Pubdate: Sun, 23 Mar 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: Jeffrey Miron, professor of economics at Boston University in Massachusetts SMART SENTENCING INITIATIVE A STEP FORWARD ON POT POLICY. On April 8, Columbia voters will consider the Smart Sentencing Initiative, a proposal to make three important changes in city ordinances concerning marijuana possession. The initiative legalizes "medical" possession upon the recommendation of a physician, reduces the penalties for non-medical possession by setting a maximum fine of $25 for the first offense, and directs city officials to handle all such issues in municipal court. Under existing law, possession of up to 35 grams is a Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, with such cases frequently referred to state courts. For people like me, who support the full legalization of marijuana, the initiative is a welcome but minor step in the right direction. The initiative will not have a major impact on marijuana prohibition because both state and federal laws will continue to outlaw possession and sale of marijuana. This means the marijuana market will remain underground, with numerous undesirable consequences. The initiative nevertheless draws attention to the folly of prohibition and signals politicians that many voters support marijuana legalization. For those who oppose marijuana legalization, the initiative might seem less appealing. In fact, the initiative makes sense even for those who support marijuana prohibition. To begin, the initiative does not constitute a radical change in enforcement of marijuana laws. Rather, it makes official what already occurs regarding possession of small amounts. Few people arrested for such possession ever serve time in jail. Instead, they pay a fine and receive probation or a continuation without a finding, subject to "good" behavior for a period after the arrest. The main effect of the current law, therefore, is to force police, prosecutors and judges to spend valuable time making arrests and dealing with the associated administrative and bureaucratic tasks rather than focusing on serious crime. The Smart Sentencing Initiative means police can sanction small-scale marijuana possession with a fine, as occurs now for many traffic violations. This is in practice what already occurs at much higher administrative cost. In a study I completed recently in connection with decriminalization proposals in Massachusetts, I estimated decriminalization would save the state about $24 million per year in police resources. The savings to Columbia would be a fraction of that total given the smaller scale of police enforcement, but the proportional savings should be similar - about 1.7 percent of the expenditure on police. A second benefit of the initiative, even for those who support marijuana prohibition, is to "make the punishment fit the crime." Under current law, people found in violation can have their cases referred to state court, where a conviction means loss of access to federal student loans. This is a severe penalty for someone whose only offense is, say, possession of a single joint, especially since convictions for rape or robbery do not eliminate eligibility for federal financial aid. Under the initiative, "youthful indiscretions" do not have permanent consequences on a person's ability to pursue higher education. The initiative also makes sense for anyone who accepts that people with severe illnesses should be permitted to use marijuana when a physician believes such use constitutes effective treatment. By allowing possession for those who have the recommendation of a physician, the initiative puts marijuana on the same footing as morphine and cocaine, two prohibited drugs that can be legally prescribed by doctors under appropriate conditions. The main concern of those who oppose the initiative is fear that decriminalization will increase marijuana use. Existing evidence, however, based on decriminalization in numerous cities, states and countries over several decades, provides little indication that decriminalization increases marijuana use. This result might seem surprising because standard economic principles suggest that lowering the penalties for marijuana possession should increase use. The reconciliation between this perspective and actual experience is that decriminalization typically ratifies what has already taken place in the form of reduced enforcement of marijuana laws. The same situation likely applies in Columbia, so marijuana use is unlikely to increase because of changes embodied in the initiative. The Smart Sentencing Initiative is therefore a sensible modification of existing law even for those opposed to marijuana legalization. Some might nevertheless oppose the initiative on the grounds that decriminalization is the first step down a slippery slope toward full legalization. Would that it were true! In fact, the decriminalization experiments that occurred in 11 states during the 1970s were followed by an enormous escalation of the war on drugs over the subsequent two decades. And the de jure and de facto decriminalization experiences of many other countries have had no discernible effect in pushing the United States away from prohibition. Indeed, decriminalization of the kind embodied in the Smart Sentencing Initiative probably weakens support for legalization, since it eliminates the most extreme practices of prohibition, thereby reducing the outrage associated with these excesses. This might give legalizers reason to pause but should reassure those who are worried about slippery slopes. In sum, the Smart Sentencing Initiative is a modest change in current practice that better aligns the benefits and costs of marijuana prohibition. Columbia voters of all persuasions should be proud to vote in favor in April. - --- MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart