Pubdate: Thu, 21 Jun 2012
Source: Chicago Tribune (IL)
Copyright: 2012 Chicago Tribune Company
Contact: http://drugsense.org/url/IuiAC7IZ
Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/82

'A SLIPPERY SLOPE'

When a Proposed Marijuana Ordinance Is a Proxy for a Different Debate

With Chicago's murder rate up 35 percent and the city too broke to 
hire more cops, a plan to ticket people caught with small amounts of 
marijuana instead of arresting them suddenly has wings.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has given it his blessing. Chicago police 
Superintendent Garry McCarthy says the proposed ordinance would free 
up more than 20,000 hours of police time for more pressing concerns. 
It could save $1 million in enforcement costs and generate millions 
more in fines. Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle says 
minor possession cases clog the criminal justice system and affect 
poor and minority families disproportionately.

A majority of aldermen already have signed on to the proposal, which 
could go before the full City Council next week. What's not to love?

So thank you, Ald. Ed Burke, 14th, for urging your colleagues to stop 
and think.

"I'm not saying we shouldn't do this," says Burke, a former Chicago 
cop. "I'm saying there's a lot of questions that should be answered." Amen.

A day after Burke applied the brakes to this discussion, the mayor's 
team answered with a revised plan that includes higher fines - a 
minimum of $250, up from $100 - and a promise that juveniles would 
not avoid arrest if caught with marijuana. Answering another concern 
raised by Burke, Emanuel said anyone who couldn't produce 
identification also would be arrested rather than issued a ticket.

The mayor said he hopes those tweaks will help reluctant aldermen get 
"comfortable" with his plan. We're not so sure.

We understand the arguments in favor of decriminalizing marijuana. 
Nationwide, roughly 9 in 10 marijuana arrests are for possession 
only. Most are dismissed or plea-bargained to lesser charges, calling 
into question the cost-effectiveness of arresting and prosecuting 
small-time users. Governments that have decriminalized those cases 
report little to no increase in marijuana use, and significant 
savings in enforcement.

But lately the liberalization of marijuana laws has been driven not 
by criminal justice concerns, but by pot's potential as a revenue 
source for governments. Prosecuting people for possession costs 
money; ticketing them brings in money. This would be an easy vote for 
aldermen if cash were the only consideration. It isn't.

"This is a slippery slope that we begin sliding down," Burke says.

Ald. James Balcer, 11th, who chairs the Public Safety Committee, 
echoed that sentiment, right down to the words "slippery slope." We 
trust his committee will weigh the concerns of Burke and others 
instead of waving this ordinance through.

Under this plan, cops would have the option of writing a ticket for 
possession of 15 grams or less of marijuana. (That's roughly equal to 
the amount of tobacco in a pack of 20 filtered cigarettes.) Fines 
would range from $250 to $500, and a second citation in 30 days would 
automatically warrant the maximum fine. An officer could choose to 
make an arrest under a state drug statute instead, charging the 
person with a misdemeanor that carries a possible six months in jail 
and a $1,500 fine.

How would that decision be made?

"The Police Department has to show us, I think, that they are not 
just going to blindly issue tickets to everybody that's in possession 
of small amounts," Burke says. He wants guidelines to help cops 
determine which situations call for more serious charges.

"We have to make sure it's specific, they follow the ordinance to the 
letter and there is no gray area," says Ald. Anthony Beale, 9th. Yes, 
the public deserves assurances that the ordinance will be applied 
consistently. We're not sure how to square that with the notion of 
officer discretion.

We're glad to hear the ordinance would not apply to juveniles. Giving 
a kid a glimpse of the criminal justice system for a minor offense is 
not a waste of resources. It can provide him or her with a dose of 
tough love or a referral to substance abuse counseling. It sends a 
message that we take our laws seriously.

But having a different set of rules beginning at age 17 still sends 
the wrong message to young people.

Generations of Americans have argued over whether marijuana is a 
gateway to more serious drugs. They're still arguing. There's no 
doubt that it's a gateway to other kinds of trouble. It's illegal, 
remember? It makes lawbreakers out of law-abiding citizens and 
exposes them to other lawbreakers - not just the ones who smoke but 
the ones who traffic, speaking of slippery slopes. A law that winks 
at marijuana possession also invites risky behaviors like driving 
while impaired, which is doubly worrisome when inexperienced drivers 
are involved.

What are we telling our kids by making possession a ticketing 
offense? That pot is harmless? That prosecuting people over a joint 
or two (or 20) is excessive? That sounds like an argument for 
legalization, not for lower penalties, but we're not ready to go 
there and we don't think Chicagoans are, either.

Until grown-ups resolve their ambivalence about marijuana, they can't 
help but send mixed signals to the kids. That's what this ticketing 
proposal does.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom