Pubdate: Sun, 16 Feb 2014
Source: Daily Princetonian (NJ Edu)
Copyright: 2014 Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3735

DEFINING A UNIVERSITY MARIJUANA POLICY

Recently, The Daily Princetonian reported on the arrest of a 
University student for the possession of less than 50 grams of 
marijuana and three Ritalin pills. Almost every year, a small number 
of University students have the misfortune of being caught with a 
small amount of marijuana. Given the legal status of the drug, these 
students immediately face strict University punishments as well as 
possible legal repercussions. However, when underage students are 
caught illicitly using alcohol, the University often only issues 
warnings and generally does not compel students to face the criminal 
justice system. Given this inequity as well as national trends 
surrounding marijuana, the Editorial Board believes that the 
University should modify its current policy and lower the level of 
punishment for marijuana possession to that of alcohol violations.

While marijuana is illegal to all and alcohol only to those below the 
legal age, this fact alone should not merit a higher level of 
punishment to those who use the former. The ill effects of alcohol 
are well-established and range from short-term intoxication to 
long-term addiction and even death. In contrast, marijuana does not 
carry with it the same risk of dependency or overdose, despite 
resulting in similar levels of intoxication. However, despite the 
relative safety of marijuana compared to alcohol, offenses of 
possessing the former have a greater negative impact on students.

The first marijuana offense involves probation as well as a permanent 
mark in a student's record, whereas the first alcohol offense simply 
results in a dean's warning. Further, the drug policy tells students 
to expect a suspension after the third drug offense, regardless of 
how small the offense, while a similar outcome results only after 
three of the most egregious of alcohol offenses. Finally, students 
with drug violations may be subject to mandatory state penalties 
while those with alcohol violations are usually only punished in the 
context of the University setting. For example, according to Public 
Safety, from 2010 to 2012, there were no arrests due to liquor law 
violations on campus but 15 for drug violations, of which nine were 
in residential facilities. While it is possible that not all of these 
were exclusively marijuana-related, like the most recent case, the 
fact remains that drugs receive far more severe treatment than 
alcohol. While the Board understands that so! me drugs should be 
punished severely, we maintain that this punishment differential de 
jure is unfair in the case of marijuana and should be amended to 
reflect scientific understanding of its effects.

An initial objection to changing the University policy on marijuana 
might be that such a change would result in backlash against the 
University. However, this consideration is flawed on two fronts. 
First, the University's alteration of its policy would be based in 
concern for the welfare of the students as well as in scientific 
fact. If the University's aim is to promote safety, then it should 
not make use of alcohol, a more dangerous substance, a less risky 
proposition than the use of marijuana. Further, the University's 
policy change is not without precedent. Over the past year, 
successful legalization efforts in Colorado and Washington have led 
other states to question the sensibility of a marijuana ban. 
State-level marijuana industries have even received sanction from the 
Obama administration, and the president himself has equated the 
danger of marijuana to that of alcohol. A change in University policy 
would come on the heels of a growing national movement, one that is ! 
likely to pick up speed in the coming years.

The Board understands that there are other reasons why the use of 
marijuana would be undesirable besides its legal status. Smoking 
constitutes a fire hazard, and the smell of the smoke spreads 
throughout hallways. However, these minor inconveniences hardly 
justify legal action. Though the law still applies on campus, the 
University should not blindly abide by an unfair policy, especially 
as states throughout the nation are starting to overturn it.

Dissent

The Editorial Board validly observes a "punishment differential" 
according to University regulations between disciplines in cases of 
alcohol use and those of marijuana use not reflective of the 
disparity in health risks between the two substances. Yet the 
majority comes to a peculiar conclusion. If the ill effects of 
alcohol are indeed more serious than those of marijuana, why suggest 
similar leniency in discipline for marijuana use instead of proposing 
that alcohol be treated more seriously? It is curious to decry the 
current "inequity" and propose another in its stead. If the 
University were to alter its policy based on the "welfare of the 
students as well as scientific fact," it would make alcohol 
infractions more serious than those for marijuana.

We agree with the Board's recognition that the law applies on campus; 
so why not follow it? As inconvenient as it might be for our social 
lives, the law does restrict the usage of these potentially harmful 
substances. If a student deems the risk worthwhile, he or she is free 
to act as his or her prudence dictates but with full knowledge of 
possible legal consequences. It is in the best interest of the 
University, if it is to serve any nation, to promote among its 
students a respect for the legitimate laws of the land as long as 
they are in effect. That two of the 50 states (neither of which is 
New Jersey) have recently legalized marijuana is not grounds for a 
change in University policy.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom