MARIJUANA LAW

Unequal Enforcement

Columbia voters passed a new law earlier this month lessening punishment
for marijuana offenses, but the law is being ignored by most law
enforcement agencies making arrests in the city.

Despite the stated intent of Columbia residents that all misdemeanor
marijuana cases be sent to city court, arrest cases handled by the highway
patrol and the sheriff and repeat-offender cases handled by University of
Missouri police are sent to the county prosecutor for resolution in the
state court system, where implications are harsher for convicted offenders.

Highway patrol and sheriff's officers say they are legally empowered to
enforce state laws and do not have authority to file cases in city courts.
Attorney Dan Viets, a primary proponent of the new law, is researching
whether the city law prevails for arrests made within city boundaries.

My hunch is the new law only is binding on city police, but even if not
obliged, could other officers send cases to city court if they want?

Obviously, that practice would comply with the legally stated intent of
Columbia voters, who decided these arrests made within the city should go
to city court.

By ignoring this intent, one can argue police are creating a system of
unequal enforcement within city boundaries. People committing identical
crimes should not be subject to different standards of justice based merely
on the identity of the arresting agency.

Contrarily, police officers might say the odd city law causes the inequity,
and they have a point. Just because whimsical Columbia voters want to
reduce marijuana penalties doesn't mean authorities representing larger
state or county jurisdictions must comply.

But, the other side says, we're talking about what happens within city
boundaries. When an officer, including a Columbia police officer, makes an
arrest outside, obviously state laws will apply. But inside, regardless of
who is making the arrest, city laws should apply.

So the debate goes, apparently not headed for a resolution suitable to
supporters of the new law.

If you ask me - and nobody has recently - I've got a slick way to avoid
this double-standard: Legalize use and sale of the weed and be done with it.

Clearly, that would establish a single standard. Also it would eliminate a
lot of wasteful, unproductive law enforcement activity. And it would
declassify as criminals hordes of ordinary citizens engaged in private
activity clearly less harmful to society than drinking alcoholic beverages.

To prohibit marijuana while living happily with legalized booze is the
height of societal hypocrisy and foolishness. This disparity exists only
because mainline society is not upset enough about drug - even marijuana -
prohibition, not because the odd configuration of the laws makes any sense.

Drug prohibition laws in general cause most of the crime and jail crowding
in America and cost citizens billions of dollars, a gusher law enforcement
is quite happy to continue receiving.

But I digress. Given the odds, I doubt the new marijuana law ever will be
equally enforced. The best we can hope for is that city police will not get
in the habit of transferring authority to one of the other agencies, thus
flouting the law in their own jurisdiction.

So far city cases seem to be going to city court, and despite moderate
expressions of skepticism by their chief, we should expect city police will
perform in straightforward compliance.

We have good debates around here, and then, regardless of their personal
opinions, our officials act responsibly or they do not persist among us.