SA MUST REACH CONSENSUS WITH ADMINISTRATION FIRST

This week, Student Association President Lamar Thorpe vetoed a
resolution urging administrators to equalize sanctions for alcohol
violations and cannabis use. GW officials' apparent refusal to budge
on the rejected legislation is not surprising, as the GW chapter of
the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which
drafted the legislation, never discussed the feasibility of this
measure with GW leaders. The SA's rewrite of this resolution should
only come after consultation with the people in power who can enact change.

Certainly, it is easy to understand the rationale behind the effort
to normalize alcohol and marijuana policy. The current cannabis rules
for GW housing may seem a bit draconian, and NORML presents valid
points regarding the potentially more dangerous consequences of
alcohol use compared with marijuana consumption. This student group's
inability to consult with any administrators, however, closed the
door on any real possibilities for change.

The SA Senate also eroded the failed resolution's credibility by only
subjecting NORML's measure to three hours of debate and no real
scrutiny. The resolution-passing body should have instead tabled the
bill until after Senators met with University officials to confirm
the realistic potential to bring University officials on board for a
major policy change.

Presenting GW's leadership with a poorly planned mandate only sets
the SA and other student groups up for failure. Administrators are
unlikely to acquiesce to student demands when they are not consulted
about realistic avenues for change. Additionally, the SA approaching
the University with this measure would have merely reinforced
administrators' perception that this group is not a body worth dealing with.

Thorpe made a wise decision by vetoing the legislation, aand he has
pledged to work with NORML to draft a new version of the legislation.
During the rewrite, the students working to change campus drug policy
must discuss a realistic avenue for change with administrators who
can make things happen. Without prior consultation, any resolution,
no matter how well-reasoned, will fail.

By the same token, GW officials must remain open and receptive to
discussing this issue, which has recently become a major student
concern. Comments by GW officials indicating that the policy will not
be revisited because of perceived past success are shortsighted,
insofar as they preclude any examination of a policy that could
possibly be working better to help students.

It may be easy to dismiss the push for normalization of cannabis
rules as the clamoring of a student body looking to ease punishments
on drug use; however, administrators should avoid this reaction. The
rationale of SA and NORML leaders raises valid points about D.C. laws
pertaining to marijuana laws versus alcohol regulations and the
health effects of cannabis.

If students involved in this cause make a good-faith effort to reach
out to GW's leaders on the issues, then those in power should make a
good-faith effort to hear student concerns and engage in an open
dialogue about the issue. At the very least, the drafters of a new,
more collaborative resolution deserve a detailed rationale for the
current policy, rather than one that relies on past convention.

It appears as if this important student issue has gotten off on the
wrong foot, with a vetoed SA resolution and a very cool reaction from
administrators. Hopefully, with better execution by student leaders
and increased reception from GW officials, our campus can have an
honest discussion on marijuana policy.