COUNCIL PASSES POT LAW CHANGES

The Columbia City Council heard arguments Monday night in favor of and
against proposed changes to the city's marijuana ordinance and decided
in favor of the amendments.

"With this law, our police department is telling us they are
uncomfortable with how this law was written, and we as a city should
listen to our police department," said Randy Minchew, a representative
of the Columbia Police Officers' Association, which helped draft the
amendments. The council voted 6-1 in favor of changing the ordinance
to make repeat offenders and other state and federal offenders exempt
from the current marijuana laws in the city.

The current ordinance makes possession of less than 35 grams of
marijuana within the city of Columbia a misdemeanor offense rather
than a felony like it is in the rest of the state.

The dissenting vote came from Sixth Ward Councilman Brian Ash. Before
the meeting, Ash expressed concerns about the method the council was
using to change the ordinance.

"I don't have a problem with the changes per se, but the thing that
I'm struggling with is, should the council modify something voted on
by the people?" he said. "I wasn't a fan of the ordinance when it got
passed, but once the people have spoken, the people should be the ones
to change it." Dan Viets, a board member of the Columbia Alliance for
Patients and Education, the group that introduced the original
marijuana initiative, addressed concerns like Ash's during the council
meeting. "These amendments are significant because if not for CAPE
asking for this amendment, it would be improper for the council to
act," Viets said. "Our help in creating these amendments creates a
reasonable exemption to the unwritten rule that the council shouldn't
tamper with things that voters pass." Mayor Darwin Hindman also
addressed these concerns. He said the city charter had "good, solid
reasons" to allow the council to change laws passed by
initiatives.

"For an initiative, you have to have all sorts of things, but there's
not much room for flexibility," Hindman said. "Sometimes the
initiatives need changes, and the people need their representatives to
tweak it some after experience with the law." Ash said the overlying
democratic principles couldn't be disputed by the arguments presented,
and therefore he couldn't, in good conscience, vote for the amendments.

"Even though I'm not in favor of the ordinance overall, I think it
sets a dangerous precedent for the council to be changing things the
people decide," Ash said.

Before the meeting, First Ward Councilwoman Almeta Crayton said she
was unsure how she would vote on the bill because she had just begun
to consider it. Crayton expressed concern during the meeting that the
amendments would keep the law from being applied equally to everyone.

"We need to make it clear to the public what these laws mean and what
the people's rights are," she said. "I'm very anti-drug, and I don't
think it's fair that someone with a crack-cocaine violation gets the
book thrown at them while a person with a marijuana violation walks
around free." Tony Nenninger, an MU law student who testified before
the council, said he was also afraid the laws would not be applied
equally to everyone. "There would be disparate racial effects to these
laws," he said. "A large percentage of former convicts are young black
males. Voters didn't intend for marijuana prohibition ordinances to
affect these peoples' lives. This is a modern Jim Crow law, and we
should be aware of that." Viets said he was happy the council passed
the ordinance because there would be no more worries about the entire
ordinance being scrapped. "We realize we're giving up some of what
we've won in exchange for not losing the whole thing," he said.