Possession

Personal Use

Less than 1/2 oz (first offense)

civil penalty

N/A

$ 150

Less than 1/2 oz (subsequent
offense)

civil penalty

N/A

$ 500

1/2 – 4 oz (first offense)

civil penalty

1 year

$ 1,000

1/2 – 4 oz (subsequent offense)

civil penalty

5 years

$ 3,000

More than 4 oz (first offense)

civil penalty

5 years

$ 2,000

More than 4 oz (subsequent
offense)

civil penalty

10 years

$ 5,000

Distribution or Cultivation

Less than 1 kilogram (first
offense)

felony

7 years

$ 25,000

Less than 1 kilogram (subsequent
offense)

felony

15 years

$ 100,000

More than 1 kilogram (first
offense)

felony

5* – 20 years

$ 25,000

More than 1 kilogram (subsequent offense)

felony

10* – 20 years

$ 100,000

Within 1,500 feet of an elementary/middle school, public housing project, or daycare center is punishable by an additional 3 years imprisonment.

By a person 18 years or older to a person under 18 is punishable by an additional 2 years imprisonment.

Distribution or cultivation includes possession with intent to distribute or cultivate marijuana.

* Mandatory minimum sentence

Paraphernalia

With the intent to use it to
cultivate, distribute or inhale/ingest less than 1/2 oz

civil infraction

N/A

$ 300

With the intent to use it to
cultivate, distribute or inhale/ingest more than 1/2 oz

misdemeanor

3 mos

$ 500

Distributing paraphernalia or
possessing with the intent to distribute

misdemeanor

1 year

$ 2,000

Distributing or possessing paraphernalia within 1500 feet of an elementary/middle school is punishable by an additional 1 year of imprisonment.

Forfeiture

Any item used for the cultivation or distribution of marijuana is subject to forfeiture.

Penalty Details

Possession for Personal Use

Possession of less than one-half ounce of marijuana by a first time offender carries a civil penalty of $150.

Possession of less than one-half ounce for subsequent offenses carries a penalty of a civil fine between $200 and $500.

Possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana but less than four ounces of marijuana by a first time offender can be punished with a prison term not to exceed one year and a $1,000 fine.

Possession of more than one-half ounce of marijuana but less than four ounces of marijuana after a first offense carries a penalty of imprisonment for a term not to exceed five years and a fine not to exceed $3,000.

For first offenders, possession of more than 4 ounces of marijuana is punishable by a fine of up to $2,000 and/or up to 5 years of imprisonment. Subsequent offenses are punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to 10 years of imprisonment.

See:

• Connecticut Gen. Stat. §21a-279 Web Search

Distribution or Cultivation

Distribution or cultivation includes possession with intent to distribute or cultivate marijuana.

For first offenders distribution or cultivation of under 1 kilogram of marijuana s
punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or up to 7 years of imprisonment.
Subsequent offenses are punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and/or up to 15
years of imprisonment.

The court may prescribe an alternative sentence of up to 3 years imprisonment. The offender may then be released at any time during those 3 years and placed on probation for the remainder of their term.

See:

• Connecticut Gen. Stat. §21a-277(b) Web Search
• Connecticut Gen. Stat. §21a-277(d) Web Search

For first offenders distribution or cultivation of greater than 1 kilogram of marijuana is punishable by 5-20 years of imprisonment. Subsequent offenses are punishable by up 10-20 years of imprisonment. The court cannot reduce a sentence below the minimum years of prison time required by the statute, this means that first offenders face a minimum of 5 years imprisonment and subsequent offenders a minimum of 10 years imprisonment. The court may make exceptions to these mandatory minimum sentences if the defendant is under 18 or is/was mentally impaired.

For non-violent first offenders, the court may depart from the mandatory minimum sentence if a particular reason is stated.

See:

• Connecticut Gen. Stat. §21a-283(a) Web Search
• Connecticut Gen. Stat. §21a-278(b) Web Search

Distribution or cultivation of marijuana within 1,500 feet of an elementary/middle school, public housing project, or daycare center is punishable by an additional 3 years imprisonment on top of any other sentence imposed.

See:

• Connecticut Gen. Stat. §21a-278(a) Web Search

Distribution of marijuana by a person 18 years or older to a person under 18 is punishable by an additional 2 years imprisonment, on top of any other sentence imposed. There is an exception to this rule if the distributor is less than 2 years older than the minor.

See:

• Connecticut Gen. Stat. §21a-278(b) Web Search

Using a person under 18 years of age to assist in the sale of marijuana is punishable by 3 years imprisonment, on top of any other sentence already imposed.

See:

• Connecticut Gen. Stat. §21a-278(c) Web Search

Paraphernalia

Possession of paraphernalia with the intent to use it to cultivate, distribute or
inhale/ingest more than one-half ounce of marijuana is a class C misdemeanor
and is punishable by up to 3 months imprisonment and a fine of up to $500.

Distributing paraphernalia or possessing it with the intent to distribute it is a class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a $2,000 civil fine. In order to be guilty of this crime the defendant must know or should have known that the item would be used to cultivate, distribute, or inhale/ingest more than one-half ounce of marijuana.

Paraphernalia possession or distribution intended to manufacture or ingest less than one-half ounce of marijuana is a civil infraction, which will result in a fine of between $100-$300 (including administrative costs).

Distributing or possessing paraphernalia within 1,500 feet of an elementary/middle school is punishable by an additional 1 year of imprisonment.

See:

• Connecticut Gen. Stat. 21a-267 Web Search

Forfeiture

Any item used for the cultivation or distribution of marijuana is subject to forfeiture. This includes vehicles or aircraft that are used to transport marijuana for the purpose of distributing it.

Decriminalization

Connecticut has decriminalized marijuana to some degree. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation.

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.

Tax Stamps

Connecticut has a marijuana tax stamp law enacted. This law mandates that those who possess marijuana are legally required to purchase and affix state-issued stamps onto his or her contraband. Failure to do so may result in a fine and/or criminal sanction.

The chart and text on this page courtesy of NORML.org

Well, no other hero or she-roe deserves more recognition than those American citizens that have proudly served in the armed forces of the United States of America in peace time and during war from the birth of this great nation in 1775 to the present.

Millions of Americans wear the uniform domestically and abroad and the contributions our service men and women to the cause of peace and freedom around the world is both measurable and immeasurable.

Regardless of whether their service was during a time of peace, unrest or war every single man and woman that has worn the uniform deserves our respect and admiration.

Take some time during your busy day today to pray for and give thanks to our veterans.

Happy Veterans Day American Veterans!

Yes, at a time of record unemployment and when middle class families are struggling to keep their homes, Stratford’s Town Council believes $90,000 a year plus health insurance and other generous benefits such as a free town car, free car insurance and free fuel is not enough and the mayor’s salary should be raised to $115,000, making Stratford one of the highest paid mayors in the State of Connecticut.

As someone who actually performed the job with passion and zeal I can tell you no amount of money compensates you for what you have to go through. But that is the point – yes, you have to be paid but you do not become a public servant for the pay.

Comparisons of a mayors pay to a private sector CEO is “apples to oranges”. That is why we have a “private sector” and “public sector” so comparing the pay to CEO’s in the private sector make no sense. In fact, if you were to make a mayor’s pay equal to a comparable CEO in the private sector (based on size of employees and budget) the mayors pay would have to be much, much more.

In reviewing whether it should adjust the salary for its mayor Stratford should look to compare other similar communities. However, since each community is unique it is important to make an “apples to apples” comparison. For example, Fairfield has a similar population as Stratford but their budget is different and their financial position is in better shape than Stratford. Fairfield can afford to pay its First Selectman a higher rate of pay. But like it or not, Stratford is not Fairfield.

So why the raise? And why now? Well, Stratford’s Republican Party has been trying to raise the pay for the mayor since Stratford went to the mayoral form of government. Why? Because, while Democrats win election in Stratford from time to time, the reality is that Stratford tends to elect Republicans into office.

This raise is politically self serving and because as the political party in control of the mayor’s office, the Town Council and the Board of Education they can do what they want.

A better plan would be to start the mayor’s salary at $90,000 with an annual 1.5% cost of living increase. The plan to raise the mayor’s salary by 27% to $115,000 is a slap in the face to Stratford’s citizens and businesses.

In what could become “lame duck” legislation bad for Stratford- those members of the Town Council not seeking re-election should vote “no” and leave this issue to another Town Council.

Every member of the Town Council seeking re-election ought to clearly state their position regarding this issue.

This outrageous plan to raise the mayor’s salary can and should be a major campaign issue for this November’s elections.

Alexander P. Bernard was charged with one count of misdemeanor animal cruelty, which is punishable with up to a year in jail, rather than a more serious felony animal cruelty charge, which could have rendered punishment of up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

According to published reports the legislators’ letter emphasized the link between animal cruelty and violence against people, and urged the judge not to go easy on the defendant by nolling the charge or granting Accelerated Rehabilitation (AR).

The letter by the legislators states that “It is time we took animal cruelty seriously and approach it as an opportunity to interrupt the cycle of violence,” and “[T]he sheer violence of his attack is enormously worrisome and the fact that the court doesn’t appear to take what he did seriously is also distressing.”

Judge Scarpellino continued the case and said the letter could be viewed as “intimidation” towards him and
that he was “upset” by the letter but not influenced by it.

Animal cruelty is a terrible crime. As a pet lover and owner as well as an attorney that donates legal services to a local animal group I am 100% behind the spirit and intent of the letter.

However, as an officer of the court and attorney at law that fights for my clients in a courtroom I feel strongly that this letter by group of legislators to a Superior Court Judge is improper and sets a bad precedent.

State judges are selected, in part, by the state legislature. A judge receiving such a letter while a case is pending is being improperly influenced or at least the appearance of improper influence is present. While I do not have any sympathy for the accused he is entitled to due process and freedom from interference from the legislative (or executive) branch of government.

The state legislators, some who are attorneys, can “judge the judge” when he is up for re-appointment looking at the body of his work, including how he handles animal cruelty cases. They know that. The judge knows that.

Additionally, the legislators can pass tougher laws for animal cruelty or eliminate that crime from eligibility for AR if they feel so strongly about it. However, their letter as a group attempting to influence a judge during a pending case was improper.

We have plenty of politics in society already; let’s try to leave them out of the courtroom.

James R. Miron, Esq.

Jim Miron is the former mayor of Stratford, Connecticut and is currently an attorney at Trantolo & Trantolo, LLC in their Waterbury office

Connecticut is one of five states in the entire country that does not have mandatory CLE. 

The last time the subject was even formally reviewed by the judges that must approve these types of matters was almost twenty years ago. However, the proposal was rejected because the judges were concerned about the effect on small firms and solo practitioners pressed for both time and money.

Give me a break. The argument that we attorneys are all too busy or broke for CLE falls flat. Are Connecticut lawyers busier or more financially pressed than their brethren in 45 other states? Of course not.

There should be no attorney in this state that should be opposed to a well thought out and meaningful mandatory CLE program. Mandatory subjects should include an ethics as well as a drug and alcohol component.

Issues such as ensuring the CLE matches the experience level/need of an attorney and provides financial aid to those in need are considerations easily dealt with.

If the bar wants to improve its image this is the logical and easiest start. Count me in.

What is it about the Internet that makes people think they have the right to be mean, rude and disrespectful?

I mean, people must be emboldened because they are not face to face to say whatever they want, damn the truth and even worse, damn common courtesy, respect and good manners. Online bullying is not only a big problem with our youth it is alive and well among “adults.”

I think a big part of the problem is people get to hide behind their screen names online. You know those clever (and not so clever) names that illustrate something about the person’s life they identify with. Of course, don’t ask me what that means about the folks with alcohol or the devil in their screen name!

I take a pretty big beating online, mostly by people posting under a fake name. It is rude, discourteous, uncivil and cowardly. Of course, people are also critical of me who use their real names, but they are usually pretty civil, and I am perfectly fine with that. In a free and civil society it a part of the bargain to disagree and debate – but the key word is civil.  

I always respect others’ right to their own opinions, even when I disagree with them, so it never ceases to amaze me that people can be so rude and disrespectful. Recent posts on the Stratford Patch have told me to “calm down,” “shut up” and worse.

Just because I did not win re-election does not mean I lost my right to express my opinions. All Americans are entitled to the protections afforded by the First Amendment, even former mayors that lost a bid for re-election.

Additionally, like me or the job I did as mayor or not, my opinions come with the background, knowledge and information of having served as mayor and, I respectfully submit, can help the public debate. I continue to weigh in on issues not because I wish to re-hash my term as mayor (although I will certainly set the record straight if it needs to be), but because Stratford is still my hometown and I care about our people and the future of our town.

In doing so, I do not need a clever screen name to hide behind. I have no hidden agenda to grind away at – anonymous to the world.

No one can accuse me of not being a straight talker and willing to take on a fight, perhaps to a fault. Something I learned as a United States Paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division has stayed with me to this day – you fight for what you believe in.

I just wonder: is it too much to ask for civility online?

