Pubdate: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 Source: Iowa City Press-Citizen (IA) http://www.press-citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/search?Category=search&SearchID=73237830008530&Max=41&Krit=marijuana&Kat=%25&Simple=0&SearchCategory=%25&StartDate=20050909&EndDate=20060308&Start=21 Copyright: 2006 Iowa City Press-Citizen Contact: http://www.press-citizen.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1330 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) FOCUS ON POT TAKES FOCUS OFF JAIL SOLUTIONS We think Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek really stepped in it last week while testifying before a legislative committee on sentencing reform. When we elected Pulkrabek, we knew that we were getting someone who brought a new perspective to the office. Where former Sheriff Robert Carpenter had failed repeatedly to make a compelling case for why the county would need a new jail, Pulkrabek seems to understand that he needs to exhaust every alternative if he is ever to convince county voters that a new jail is needed. And, as demonstrated in his guest opinion, Pulkrabek has been considering the many issues affecting the overcrowding of the jail and the increased burden on law enforcement. The majority of Pulkrabek's suggestions were completely in keeping with why he was asked to testify before the committee: to discuss how sentencing reform would impact county jails in some of Iowa's larger counties. The problem came when Pulkrabek suggested that the legislators reduce the charge against people found with a small amount of marijuana -- a partial joint or less -- so that offenders could be cited and released rather than having to be processed at the county jail and then released. Again, in keeping with Pulkrabek's other suggestions, the argument does make sense on a practical level. The vast majority of these offenders see no jail time other than their catch and release during the intake process. The only ones who see lengthier jail time are those who cannot afford to post bond. Several recent letters to the editor have praised Pulkrabek for his candor and his willingness to consider whether the punishment no longer fits this particular crime. Indeed, if Pulkrabek were going to check off every alternative to building a new jail, it would be irresponsible for him to not bring up this issue at some point. Although we want Pulkrabek to keep all such options in mind, we wonder if his decision to discuss this topic before the legislators was based more on naivety than on helpful candor. We don't think his testimony before the committee was the best place to introduce this reform. Pulkrabek should have known that several legislators would hear "decriminalization" when he was only suggesting adding another increment to the levels by which marijuana possession is classified. He said he was trying to spark debate, but the resulting story was picked up on the national wire and received the dubious distinction of being the highest hitting "Odd News" on Yahoonews.com for a few hours Thursday. Did Pulkrabek's testimony further his case for a jail? Probably not. For every Johnson County voter he's impressed with his candor, there is at least one middle-of-the-road voter who views the marijuana discussion as a distraction at best. We don't want our sheriff to become a slick politician always seeking the best way to say as little as possible, but we do want our officials to consider the right place and time to introduce ideas they know will put their credibility in question. Pulkrabek had every right to bring up these issues before the committee, and we're glad that he is thinking outside the box on jail crowding. We're glad that he's trying to place the debate in a wider context. But, in terms of advancing his broader goals on a county or state level, he doesn't seem to have done himself any favors.