HIGH ON SELF

The August 30 editorial, "New law provokes toke," levies the charge of
moral error against proponents of a city ordinance that would change the
way first-time marijuana offenders are handled by both the Police
Department and the justice system.

As I see it, the ordinance exists largely outside the moral realm. This
ordinance is about saving law enforcement and the courts and, thusly, the
taxpayers (e.g. students, residents, citizens, all of us), money.

Simultaneously, the law enforcement community will be able to focus limited
resources on investigating and prosecuting more serious crimes that take
place in our fair town such as rape, domestic violence, and theft to name a
few.

Despite all of the erroneous charges made in the August 30 editorial, which
range from increased drug use to a full blown, pot-fueled, population boom,
the laws prohibiting the sale, use, and possession of marijuana will remain
unchanged and fully enforced.

The ordinance will not result in the legalization of marijuana, nor its
decriminalization for that matter. The argument made in the editorial piece
is faulty and completely misses the point of the ordinance, to save us (the
taxpayers) money and to potentially save students' academic lives.

Let's start with the plea for understanding for "those students who need
financial aid who didn't get caught with pot." According to the editorial,
the ordinance would make it "possible for a student without a drug
conviction to get passed up for student loans by a student with a drug
conviction." This is a half truth at best.

The student with the conviction would be more eligible for the loan if and
only if his/her financial need was greater than that of the conviction-free
student. I don't think that there exists a single case in which someone
with genuine financial need loses out on federal aid dollars because those
funds were given to some red-eyed dope fiend that is equally financially
eligible instead.

Student loans, especially need-based loans, are disbursed to most every
needy student. From time to time someone who has made a mistake in their
past, though needy, does not and cannot qualify for federal aid, regardless
of the steps in the present they are taking to make good choices and like
seeking higher education.

But, as I have previously stated, this is not a moral issue but one of
economics and efficient public services. So, just for fun let's make an
alternative moral argument to that which was presented in the August 30
editorial. This is an argument that can be made although it need not be, as
the ordinance has intentions other than dictating public morality.

Let's say that Herbert T. Dopesmoker is the first from his poor family to
attend college, much less KU. Herb is completely reliant on Federal Student
Aid and an assortment of grants to fund his education. He is an excellent
student, and progressing quickly towards his double major in education and
political science.

During his senior year, while hosting a party at his apartment, the
Lawrence Police show up to end the shin-dig, in the course of which they
find a pipe and a very small amount of the drug, "Marijuana."

Both the pipe and the drugs are not even his despite his extremely ironic
name, he's never even tried "the pot", but they are in his house. Under the
current system Herb goes directly to jail, does not pass go ("Lawrence is
not a monopoly game," remember? Of course you do.), and loses a lot more
than two hundred dollars.

His financial aid is cut, his grants are rescinded, and Herb can no longer
afford to go to college any longer, so he drops out. He is convicted and is
now, not only permanently haunted by his criminal record, but is also more
than fifty thousand dollars in debt, a debt which he has no real prospects
of paying off any time soon, essentially sentencing him to years of menial
labor at low wages. Why? A little pot, a lot of bad luck, and because he
and his family are not rich enough to pay his way out of the hole he fell
in to.

Does a system that can turn one mistake, one misjudgment, or some
misfortune into a lifetime of debt or deprive one of the opportunities
afforded the recipients of a college education on such grounds seem a
little immoral to you? It does to me.

Under the proposed ordinance this unfortunate series of events is largely
averted. Herb will no doubt have to work hard to pay off the court fees and
fines assessed to him, he may have to borrow more money to do so, but at
least he might be able to fulfill the potential within himself, and someday
repay society for leniency and understanding he was shown by a SENSIBLE
policy towards first-time offenders.

It may be easy to sit back and claim to have the moral high ground, to pass
down judgment from afar, to harbor opinions based on a conception of
concrete, uniformly applicable morality that exists only in the abstract,
however, the world is made up of shades and touches of gray, and this
ordinance is a recognition of that. Compassion and empathy are virtues that
are important parts of our character, both individually and socially. Our
policies should reflect these virtues.

MIKE PETERSON

Lenexa - Senior