USA - state by state marijuana laws and penalties

[beentheredonethatagain]

Sorry This Didnt post correctly- BTDTA

.

[hoodabudda]

wuts up with montana they have manditory and conditional?

[beentheredonethatagain]

MONTANA's Marijuana Laws

Possession60 g or less (first offense)misdemeanor6 months$100 - $500
60 g or less (subsequent offense)feolny3 years$1,000
More than 60 g felony 20 years $50,000
Cultivation1 lb or lessfelony 10 years $50,000
More than 1 lb (or more than 30 plants)felony2 year MMS* - life $50,000
Subsequent offensesfelonydouble penaltydouble penalty*Mandatory minimum sentence.


SaleAny amountfelony1 year - life$50,000To a minorfelony

additional 2 years - life50,000

Within 1,000 feet of school**felony
additional 3 years - life $50,000
** That the person did not know the distance to a school may not be brought as a defense in court.

An affirmative defense may be raised if the conduct took place entirely within a private residence, and that no person under 17 years of age was present in the private residence at any time during the commission of the offense.

Miscellaneous (paraphernalia, license suspensions, drug tax stamps, etc...)Paraphernalia possession or salemisdemeanor6 months$500Any conviction requires dangerous drug information course.



Possible alternative sentencing instead of incarceration.


Possession of 60 grams or less of marijuana is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of $100 - $500 for the first conviction.
For subsequent convictions the penalties increase to up to three years in prison and a fine up to $1,000.
Possession of greater than 60 grams carries a sentence of up to 20 years in prison and a fine up to $50,000.
Production or manufacture of one pound or less of marijuana is punishable by up to 10 years in jail and a fine up to $50,000.
For amounts greater than one pound or more than 30 plants, the penalty includes a two-year mandatory minimum sentence to life in prison and a fine up to $50,000. Subsequent convictions can double the possible sentence.

Sale or distribution of marijuana carries a penalty of 1 year - life in prison and a fine up to $50,000.
Sale to a minor carries an additional penalty of 2 years - life in prison and a fine up to $50,000.
Any sale within 1,000 feet of a school also adds an additional 3 years - life in prison and a fine up to $50,000.
All dangerous drug convictions require the offender to attend a dangerous drug information course.
There is also the possibility of alternative sentencing such as fines, drug treatment, community service or probation if the court feels that incarceration is not warranted.

The penalty for possession or sale of paraphernalia is up to six months in jail and a fine up to $500.

Conditional release: The state allows conditional release or alternative or diversion sentencing for people facing their first prosecutions. Usually, conditional release lets a person opt for probation rather than trial. After successfully completing probation, the individual's criminal record does not reflect the charge.
Mandatory minimum sentence: When someone is convicted of an offense punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence, the judge must sentence the defendant to the mandatory minimum sentence or to a higher sentence. The judge has no power to sentence the defendant to less time than the mandatory minimum. A prisoner serving an MMS for a federal offense and for most state offenses will not be eligible for parole. Even peaceful marijuana smokers sentenced to "life MMS" must serve a life sentence with no chance of parole.
Medical marijuana: This state has medical marijuana laws enacted. Modern research suggests that cannabis is a valuable aid in the treatment of a wide range of clinical applications. These include pain relief, nausea, spasticity, glaucoma, and movement disorders. Marijuana is also a powerful appetite stimulant and emerging research suggests that marijuana's medicinal properties may protect the body against some types of malignant tumors, and are neuroprotective. For more information see NORML's Medical Marijuana section.
Hemp: This state has an active hemp industry. Hemp is a distinct variety of the plant species cannabis sativa L. that contains minimal (less than 1%) amounts of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana. Various parts of the plant can be utilized in the making of textiles, paper, paints, clothing, plastics, cosmetics, foodstuffs, insulation, animal feed, and other products.

[Hyperspaceblastoff]

as time goes on the laws seem to get better
i think the full country will get weed
depending on how the election turns out
nov08 vote RON PAUL PPL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Revancheshepherd]

Originally Posted by Hyperspaceblastoff

as time goes on the laws seem to get better
i think the full country will get weed
depending on how the election turns out
nov08 vote RON PAUL PPL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike Gravel or Ron Paul is my wish... but I doubt it'll happen

The laws can be seen on NORML's website

[FuBai]

What's DUID? I know what DUI is but what does the extra D stand for? And Oregon seems to have a weird combination - it is decriminalised but it carries both a conditional and mandatory minimum sentence?

[Sitbcknchill]

Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID)

[FuBai]

Originally Posted by Sitbcknchill

Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID)

so separate form a standard dui then? greater punishment?

