POT LAW A BUST, CRITICS SAY

Repeal Would Save City of Cincinnati $350,000 Annually

As Cincinnati City Council frets about how to close a $62 million
budget deficit, some local activists are asking officials to consider
repealing an ordinance they say isn't enforced evenly and wastes
taxpayers' money.

Critics allege that city's Anti-Marijuana Ordinance is being used to
target specific races and is adding to the city's crippling budget deficit.

"When the ordinance was first passed, they said it was just to give
police broader leeway to pull people over and search for guns," says
activist Justin Jeffre. "However, it has had no effect on the guns in
the city and has actually resulted in less guns being found."

The ordinance, which criminalizes possessing a small amount of
marijuana, was first introduced by then-City Councilman David Pepper
in 2005, while he was preparing for a mayoral campaign.

Initially there was little support and it was dropped.

About a year later, Democrat Cecil Thomas (pictured) - a retired
Cincinnati police officer - was elected to council and revived the
proposal. He was joined in lobbying for passage by Councilwoman
Leslie Ghiz, a Republican. At the time, those who spoke out against
the increased penalty included then-Councilman Jim Tarbell, Hamilton
County Commissioner Todd Portune, some judges and Libertarians.

After much debate, council approved the ordinance by a 6-2 vote in
March 2006 for a one-year trial basis. Besides Thomas and Ghiz,
supporters were Chris Bortz, Laketa Cole, John Cranley and Chris Monzel.

In 2006, Thomas said the measure was meant to discourage people from
Northern Kentucky, Indiana and surrounding communities in Ohio from
coming to Cincinnati to buy pot, along with allowing police to more
readily conduct full body searches of people they suspect of carrying
guns. After the year-long tryout, statistics showed the reduction in
out-of-state residents buying pot here was minimal - less than 1
percent - but costs to prosecute the cases more than doubled.

Portune asked City Council not to extend the law indefinitely,
stating some judges had approached him privately and complained that
the tougher penalties were clogging up court time that could be spent
dealing with more serious crimes.

"As we have examined the issue of jail overcrowding, I have been
approached by numerous members of the county judiciary who have
complained that the legislation was unnecessary; inappropriate and a
major contributor to current overcrowding," Portune wrote in a letter
to council.

Nevertheless, council extended the law indefinitely in 2007, this
time in a 7-2 vote. (Councilman Jeff Berding, who was absent the
first time, joined in the yays.) Despite its approval, some council
members who supported it said they would reconsider if its use
increased jail-overcrowding or targeted certain groups.

Today many people are saying exactly those things are happening, but
that council members who support the ordinance aren't listening. An
analysis of data for people arrested under the ordinance between
March 2006 and May 2010 found that 85 percent of them were African
American, despite statistics indicating that marijuana use among
blacks and whites is roughly equal.

Moreover, the data showed the majority of those arrested under the
ordinance weren't charged with more serious offenses, undercutting
Thomas' "getting guns off the streets" rationale.

"They are crowding the jail and targeting certain people, but no one
cares," Jeffre says. "There is a huge difference between the number
of white and black people arrested even though studies show they both
smoke marijuana at the same rate."

Thomas didn't return several calls and e-mails from CityBeat. He's
also been unresponsive to other media about the topic.

Other members of the Hamilton County judicial system, though, are
listening and do have opinions on the issue. Hamilton County Common
Pleas Court Judge Nadine Allen says she can't say whether she
supports the ordinance. But she can see how the ordinance can destroy
a person's life.

Under Ohio law, having 100 grams or less of marijuana is a minor
misdemeanor that results in a citation and $100 fine. Violators don't
get arrested and it doesn't go on the person's criminal record. But
with Cincinnati's ordinance, if a person is caught possessing any
amount of marijuana - no matter how small - he or she is arrested,
charged with a fourth-degree misdemeanor and could face up to 30 days
in jail and a $250 fine. More importantly, the charge goes on their
criminal record, which must be reported when applying for a job or
student loan.

If someone is arrested a second time, the person is charged with a
first-degree misdemeanor and could face up to six months in jail and
a $1,000 fine. Worse, the initial arrest can no longer be expunged.

"You become a convicted drug offender," Allen says. "That will be on
your criminal record for the rest of your life and can cause real
problems for you later on in life."

Some of the problems having a drug conviction can cause include
losing federal financial aid for college, being evicted from
subsidized housing and not being able to get a job.

"People shouldn't lose their lives over a joint," Jeffre says. "The
punishment for a crime shouldn't do more damage than the crime actually did."

Councilman Wendell Young - who also is a retired police officer and
wasn't on council when the ordinance was approved - opposes it
precisely because of the misfortune it is causing people and how
expensive it is to enforce.

"In my opinion, the marijuana ordinance has brought unfair
consequences to the public and has caused them more harm than good,"
Young says. "At the time it was passed, it may have made sense, but
now it doesn't make sense and the city cannot afford to enforce it."

Some of the added expenses due to the ordinance include paying police
officers overtime to appear in court, jail bills, lab fees from the
Coroner's Office and prosecutor's fees.

"If we repealed the ordinance, we would save the city at least
$300,000 annually and that is just the lab and jail space costs,"
Young says. "I think we could save the city more, but the police do
not track their overtime per arrest, so we cannot see how much we are
paying them in overtime to enforce this law."

CityBeat made a public records request to the Cincinnati Police
Department for how much in overtime costs were incurred related to
marijuana arrests but it was denied. Police Sgt. Danita Kilgore, the
department's spokeswoman, said no such report currently exists and
they're not easily quantified.