Brian a DUI is still just that a DUI. This would do nothing to change the repercussions of driving under the influence. I see no issue with making this a ticket-able offence when the amounts are in such a small nature. Many other states have this currently in place so they are not purposing anything that hasn't been done elsewhere. Perhaps you could take a second to research before making such silly statements.

Byside DWI,we will have to add DWH Driving While High to our law books.What are we telling the kido's of tomarrow?It's ok not to lisen to they Parents?That's just wrong,and it worry's me.What is it going to take to stop finding ways around kill people.Just say No to Drugs that's what most of the US Parents have been teaching they Children of my age.My home town is Paramus NJ so I dont'like to read about drugs bing ok in my home town.politicians
Sinserly
Ryan .S

Ps. Is it going to take a Death in a family of a Politiclans by a Pot user or what?

Sorry--too many comments showing ignorance here, and that's also what gets in the way of reasonable legislation. Pot is simply not like alcohol; in fact, it's somewhat the opposite: Its effects tend to reduce the chances the user would even want to get into a car, or do anything at all that would endanger themselves or others. Personally, I would feel much safer in the world if I knew that citizens on their own time were partaking of pot rather than alcohol or tobacco. Please, please, rather than swallowing political messages whole, educate yourself in a balanced way before knee-jerk reacting to what you have no personal knowledge of.

Where is it stating ANYWHERE that driving under the influence of ANY mind altering substance will magically become legal once imposing the fines comes into play. Drugs willstill be illegal but instead of bogging down an already overrun justice system with such a small amount of the substance police will be able to assign a fine.

Marijuana = still illegal; Imposing fines at the time of finding the substance instead of arresting and getting the fines imposed in court =/= okaying it's usage or some how make this legal. This is not a tough concept.

Again I implore people to read how this type of change to the repercussions has effected marijuana usage in other states prior to making or apparently teaching their children these ridiculous things.

JAD Thanks for clarifying: Yes, it's the difference between a traffic violation that you get a ticket for (which don't take that much municipal administrative time/resources) and the kind you have to appear in court for (which do). That analogy is useful as far as it goes, but I have to point out that the comments are showing some confusion that this has to do with driving--and it doesn't. It's just about the penalties for possession of the substance. This is also not a kind of change that will somehow "tempt" some segment of non-smokers into smoking. The people who have/use it will still have/use it; it's just that the penalty would be changed, thus reducing administrative burden thus controlling tax burden, for possession of amounts that usually imply "personal use" amounts rather than intent to distribute.

BB.. Seriously? After reading your rants you seriously should consider smoking marijuana! A few weeks ago there was a bust, I believe in Passaic County that netted a total of $48,000 in marijuana and cash. The investigation involved 3 County Prosecutors, State Police and 5 Police Departments, which cost us tax payers a total of $176,000 to perform the bust. But as long as we get the drug off the street that is MUCH less harmless than alcohol that's all that matters. So remember that the next time you get your tax bill.

Brian I'm not sure your lack of skills in the spelling arena is your only issue here.

You do understand that being under the influence of and being in possession of the drug are CURRENTLY both separate offences, right? This is just taking the possession portion and making it an immediate ticket-able offense in lieu of making an arrest and having fines assessed by a judge. It's not a difficult concept and I'm unsure why you are unable to grasp it.

As far as your personal digs, generally I just ignore these type of comments as the rambling of a person who is unable to have an intelligent discussion and frankly has no basis for their opinion. But to answer you, I do not use illegal narcotics of any type, rarely drink alcohol, am pretty politically conservative and lead a pretty upstanding law abiding lifestyle. I'm just capable of both reading and understanding without making myself look foolish in a public forum. Perhaps you may want to try and follow suit.

Brian is obviously VERy uninformed on the effects of marijuana. And I recommend he read the book called " Marijuana is Safer" It is a very educational book on the subject. Educate yourself please. Then go to these cops sight and realize they are behind this too... http://www.leap.cc Please relax as well. You seem to get so excited over something your not very educated in.

OK my friend I will post for you links that go against all of the things you just mentioned. Are you aware that the US Govt. has patents for Marijuana shrinking tumors. Are you aware that studies are coming out that are showing marijuana in NO WAY causes lung cancer and actually can reverse the damaging effects. Are you aware that NO ONE has ever died from marijuana alone and that many die each year from aspirin use. Ya see marijuan medically used is a grew nit inflammatory. And you do not seem to be educated in whats called a vaporizer and or the fact that it can be eaten. Can I ask where you get your information from? None of what you written is the truth. Seriously and if your willing to have an intelligent dialogue I can. And I am a prior Military Police Officer.

Its also a fact that legal alcohol is the true gateway drug to anything worse. Once drunk one alters the state of mind beyond self control in many cases. You can intake a much marijuana as you want and you will only go eat some cake. Oh and you may want to do something nice for someone. Ask any police officer how many of the domestic violence calls they have been on where alcohol was involved. Then ask how many with marijuana ALONE... You might be shocked.

Here is one link describing how we condone alcohol for our children and thats just fine. Just drive down the road and look at how many make shift memorials are out there from our children driving themselves drunk around telephone poles. You 'll find very little if any at all from anyone under the influence of Marijuana alone. Its a fact...http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/

Sorry here http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/

You'll find US Govt. Patents listed here. And not in synthetic marinol form either...http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html

Need any other info ration just ask... Please learn the facts about whats really affecting our children. The violence prohibition has caused is far worse than anything Marijuana alone has ever caused...