[Sitbcknchill]

You Are Going Directly To Jail

State DUID Laws

DUID Legislation:
What It Means, Who's Behind It,
and Strategies to Prevent It
by Paul Armentano
Senior Policy Analyst

NORML | NORML Foundation"Every state needs a law ... defining, in essence, a crime divorced from impairment; ... that says if you use an illicit drug and drive, you have broken the law. ... We need to treat DUID as important [an offense] as murder, rape, and child molestation."
-- John Bobo, Director, National Traffic Law Center. "Enforcement and Prosecution of Drugged Driving Laws," speech given February 23, 2004
There's a new front in the "War on Drugs" and its name is DUID.
DUID, short for "driving under the influence of drugs," is the latest buzzword among politicians and police -- however, in this case, words can be deceiving.
Though billed by its sponsors as a necessary tool to crack down on "drugged driving" offenses,1 in reality, DUID laws -- in particular "zero tolerance" per se laws -- have little to do with promoting public safety or identifying motorists who drive while impaired. Rather, the enactment and enforcement of "zero tolerance" DUID legislation improperly defines many sober drivers as "intoxicated" solely because they were found to have consumed a controlled substance -- particularly marijuana -- at some previous, unspecified point in time.
DUID Defined

There are various types of DUID laws, some more pernicious than others. Today, every state has DUID legislation on the books. These laws fall into three distinct categories:

Effect-Based DUID Laws

Most state DUID laws are "effect based" laws. This legislation forbids drivers to operate a motor vehicle if they are either "under the influence" of a controlled substance, or if they have been rendered "incapable of driving safely" because of their use of an illicit drug. In order for a defendant to be convicted under this statute, a prosecutor must prove that the driver's observed impairment and/or incapacity was directly associated with the ingestion of an illicit substance. To do so, prosecutors typically rely on evidence gathered by law enforcement officers at the scene of an accident (i.e., a driver's failure to pass a field sobriety test, evidence that the motorist was driving at an excessive speed, etc.), testimony from a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE), and/or a positive result from a blood or saliva test indicating recent consumption of a controlled substance. For the most part, this is a multidisciplinary standard that focuses on the totality of circumstances -- most importantly, whether the driver is observably impaired -- and accordingly punishes motorists who drive while impaired from having recently used illicit drugs.

Per Se DUID Laws

Per se laws prohibit drivers from operating a motor vehicle if they have greater than a set level of a drug or drug metabolite present in their system. Most Americans are already familiar with the most common driving-related per se laws: those governing drunk driving which define a driver as legally impaired per se if their blood alcohol level tests above .08%. Similar per se laws with strictly defined cut-off levels (a designated level of an active drug constituent or metabolite above which a sample is considered to be "positive" for a specific drug) are uncommon for DUID legislation.2 This is because, according to the US Department of Transportation: "Forensic toxicologists generally have failed to agree on specific [per se levels] that could be designated as evidence of impairment. The lack of consensus about per se levels of drugs where impairment could be deemed makes it difficult to identify, prosecute or convict drugged drivers in most states."3

"Zero Tolerance" Per Se Laws

Politicians and police have a simple, if unscientific, response to researchers' failure to define per se standards for DUID offenses: to enact "zero tolerance" per se laws. In their strictest form, these laws forbid drivers from operating a motor vehicle if they have any detectable level of an illicit drug or drug metabolite present in their bodily fluids.
This approach is not based on science but on convenience. In essence, "zero tolerance" per se laws define a new, driving-related offense that is, in the words of one of its chief proponents, "divorced from impairment." Under this standard, any driver who tests positive for any trace amount of an illicit drug or drug metabolite (i.e., compounds produced from chemical changes of a drug in the body, but not necessarily psychoactive themselves), is guilty per se of the crime of "drugged driving," even if the defendant was sober. In the case of marijuana, these laws are particularly troublesome. THC, marijuana's main psychoactive constituent, may be detected at low levels in the blood of heavy cannabis users for 1-2 days after past use.4 Marijuana's primary metabolite THC-COOH, the most common indicator of marijuana use in workplace drug tests, is detectable in urine for days and sometimes weeks after past use5-- long after any psychoactive effects have ceased. Consequently, under "zero tolerance" per se laws, a person who smoked a joint on Monday could conceivably be arrested the following Friday and charged with "drugged driving," even though he or she is no longer impaired or intoxicated.
To date, ten states have enacted "zero tolerance" per se laws: Arizona,6 Georgia,7 Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,8 Michigan,9 Minnesota,10 Rhode Island, Utah,12 and Wisconsin.13 Among these, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, and Utah forbid drivers from operating a motor vehicle with any detectable level of a controlled substance or its metabolites in one's bodily fluids.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Useful information and you were generous enough not to tell me to google it.

[FuBai]

A very American solution. Well I say that, but subtlety is disappearing from the British law books too. I am not quite sure how you could justify a Zero Tolerance law in a society that claims to be just, especially as the term "driving under the influence" means that you are actively "Influenced" by drugs, so the term itself is a misnomer. Perhaps a more accurate acronym would be "DWO" - driving whilst objectionable.

[Panthers007]

Well the USA already DUB (Driving While Black.) But by request - I'll tell you a story:

A friend of mine, whose dad was on the run from the police and very famous, was pulled over. They arrested him for Driving Under the Influence of Drugs. They found no drugs in his vehicle - but provided a roach (marijuana cigarette butt). They said they'd let him go if he said where his dad was. My friend was 17, and said "He's in New York!" and he headed for the door. They hung him by his wrists in handcuffs from the cell bars until a pack of us arrived and bailed him.

He was found guilty and fined $1,000. Licencse suspended. Probation. And couldn't move his wrists for months. No lawyer dared triied an appeal.

Dad's name was Abbie Hoffman. Look him up.

Reputation Comments on this post:

Thanks for adding a bit more content