A FINE TO FIT THE CRIME

A Longmont group is pushing to reduce the penalty for pot possession
and hopes to get people talking along the way by Dana Logan

"Penalties against a drug should not be more damaging to an individual
than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this more clear than in
the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use.
The National Commission on Marijuana and Abuse concluded years ago
that marijuana use should be decriminalized, and I believe it is time
to implement those basic recommendations. Therefore, I support
legislation amending federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal
penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana." -
President Jimmy Carter to Congress, 1977

Standing before Longmont City Council on May 19, a group calling
themselves "Free Marijuana in Longmont" proposed a new city ordinance
that would change the way Longmont residents are punished for
possession of small amounts of marijuana. Under state law, adults who
are found to be in possession of less than an ounce of marijuana face
a citation for which they must appear in court and a pay up to a $100
fine.

At the meeting, Free Marijuana in Longmont asked City Council to
reduce that penalty to a $5 fine within Longmont city limits.

"Longmont, being a home-rule town, can pretty much do whatever it
wants to do. And that's why this is an opportunity for Longmont to
step up to the plate and to say, you're right, this is a ridiculous
thing that's been happening. Here's something we can do about it right
now," says Bo Shaffer, outreach director for the Front Range chapter
of NORML (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws).
Shaffer is also advocating for the group Free Marijuana in Longmont
and their goals.

"The City Council could save us a whole lot of trouble by stepping up
to the plate and dealing with this, but we don't really anticipate
that they will. If the City Council doesn't do it, or votes it down,
we have to go to a petitioning process and put it on the ballot,"
Shaffer says.

And Shaffer is right to anticipate that City Council won't be stepping
forward on this issue.

"I don't think we will. I can only speak for myself, I can't speak for
other council members, but I think we're satisfied with current law.
It seems to be working well. I'd like to maintain what we have and not
reduce the penalties," says City Councilwoman Karen Benker, Ward II.

"We have so many very important pressing issues facing us right now -
primarily economic because of the severe recession that we're in - and
I just think we need to be spending our time working on ways to try to
keep Longmont businesses afloat and to provide services to our
residents. Those are my priorities right now, and I have a feeling
most council members share that view," she says.

Mary Blue, council member at large, concurs. She says that it hasn't
been an agenda item and she doesn't foresee that it will be.

"I have heard no council member propose that we make any changes at
this point. I don't see any reason to change what we have, knowing
what I know," says Blue. "We've got a lot of other things on our plate
right now. It's not rising up as something that will benefit that many
people."

And Councilwoman Benker points out that she thinks residents of
Longmont are content with the way things are, too.

"When you're on City Council, you don't do public-opinion surveys. But
I've had a couple of e-mails from local residents and my sense is that
Longmont residents are satisfied with current law," says Benker.

But Mason Tvert, executive director of SAFER (Safer Alternative For
Enjoyable Recreation) says that support for reform of marijuana laws
is growing. In fact, he says that in a recent statewide vote to reform
marijuana laws, 41 percent of Coloradans were in favor of reform (not
enough to change the law), but a majority of Longmont residents voted
in favor of change.

"I think that there's not just growing support on the issue - we are
starting to see majorities in many places - but also growing momentum
in the discussion in terms of how often it's being discussed. And a
lot of people, as it's being discussed, begin to re-evaluate their
opinions on it. We're going to see some major changes, and it's just a
matter of time before there's momentum in the legislature," says
Tvert, who is not affiliated with the group Free Marijuana in Longmont.

But since Longmont's City Council does not appear to agree that
sentiment is changing, Free Marijuana in Longmont is moving forward to
ask residents directly by putting it on November's ballot. In order to
get the issue in front of voters, they have to collect 3,485
signatures, but before that even, they must submit a petition to get
those signatures.

"They've turned a petition form into me for me to approve it," says
Valerie Skitt, Longmont's city clerk. "I have until Friday (June 5) to
give them approval on the form they've turned in, and then if they
have to make any corrections, then they have to resubmit it until I
give them final approval on the actual form before they start
collecting signatures. There are some technical things that they
probably have to take one more shot at it, but they're close. They
will be able to start collecting signatures, it's just a matter of
when - whether it's a week from now or 10 days from now or whatever,"
Skitt explains.

But the "when," it turns out, is a crucial element.

"One of the issues with Longmont that makes it more difficult than
other cities is that there's a set window when you're able to collect
signatures and that makes things a little more difficult," says Tvert.

In fact, once their petition is approved by Skitt, Free Marijuana in
Longmont can begin collecting signatures. But once the first person
signs on the line, the group has only 21 days to collect the remaining
3,484 autographs to get the issue on the ballot and turn it back in to
the city clerk. And, on top of that time constraint, there's another.

"If they want to get it on November's ballot, I'd probably need those
[signatures] no later than the third week in July or so," says Skitt.
Shaffer says that given the time limits they have to conform to, they
are gearing up to go ahead with this.

"With a lot of ballot initiative efforts, one of the hardest elements
is collecting enough signatures, and I certainly hope that that's
something that they're able to do. It becomes an expensive and
time-consuming effort," says Tvert.

But whether or not the initiative passes, or even gets on the ballot,
Shaffer says that the main goal is to open up a dialogue.

"What we're trying to do is bring notice to the cause. We're trying to
basically normalize how people think about marijuana. It's time we got
it out of the criminal realm and started treating it like it is. It's
a substance just like caffeine and alcohol and all these other things.
Making people criminals for using it is one of the more outrageous
things that's going on in our society," Shaffer says.

"Our idea with this is, not necessarily that it's that important to
reduce the fine from $100 to $5, but it gets people talking about it,
gets it out there. Let's get the truth out so that people can make a
decision and not be listening to all this rhetoric that's been passed
out for the last 70 years," he says.

And each time marijuana laws are challenged, more perspectives are
allowed to be considered as part of the conversation.

"I think it's always a good thing to have people talking about it and
sharing their opinion about it. Because the more people talk about it,
the more reasonable people tend to recognize it's a serious issue and
one where there's a fairly simple solution and one that we can reach
soon," says Tvert.

Shaffer is convinced that the time has come to find the
solution.

"There are 14 states now with medical marijuana. There are several
states that are considering full-out legalization and taxation. It's
time to go there. It's time to move away from making criminals out of
people who aren't hurting anyone," Shaffer says.

In fact, Shaffer says that they've had the plan on the drawing board
for nearly two years and had hoped to propose a similar initiative in
Boulder last year, but didn't have the personnel to make it happen.
But he claims that the current social and political climate makes this
an excellent time to bring the issue to the forefront. He cites the
May 18 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that denied an appeal by two
California counties that refused to implement the state's medical
marijuana laws. The court's action clears the way for states to
legalize non-medical use of marijuana despite federal prohibition of
the drug.

In addition to the court's decision, the Obama administration's new
drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, recently stated that the U.S. needs to get
rid of the idea that we are fighting a war on drugs. He believes this
is a crucial element in making a shift toward favoring treatment over
incarceration. Both of these recent occurrences convince Shaffer that
the timing could be perfect for Longmont to set an example for the
rest of Colorado, as well as states across the country.

"The drug czar has come out and said, we need to end the drug war;
it's not working. We need to remove it from the criminal realm and put
it into the medical realm. That's the bottom line and the truth of the
matter," says Shaffer.

But despite the admission by the Obama administration's drug czar that
the matter should be medical and not criminal, for now at least, it's
still a police matter.

Commander Tim Lewis of the Longmont Police Department says that
citations for marijuana are quite common. According to the Longmont
Police Department, between June 1, 2008, and May 31, 2009, there were
233 summons issued for marijuana possession.

"I think it's common across the country," says Lewis. "It's not that
police are out looking for it. It's usually aberrant behavior that
brings the attention to law enforcement. We don't have time to be
looking for simple possession charges, and that's not where we're
putting our resources. But there's usually criminal aberrant behavior
that draws police's attention to that individual, and then you find a
violation of law."

But even though he says that police don't go looking for simple
possession, he also says that there's a different side of the pot
debate that he thinks gets overlooked.

"There's a lot of rhetoric on the subject. There are a lot of people
that believe that it's a harmless substance, that it doesn't create
any harm or any impairment. And unfortunately, in the world that I am,
I see the people that use it and are influenced by it and the
decisions they make and the violence that comes from it. We're seeing
50-, 60-year-old people that still use it, and they're very happy with
it. But I also see a very dark side of that world and it has nothing
to do with it being illegal. It has to do with people that are using
it and the decisions they make based on their desire for it," Lewis
says.

But he also admits that a person who has less than an ounce in their
pocket standing on the street corner is not, in and of itself, a
threat to public safety. Commander Lewis is concerned about what that
person does when they are under the influence of the drug - driving a
vehicle, for instance.

But the proposed change to Longmont's city code wouldn't condone or
allow driving under the influence of marijuana; it would simply make
the penalty for mere possession an extremely minimal fine.

And Lewis says that despite any reservations he may have over the
potential change, if this proposal were to become law, the Longmont
police would uphold the law.

"Those decisions are made by legislators, by the citizens, by
constitutional amendments, and then we follow them as others decide
they want them enforced. We are sworn to uphold the Constitution of
the United States, the state of Colorado and city ordinances, and
whatever those are, we uphold them and support them and follow through
with an oath," says Lewis.

Ultimately, though, he says that the change would have little impact
on how law enforcement carries out their job.

"It sounds like it still would be a violation. We'd have to see what
it is once it's passed. If [the change is] only on the fine then
that'll impact the courts, not what we do," he says.

And as Commander Lewis points out, until voters have had their say,
it's hard to know what's in store for Longmont residents and marijuana
reform.

"What matters is that we get the issue out; people see it, people
start to think about it and start to find out the truth," says
Shaffer. "It's a small step towards a bigger issue, but why we're
behind it is to open up dialogue."