it’s already the law (and even if it wasn’t, the mayor can’t change the law) so the most he could do is change policy. By publicly stating that it’s the policy, and that it is the intent of the mayor and the police that people not be arrested for these violations, it suggests that the old policies are out - that people are not going to have their pockets turned out, and that prosecutors will not pursue those cases.
Time will tell if things change; even if it’s the will of the the mayor I’m still not convinced that the police will be 100% behind it. But I don’t think is a snow job by the mayor - it’s a substantial policy shift that deserves to be applauded.
Can’t disagree with you there.
thon i better get it right! 
1 Like
Minor drug convictions are hugely-disproportionately meted out to people of color. If you’re really not aware of that, you’ve been living under a rock.
Decreasing the rate at which police arrest people for small possession will always have by far the greatest effect on non-whites.
4 Likes
Fair enough.
1 Like
Don’t you know, talking about race is racist!
Yes, I acknowledged that in my post. I’m well aware of it. As I said:
That’s also the case for arrest rates across the board – not just drug possession. It’s absolutely true that drug laws are unfairly applied to minorities.
They are specifically significantly more skewed for drug possession then any other crime. It isn’t really across the board.
Then you understand why the original title was more of a pertinent commentary then a “racist jab”? cool.
1 Like
Minor drug possession laws are far more racially applied than most other laws. Since a black man with pot is nearly four times as likely to be incarcerated than a white man[1], having a policy of arrests for minor drug possession really can be seen as a policy against minorities.
In your first post, you simply called Xeni “racist” without seeming to understand this at all.
OTOH, I just saw an article with the mayor quoted as saying “It is crucial for all New Yorkers to carry ID, particularly our young people,” which I can’t say I like much. I reminds me of things I’d rather not think about in connection with our government.
I did not, in fact, say that Xeni was racist. I said it was a racist headline. Let’s not start down that road.
And yes, again, I am quite aware of the racial imbalance on pot arrests. Again, that doesn’t make pot decriminalization a law about race.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. Thank you.
It’s entirely possible to understand that drug laws are unfairly applied to minorities without resorting to summing up pot decriminalization with “not arresting brown people”. I find that reductive and foolish.
I see, and who are you again? Is there a Headline Committee that we weren’t previously aware of, or did you just want to add your name to the Dissatisfied with BB List?
Or did you perhaps just want to play the “invoking racial disparities is racist”? card?
1 Like
I’d like to know the context of that article. The mayor has been a big proponent of an NYC identification that would be available to all New Yorkers regardless of immigration status. That kind of ID (again opposed by Cuomo) would open access to a lot of services and prevent a lot of problems, not the least of which would be not having to bring someone down to the station when they’re ticketed for possession of marijuana.
It’s not a requirement to carry identification in the US, but the reality is you can’t get in to any office building in New York without one, nor can you check out a library book or cash a paycheck. And unless you have one when you’re busted for just about anything, whether that’s farebeating, busking, truancy or jaywalking, the police can detain you until they establish your identity. So it’s important for everyone to have access to an official ID. Whether they choose to carry it is a matter of personal choice and convenience.
i didn’t, the only thing i quote from you is from what you said here:
…or was it where I said “you understand” the reason behind the original title? that was based off of you expressing an understanding for the inequity. If you do understand that part wouldn’t be putting words into your mouth, and even you don’t understand that still wouldn’t be putting words into your mouth, it would just be me inferring too much credit based on your previous comment.
pretty touchy about people “putting words into your mouth” for someone who came to this thread to tell someone else they were making “racist jabs”, imho.
2 Likes
that’s just under an ounce. that’s, like, more than will fit into a little sandwich bag, you gotta go to the next size up ziplock bag.
when I used to buy weed, I would usually buy either an eighth or a quarter of an ounce, but of course I was younger and didn’t earn very much money back then. still, that would suffice since I mostly just smoked socially (though that was still very often, but then also we all shared.) I think the most I ever bought for personal use was a half-ounce, but a more regular smoker or one who was less poor/stingy might buy like that more regularly. The only time I had over an ounce was when I tried to give dealing a shot (i sucked at it.) I’m pretty sure an ounce was legally considered “intent to sell.” so, ya, a full ounce is kind of a lot, but not if you were buying for a party or a household of smokers or whatever. when you get really good, expensive weed, it’s stronger so you smoke less at a time, so it’s more likely you’re re-selling if you have a whole ounce.
then again, a lot of people commonly smoke way more than I ever did, and you get a price break with more quantity, so other people might buy big amounts as a normal thing.
so, hard to answer since everyone’s different, but tl;dr I think that the amount NY has determined is surprisingly reasonable, actually.
Er, I’m a guy expressing my opinion (“I find that…”) on a message board. Like you. Is that… unusual? I’m unclear on what you’re getting at.
Again, I disagree with the way Xeni chose to make news about a pot decriminalization law into a racial issue by injecting “brown people” into the headline, as if we’re kindergartners.
