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