#

You can read more from Jim at www.JimMironBlog.com 

Follow Jim on Twitter: @JimMiron

Anybody that paid a minimal amount of attention to the goings on in Stratford from 2005-09 knows of my passion for preserving and protecting Long Beach West.

In fact, when I ran for mayor in 2005 I campaigned on protecting Long Beach West and opening access up to all the people. After I was elected I backed that promise up by providing the leadership to move in that direction. In doing so I used the resources already available that were provided by the hard work of the Waterfront and Harbor Management Commission, the Planning Commission, Town Planner, the Town’s Master Plan as well as the input of past commissions, boards and, of course, the public.

In the 2009 mayoral campaign, candidate John Harkins was silent as to Long Beach West. Now, as mayor, John Harkins has yet to provide real leadership on the issue. Here we are 18 months into Mayor Harkins’s four-year term and he appoints a “Blue Ribbon Commission” to study Long Beach West?

How about using the existing Commissions empowered by state law and town charter, such as the Waterfront and Harbor Management Commission, Planning Commission and taking a look at the Town’s Master Plan?

No offense to Mr. Gribbon and his “Blue Ribbon Commission,” but the reality is they lack any authority on the subject matter of Long Beach West. The real authority over LBW is vested in the Waterfront Harbor Management Commission, the Planning Commission, Town Council and State DEP.

In the end, the Blue Ribbon Commission will make recommendations that in all reality will look a lot like those made over and over again by countless volunteer commission and board members and we will be told that now the recommendations have to be reviewed by Waterfront Harbor Management Commission, the Planning Commission, Town Council and State DEP anyway. In other words, more feet dragging and delay.

Mayor Harkins could save everybody a lot of time and provide some real leadership on Long Beach West by merely dusting off the volumes of studies and reports already prepared by thousands of hours of meetings and volunteer commission and board members over the last 40 years and taking a stand.

It would be nice to hear what the leader of our town feels about important subjects like Long Beach West’s future rather than passing every single decision off to committees.

Even more refreshing would be to hear it from his mouth rather than his Chief of Staff or spokesperson.

But maybe I am alone in wanting to know where our mayor stands on important subjects.

To read more from Jim Miron check out: www.JimMironBlog.com 

Follow Jim on Twitter: @JimMiron

According to a Harvard economist, Connecticut spends over $130 Million every year in enforcing marijuana prohibition laws. This is real money that can be better spent in Connecticut.

Before I go any further, let me define decriminalization versus regulation or legalization: Decriminalization is NOT regulation or legalization.

Basically, decriminalization means that possession of a small quantity of marijuana would not be a crime punishable by incarceration. A person found in possession of the prescribed amount would be issued an infraction – similar to a traffic ticket. Subsequent offences would yield increased fines.

Regulation or legalization would be similar to the way we regulate, say alcohol. Strict controls on who can produce, distribute and sell. Of course, taxing regulated marijuana enterprises would create new, and significant, revenue streams to the state.

It is important to understand that while many arguments can be made to support regulating marijuana, the current bill is not regulation. It is about decriminalization.

Now, why would anyone advocate for decriminalizing marijuana use when drug use and, more importantly, abuse, including abuse of legal prescription drugs is a serious problem in our society?

No one can argue that the effect on individuals, families, the workplace, judicial and penal systems and taxes is causing a strain on society that is arguably one of the most serious of concerns facing our state and our nation.

Indeed, we need an honest public conversation about our national “war on drugs”. We need to recognize its failures and we need to change course from the path we are currently on.

Marijuana, while a part of the overall conversation regarding drugs, merits separate treatment. In fact, 13 states, including our neighbors in Massachusetts and New York, have recognized this and decriminalized marijuana. As a side note, 16 states and the District of Columbia permit marijuana for medical use.

Recent statistics provided by the federal government state that almost 100 million Americans admit to having smoked marijuana. Of these, twenty million Americans smoked marijuana during the past year – and these are the people that admitted using marijuana. We must face the reality that a large percentage of hard working, tax paying, Americans are marijuana users. Connecticut ought to recognize this reality and decriminalize and, ultimately, regulate marijuana use.

The parallels of marijuana prohibition and alcohol prohibition are pretty clear. Alcohol prohibition was a huge failure that gave rise to organized crime in this country. Simply put, marijuana prohibition is not working.

Study after study demonstrate that, generally speaking, marijuana is safe and there is no credible evidence to suggest the use of marijuana leads to using other drugs (the so-called “gateway”). In a society that regulates alcohol and prescription drugs the prohibition on marijuana is illogical.