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html

Sorry for typos... apple spell correction... ^^^

This bill is a step in the right direction. If the Bergen County Prosecutor thinks he has the resources to waste chasing drug users, then it is time to slash his budget.

Just for the record, I personally don't care if people decide to use drugs or not, but if something is illegal, then it should be considered and treated as such by the law. What is being argued here is that it's ok if it's only a little illigal? So using that same logic if someone was caught carrying a small gun(.22 caliber) vs. a big gun(357 Magnum) should they only be given a fine as well?

Steve,

It's currently only a fine if caught with the amounts stated in the article, this is only changing the dollar amount to the fine and when the person receives the fine.

Speeding is illegal and the "punishment" is progressive based upon how fast you are going. A few miles an hour over the limit will get you a small fine while exceeding the limit by large amounts will get you arrested.

Your gun analogy is flawed, non licensed possession of a weapon is not a comparable scenario as neither the small or the larger caliber weapon is a fine-able offense and are considered second degree crimes and fall under the Graves Act where imprisonment is required prior to eligibility for parole.

Wow! These comments point out who some of the ill informed trolls of the patch are. Thank you all for the heads up. Jad... we should chat sometime.

So long as I'm not part of the ill informed troll group, anytime.

When i was a kid if the police caught you with a joint they made you throw it on the ground and stomp on it with your shoe ..they had more important crimes to try and prevent ..now if you have a joint, the cops call for back up and you go through all kinds of classes and community service ..its pathetic

OMG the above rants are disturbing to say the least. I am amazed that there are multiple postings saying "read the article", "have you even read the article", "do you even understand that they are just reducing the fines?" etc.. Maybe the people who are spewing these false statements should actually learn to not only read, but learn how to comprehend what they are reading. Moreover, you all should learn what the law is before you pretend to state what you believe to be true. It is a disorderly persons offense (not offence by the way) to possess under 50g of marijuana. That person is then photographed/fingerprinted, given a complaint on a summons at a police headquarters with a court date to appear in front of a judge. Molinelli is correct by stating "...decriminalize illegal marijuana possession..." because the bill would decriminalize it. What you non-educated, non-law enforcement, and 60s throwbacks aren't understanding is that this will decriminalize the now disorderly persons offense to a fine, ie a ticket. Under the auspices of benevolence Demaria stated "economic benefit derived from preventing officers and judicial resources and executive resources from being squandered and wasted...". Hey people, did you ever take note of who is crying for the decriminalization??? Answer: the pro-legalization believers. Maybe you should take your time reading an article first. And jimmy, lay off the pot...don't want you to get locked-up again...

What are the current consequences for possession of the small amount of marijuana as stated in the article? It's a fine, correct? I disagree that a person who is found with a small amount needs to carry a criminal record for it. The changes to the current laws would also include progressive actions for repeat offenders and perhaps I could agree with harsher progressive actions for those who are habitual offenders. Perhaps you have some confusion as to why statements were made as one poster seems to have deleted all of his comments, but most people responses were do to this person claiming that these changes would somehow negate a person operating a vehicle under the influence of marijuana. Maybe the context of the statements will make more sense to you knowing this or maybe not.

I am neither a 60's throwback nor a legalization supporter. I am, however, looking at the issue pragmatically. I don't understand why silly insults and the prerequisite overabundance of ellipsis or question marks is supposed to somehow give more weight to your opinions.

Is this a more cost effective way to handle a person who has such a small amount with no intent to distribute? IMO it is. I also implore others to research how this has statistically effected states who have already put similar stats in place. The rates of use and recidivism have virtually stayed the same. It does, however, cost the state and by default the taxpayers less to essentially have the same results.

don't bogart that joint, pass it over to me

Jad, do your own research about the law. A person who has been arrested and charged criminally for a narcotics possession for the first time has the right under the law to enter a program by which, after 6 months of not being arrested for a violation of that same law, they can have their charges expunged. So, I ask you this: if a person is arrested one time and can receive expungement...why would all the supporters, ie pro-marijuana dopes, need decriminalization? Because they are using the guise of saving money, the economic downturn to further their pro-marijuana agenda. Simply put, they are claiming that people's lives are ruined by having a criminal record if they are arrested for possession of "small" amounts of marijuana. This statement is false. As I have stated before, these first time dopers have the opportunity to expunge their charge and get a second chance at not being so stupid. And if they get charged again, all bets are off, their lives should be effected by their behavior. That's why we have laws, my friend. Next, they will want to change the charge for cocaine saying it's only a "small" amount of cocaine. Dentists and doctors use it for an anesthetic, so why not decriminalize it........slippery slope, gentleman.

I have done my own research and am unsure where I have asked you to provide me with any. Have you taken the time to learn how these exact same laws have had an impact in other communities around the US? I have a different opinion than you that, although may be more helpful to your arguments, is not born from ignorance.

If the end result is the same but this is a more cost effective way to get there for the taxpayers I am all for it. You are now adding the additional costs to have ones record expunged to the original costs to have them routed through the already overburdened court system. What I am saying here is not a hard concept to understand, even if you disagree with the decriminalization, the cost savings for the same end result are there.

I don't see it as a slipper slope argument. The changes to the marijuana laws do not necessarily set precedence for all other narcotics charges within their same classification let alone those that are in a different classification such as cocaine.

There are many of laws that are on the books that I don't agree with. It's illegal in NJ to frown at a police officer, your logic of "that's why we have laws" would have me agreeing with that as well. Disagreeing with a law and abiding the law are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Lastly, although I do enjoy a good debate on issues, I see no need for the continued name calling. I've not reverted to name calling and ask that you please try to have the same respect for me.