UNIVERSITY'S MARIJUANA POLICY ALREADY SENSIBLE

The Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate on Sunday passed a resolution
that called for Tufts' disciplinary policy on marijuana usage to
mirror recent changes to Massachusetts' drug laws. Drafted in part by
members of the student organization Tufts Students for Sensible Drug
Policy (SSDP), the resolution seeks to mitigate the university's
penalty for being caught with marijuana.

The TCU Senate declared that the punishment for being caught with one
ounce or less of marijuana should match the penalties of the
Commonwealth, which currently treats the offense as a civil offense
punishable by a small fine. While the Daily supports the fundamental
argument made by SSDP and the Senate, we recognize that, in practice,
Tufts is already ahead of the curve.

Until 2008, Massachusetts treated possession of marijuana as a
criminal offense. In the November 2008 elections, voters approved a
sensible marijuana policy that decriminalized possession of less than
one ounce of marijuana, replacing arrest with a $100 fine for
offenders over 18. The penalties for growing, selling or distributing
marijuana, however, are still treated as felony offenses in
Massachusetts. The new policy did not seek to legalize marijuana or
make it more easily available, but merely aimed to make the
punishment less severe for a rather common infraction that many agree
does not warrant arrest.

The state views possession of small amounts of marijuana as less
offensive than criminal offenses, and so should Tufts, proponents of
the Senate resolution argue. In theory, they are right: It does not
make sense for the university to treat a student caught with
marijuana the same way it would deal with a student implicated in
what the state views as a more serious crime, such as underage drinking.

But Tufts' penalty for marijuana usage is already lenient -- perhaps
more so than the Commonwealth's. At Tufts, being caught in possession
of marijuana on campus currently results in placement on Disciplinary
Probation One, or "pro-one." Yet despite the fact that Tufts imposes
an equivalent punishment for small amounts of marijuana possession
and underage drinking -- an offense which is criminal in
Massachusetts -- the university's policy is fair: Students who are
placed on pro-one for marijuana possession can have that designation
lifted after meeting with a university health official, and pro-one
never goes on one's academic transcript. In fact, Dean of Student
Affairs Bruce Reitman told the Daily that he believed that no student
has been disciplined for marijuana use this year. Such facts make it
clear that the university is relatively lenient for an offense that,
off the Hill, could result in fines.

Supporters of a weaker policy make a valid argument that future
employers and graduate schools might ask whether one was ever
disciplined as an undergraduate. Most employers, however, ask about
criminal infractions, not university-imposed disciplinary infractions.

For so many students to sign SSDP's petition -- 500 in three days --
means that a sensible drug policy is clearly an issue about which
many people care. And the fact that the motion to fundamentally shift
how the administration views marijuana possession made it this far
demonstrates that there is some logic behind the idea. We agree that
if Massachusetts views a certain crime as a minor issue, then
institutions in that state should adopt the same policy as well.

But it is clear that Tufts does view possession of small amounts of
marijuana as a minor issue, in practice if not in theory. Thus, while
the Senate resolution and SSDP's arguments are valid and the
university should change its marijuana policy to align with state
law, let's be honest: Possessing small amounts of marijuana is not
treated at all harshly at Tufts. In the books, our drug policies
should be sensible, but in practice, they already are.