Worse yet, our current policy of prohibition encourages a disrespect of the law. In a country where over 100 million people admit to using marijuana we know that there are many more that do not admit to using it and, in many cases, they are all willfully violating the law. Recent statistics show that more than 800,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges last year (almost 10,000 in Connecticut). More than 5 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana offenses in the past decade. Almost 90 percent of these arrests were for simple possession, not trafficking or sale (in Connecticut over 75% were for possession of less than a half ounce).

A recent Quinnipiac University poll shows that Connecticut voters support decriminalizing marijuana by a 65-32 margin.

These same people also favor legalizing medical marijuana for those with doctors’ recommendations — another idea supported by Governor Malloy — by a whopping margin of 79-17.

Importantly, both proposals have majority support across political parties and among all age groups.

The time has come for Connecticut to join the other states in decriminalizing marijuana.

The House should move swiftly to pass this decriminalization legislation and send it to the Governor to be enacted into law.

#

The bill limits the liability of municipalities and districts that make lands available to the public for free. It requires the entities, however, to remain liable for certain structures, fields and roads.Testimony in support for the bill in committee testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of the bill. 

I support public land being open to the public. However, completely eliminating municipal liability is unnecessary due to the already existing doctrine of governmental immunity. This bill, well intended as it appears to be, will likely have the consequence of further harming individuals that suffer injury on public lands due to a municipality’s negligence by forcing them to pay their medical bills, lost wages and other damages.

Is this bill good or bad? I think you can make arguments both ways.

However, if you or a loved one is hurt due to a municipality’s negligence and no fault of your own what would you think then? If this becomes law it really will not matter .

More than an estimated 55 million Americans play poker. Of those, an estimated 15 Million Americans play on-
line poker for money. And who are these poker players? A recent survey of members of the Poker Players Alliance  (PPA) found that:

- More than 72% of PPA Members have at least some college education.
- More than 75% of PPA Members are between 30-64 years of old.
- 47% of PPA Members earn more than $50,000 a year.
- More than 30% of PPA Members are Independents.

I have written to President Obama, Senator Joseph Lieberman, Senator Richard Blumenthal, Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro and United States Attorney General Eric Holder expressing my concerns.

To date I have only had a response from Senator Lieberman. His response follows:

Dear Mr. Miron:
 
Thank you for contacting me regarding the legalization of Internet gambling. I appreciate your concern, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
 
As you may know, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) was enacted into law in 2006 as part of the SAFE Port Act (P.L. 109-347). UIGEA seeks to cut off the flow of revenue to unlawful Internet gambling businesses. It outlaws the receipt of checks, credit card charges, and electronic fund transfers by such businesses. It also requires the assistance of banks, credit card companies, and other types of payment systems to help stem the flow of funds to unlawful Internet gambling businesses. To that end, it authorizes the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve System to work with the U.S. Department of Justice to ensure implementation of the regulations.
 
Recently, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has stepped up its enforcement of UIGEA. On April 15, 2011, the FBI — in conjunction with the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York — announced the unsealing of an indictment charging 11 defendants, including the founders of the three largest Internet poker companies doing business in the United States — PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Absolute Poker. The charges included bank fraud, money laundering, and illegal gambling offenses. In addition, restraining orders were issued against more than 75 bank accounts used by the poker companies, while five Internet domain names used by these poker companies to host poker games were seized.
 
Like you, many Members of Congress have voiced concern over the FBI’s aggressive pursuit of Internet gambling companies. Legislation to this effect has also received increased attention. In the U.S. House of Representatives, Representative John Campbell (R-CA) introduced the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act (H.R. 1174). This legislation would amend the federal criminal code to allow regulated gambling over the Internet. Specifically, this measure would establish a licensing and regulatory framework that would allow for online gambling activities such as poker. In order to operate legally in the United States, eligible online gambling sites would have to register with the Treasury Department and adhere to comprehensive regulations.
 
Also under this legislation, individuals under 21 years of age would not be allowed to legally gamble online in the United States; and vendors would be expected to establish comprehensive safeguards to verify a customer’s age. In addition, states would be allowed to opt out of the regulations promulgated under this bill, making it illegal for gaming sites to accept bets from individuals in their jurisdiction.
 
At this time, there is no companion bill to H.R. 1174 in the U.S. Senate. Please be assured, however that I will keep your concerns in mind should such legislation be introduced and voted on by the full Senate this 112th Congress.
 
Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me. I hope you will continue to visit http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.
Sincerely,

Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR