MARIJUANA LAW ON BOOKS BUT NEVER IMPLEMENTED

Marijuana law on books but never implemented Sheriff's office
continues to arrest, rather than ticket, minor offenders

Nearly a year after the Cook County Board passed a controversial
ordinance allowing sheriff's police to ticket pot smokers for minor
possession instead of arresting them, police have yet to issue a single ticket.

County commissioners made headlines last July when they quietly
passed the ordinance that gave officers the choice to either arrest
people in unincorporated areas possessing 10 grams or less of
marijuana, or to hand out tickets for $200 within the county's
unincorporated areas.

The ordinance was the idea of Commissioner Earlean Collins, who said
she was spurred by the arrest of her grandson for possessing "half a joint."

Sheriff Tom Dart, who says he was never consulted before the measure
was passed, has long been skeptical of the ordinance's impact. With
Dart's office making only about a dozen or so arrests each year --
and none made so far this year -- his office says the ordinance won't
alleviate the county's overworked court system or act as a cash cow,
two points made by Collins and other supporters of the ordinance. Get
the Chicago Tribune delivered to your home for only $1 a week)

"Writing tickets to maybe 10 (or) 12 people a year won't bring in the
types of revenues I think some are expecting," said Steve Patterson,
a spokesman for Dart. "And it certainly won't unclog our courts
system, as has been contended."

The ordinance, which was championed by legalization supporters, first
hit a snag after a county board committee rejected a request by Dart
to extend the ticket-writing power to wherever sheriff's officers
patrol. This would have included south suburban Ford Heights, which
Dart's office patrols because the village doesn't have its own police force.

Without the change, Dart's office says that a pot user in Ford
Heights must be arrested, while another user across the street in an
unincorporated area could merely get a ticket.

"The issue is that it sets up two sets of laws for our officers to
enforce. That's a problem," Patterson said.

Board members say there's nothing stopping Dart's officers from
enforcing the new law. But Dart has vowed not to enforce the law
unless the board tailors the ordinance.

"We do not plan to write tickets in one place and arrest people in
another. Unless it's uniform, we will act as we always have, which is
arrest. The ordinance gives us the discretion to choose. So we'll
choose to continue acting as we always have," Patterson said.

The latest marijuana-related roadblock comes at a time when cities
across the country are discussing allowing the use of medicinal
marijuana, and, as California is contemplating, total
decriminalization and taxation of marijuana.

Legalization advocates support Cook County's measure, though they and
civil libertarians have concerns that police discretion could lead to
racial profiling. Dan Linn, executive director of the state chapter
of the National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws was optimistic
that the county's ordinance would be a gateway for Chicago's
long-stalled proposal to ticket small-time pot users, but he viewed
the discretion aspect as its fatal flaw.

"I think it was well-intentioned, but it could have been done better
politically, so you don't have these open-to-interpretation arrests.
I think writing a ticket instead of arrests is a much better option,"
Linn said.

While not taking a stance on legalization, Ed Yohnka, spokesman for
the local American Civil Liberties Union, agreed that discretion
could disproportionately affect young men of color.

Yohnka pointed out several studies that showed minorities are
generally arrested and serve more jail time for marijuana possession,
though they use it at the same levels as whites. In New York, for
example, a study showed that that 87 percent of the city's marijuana
arrests were of African-Americans and Latinos.

"Every stop along the way, there are concerns about discretion and
the way it is used. It's not an unjust concern," he said.