Marijuana.

Marijuana.

Exhibit A. This is what's at issue now in the Pennsylvania legislature, not whether marijuana should be legalized, but whether the penalties for using it should be reduced.

And if so, how much?

Right now, the law states that anyone caught with 30g or about one ounce of marijuana for personal use is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, or to pay a fine not exceeding $500 or both.

But Philadelphia Representative Norman Berson has introduced House Bill 1699, the decriminalization bill which proposes to change the law to this.

Anyone caught with 30g or less for personal use shall pay a fine not exceeding $100.

Period.

And the area of a social decision like, gambling or marijuana possession or use the law is really very, very ineffectual because you're talking about something that thousands and thousands of people do.

And as long as you have the law on the books, you're inviting the kind of discriminatory application of the law that undermines the law.

There are two basic reasons we want to decriminalize it, the first of which is we want to free up law enforcement time from being tied up in dealing with, the the arrest and the processing of people with small amounts of marijuana.

We don't think that the police should be involved with this.

We don't really see it as a crime.

We see it as a victimless crime if anything.

The second reason is that we're concerned that a large number of young people are developing criminal records for something which, again, we don't believe is a crime, and that that at young age it's affecting their lives tremendously.

Supporters of decriminalization argue that the law is not effective in controlling marijuana use, and they point to the rising number of people who use it.

In Pennsylvania, best estimates are that 1 in 5 people over the age of 15 have used it.

It's just not a legal problem, they say.

Maybe a health problem, definitely a social problem, but not a legal problem.

The drugs is a something that excites all kinds of feelings and whatnot.

And so people try to make the law apply there.

Similarly, we're trying to do something very technical to improve the criminal law in the state because we know it can't do very much about that kind of drug possession.

It has to be handled socially.

I still think that there's a great deal of skepticism, fear, fear that by changing these laws, we are changing the basic moral code and in this culture, and we don't want to do that.

Says the people that are concerned about that.

I personally feel that the government should stay out of the business of legislating morality.

Youngsters using marijuana.

I think that's a problem of families.

You cannot replace the family with the law.

You cannot replace decency and respect and consideration with the law.

People have to keep have to realize that there's so few things the law can do well.

One of them is not limiting the use of marijuana.

Those who oppose decriminalization object when they hear that law and morality don't mix.

They wish that society would handle its social problems.

But since that isn't happening, it's law enforcement continues to fill the gap.

Just across the Ohio River is Steubenville, Ohio, a mill town of 35,000 people that resembles a little Pittsburgh.

Police chief, George Mavromattis has operated under that state's new decriminalization law since November.

I just feel that marijuana is not good for our young people, and they shouldn't smoke it, and I don't think legalizing it will make it any better for them.

It just makes it that much easier for them to get.

And I would like to see it kept the way it used to be, more strict laws on it and try to discourage people from using it.

Well, I don't think putting them in jail is the answer to it, but, it kind of tears me up to see a young person that starts on something that I don't know whether that leads to something harder, but I assume it does.

But I don't think it does a person any good to smoking.

I'm primarily interested in the young people.

I'm opposed to decriminalization of either marijuana in general or the small amount.

Representative Michael Fisher has different objections.

- One, I think that it has not been shown, with any degree of certainty that, the use of marijuana is not harmful.

Secondly, I think it is bad to take a piecemeal approach and decriminalize the possession of a small amount.

But yet it it continue with the severe penalties for possession and see how the large amounts.

Representative Fisher drafted an amendment that passed the Judiciary Committee in mid-January by a 9 to 5 vote.

So the bill now reads anyone caught with 30g or less for personal use is guilty of a summary offense, and upon conviction thereof, shall pay a fine not exceeding $100.

Under this proposal, they are making the person who is caught would receive a citation.

He would not be arrested, would not be booked, would receive a citation, would have to appear before a district magistrate.

Now there would be a record kept.

And we are then dealing with technically a violation of crimes code.

Therefore, a crime.

I feel that in in this fashion, we can handle these cases, in a lower judiciary and a district at the district justice level.

And we can save the courts approximately, at least between $100 to $200 a case.

And over a yearly period last year, there are 800 of those cases that went through the courts here in Allegheny County.

So that's quite a savings.

But yet I think we still keep the penalty, at its proper level.

Unfortunately, it sounds very dangerous.

And some people are decriminalization of marijuana.

And so to modify that somewhat, I think might introduce this amendment, which kind of, made it a half loaf as opposed to a whole loaf.

Well, in my opinion, the half loaf was just as bad as keeping it the way it is in many ways.

I don't agree it's a halfway step.

I think one thing it does is will provide for equal treatment around the state.

There's disagreement over whether laws like this actually do what they set out to do, or whether they only make marijuana easier to get.

Have you changed the way that your police department operates?

Have you reassigned men?

Are you able to solve more serious crimes?

No, we haven't, changed our quota of manpower on a narcotic squad originally was a three men, and it still is a three men.

It hasn't affected us one way that way.

I think in the bigger cities, it will help them much more than a smaller.

I know the intent of the law is good.

It wasn't put in just to be having a law, but it will help the bigger cities because they make far more arrests than we do.

Well, the change in the law, to my mind, would benefit.

And this is speaking not from a philosophical or, point of view.

It's, from a day to day work routine.

It would benefit the police to some degree in.

And as much as you would reduce the time down in court, prosecution, it would probably, help the judicial system.

And to the extent that it would reduce the time judges and the courts have to spend and the district attorney's office, have to spend in processing.

Would a law that reduces the penalties, increase the use?

No, I think the use of marijuana along with other drugs right now is at its peak.

And I think what it would do is probably maybe bring it into the open, but the enforcement of it may may increase because now, as it stands, you would need probable cause to make an arrest or specialized in it for you.

Otherwise, if it's decriminalized your everyday policeman that's in the street, that would see it would be able to hand out a citation or cite a person if he choose to use it or smoke it in his presence.

The sponsors of House Bill 1699 have vowed to fight to remove the amendment.

And as for the chances of the bill becoming law in either form, our sources in Harrisburg say that since this is an election year for representatives, the chances are slim.