Penalties for possession of marijuana, employer liability for not drug testing employees and prospective employees, and providing a penalty. (FE)
The impact of AB861 is considerable as it alters the legal framework surrounding marijuana possession. By decriminalizing minor possession and significantly lowering the potential penalties, the state aims to reduce the burden on its judicial system and prevent individuals from facing life-altering consequences for non-violent drug offenses. Additionally, the bill limits employer liability for not requiring drug tests for employees regarding marijuana usage, which could lead to fewer workplace dismissals related to marijuana use. Law enforcement will be granted discretion in processing violations, indicating a shift toward a more lenient approach in handling marijuana-related offenses.
Assembly Bill 861 seeks to amend existing laws regarding marijuana possession in Wisconsin, significantly reducing penalties and adjusting enforcement protocols. The bill proposes that possessing or attempting to possess 14 grams or less of marijuana will now incur a $100 civil forfeiture, replacing the misdemeanor charges that previously carried more severe penalties, including imprisonment up to six months and fines up to $1,000 for repeat offenses. Moreover, it aims to eliminate prior marijuana convictions from counting against individuals for repeat offenses involving possession of 28 grams or less, effectively reducing recidivism penalties related to marijuana possession.
Despite its progressive approach towards marijuana legislation, AB861 has faced contention. Critics argue that while the bill takes steps to decriminalize marijuana possession, it still maintains significant legal structures that can affect employment and civil liberties. The discretion given to law enforcement officers can be problematic, as it may lead to inconsistencies in enforcement across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, concerns regarding how local governments can react to the bill, especially in maintaining local ordinances that may still impose restrictions, remain a topic of debate among local lawmakers and community advocates.