Pubdate: Tue, 01 Apr 2003
Source: Columbia Daily Tribune (MO)
Copyright: 2003 Columbia Daily Tribune
Contact:  http://www.showmenews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/91
Note: Prints the street address of LTE writers.
Author: Anthony Johnson
Note: Anthony Johnson is a University of Missouri-Columbia law student who is
the primary author of Proposition 1.

PROP 1 PITS PROPONENTS AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT

Marijuana Ordinance Good For Columbia.

The proposed marijuana ordinance on the April 8 ballot will improve the 
handling of small-amount marijuana possession cases in many ways. It will 
only apply to adults and will have no effect on how juvenile court cases 
are handled.

Proposition 1 would require that most misdemeanor marijuana cases be 
referred to the municipal court, which is not technically a criminal court. 
Therefore, those whose cases go there might still honestly claim not to 
have a criminal conviction record when applying for work or school.

A criminal conviction is a life-long stigma that can make it difficult to 
find employment. It is in the best interest of all of us that citizens be 
able to find and keep good jobs, pay their taxes and support their families.

The ordinance would also remove the possibility of a jail sentence for such 
offenses. This will not be a radical change since few people are sent to 
jail for small-amount marijuana possession.

Fines for repeat offenders go as high as $500, but the judge could still 
order counseling and community service work as conditions of probation with 
the possibility of avoiding a public conviction record for those who comply.

Proposition 1 would bring about an important change in that people who are 
now convicted in state court lose eligibility for any form of federal aid 
to education, loans, grants or work-study assistance for at least one year. 
Again, it is in the best interest of all of us that people be able to 
complete their college education.

Congress has passed a law that says this loss of federal aid to education 
is a consequence of any conviction for marijuana possession under state law 
or under federal law. The language of the law is clear on this point. This 
penalty, by the way, is not inflicted on those who commit murder, robbery 
or other violent crimes.

The ordinance would require that the city prosecutor dismiss small-amount 
possession cases against people who have a serious medical need for marijuana.

Marijuana has been proved to relieve the symptoms of cancer chemotherapy 
treatment, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, AIDS/HIV and certain other serious 
ailments. This ordinance would require that a physician recommend such 
medical use. It would leave the discretion to decide whether a personis 
marijuana use is medical in the hands of doctors, where it belongs.

Passage of this ordinance would definitely allow police officers to focus 
their limited time and resources on preventing and investigating more 
serious crimes, ones involving violence and/or property loss. These crimes 
are surely higher priorities for law enforcement than minor marijuana 
possession cases.

Columbia police make a full-custody arrest of people charged with 
small-amount marijuana possession. These people are usually handcuffed at 
the scene of the arrest, placed in the backseat of a police car and taken 
to police headquarters for fingerprinting, photographing and paperwork, 
often consuming hours of the arresting officeris time.

The MU Police Department and Missouri Highway Patrol officers generally do 
not do this. Both of these law enforcement agencies routinely write a 
summons for misdemeanor marijuana possession without placing a person under 
a full-custody arrest. There is no reason why the Columbia Police 
Department should do so.

Perhaps the single greatest fear regarding what might be perceived as a 
reduction of the penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana is 
that the rate of use of marijuana might increase as a consequence.

Fortunately, we do not have to guess about what the effect of this 
ordinance will be.

Ann Arbor, Mich., has had a similar ordinance on its books for more than 25 
years. As the police chief of Ann Arbor said in a recent Tribune interview, 
the ordinance has not resulted in any increase in marijuana use, nor has it 
resulted in any problems for law enforcement or the community in general.

This is entirely consistent with the experience of every other community in 
the United States that has passed a similar law. During the mid-1970s, 10 
states decriminalized the possession of small amounts of marijuana. These 
states include one third of the population of the nation.

In none of these jurisdictions has any scientific study revealed any 
increase in marijuana use attributable to decriminalization.

The rate of use in those states and cities has increased and decreased over 
the years, but in a cycle indistinguishable from the same cyclic rise and 
fall of marijuana use in other states, such as Missouri, which maintain 
harsh criminal penalties.

Professor Jeffrey Miron of the Department of Economics at Boston University 
corroborates this fact in recent Tribune commentary.

A Time/CNN poll last fall indicated that 80 percent of Americans support 
legal access to medical marijuana and 72 percent support fines only and not 
jail for possession of small amounts.

A recent poll by MUis Center for Advanced Social Research indicates that a 
majority of likely voters in Columbia supports Proposition 1.

Proposition 1 will help more Columbians find and keep good jobs, finish 
their college education and avoid prosecution when marijuana is used for 
legitimate medical purposes. This will allow law enforcement to focus on 
violent and other serious crimes. Proposition 1 will benefit all of us, and 
it merits your support.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart