POT ADVOCATES HOPE THIRD TRY PROVES CHARM

Two Marijuana Issues on Columbia Ballot

Penny and Joseph Brotherton live next door to Tina Edholm in a west
Columbia neighborhood, but they're miles apart over two initiatives on the
Nov. 2 ballot to reduce penalties for marijuana possession in the city.

Edholm will vote against the ballot initiatives for the following reason:
"After working with individuals who have had substantial marijuana use,
I've seen how it can destroy their lives. They lack initiative and concern
for their personal well-being."

The Brothertons say that the ballot issues would have police treat
marijuana as what it is: a natural drug safer than alcohol.

Proposition 1 would allow seriously ill people to use marijuana with the
permission of their doctors. If arrested, the highest fine they would have
to pay is $50.

Proposition 2 would make all misdemeanor marijuana arrests civil matters in
municipal court that would net at the most a $250 fine and result in no
criminal record.

The group that placed both issues on the ballot, Columbia Alliance for
Patients and Education, or CAPE, promotes Proposition 2 as a means for
students to keep their government grants even if they are arrested for
having small amounts of marijuana. Both proposals involve marijuana
weighing up to 1 1/4 ounces.

Several prospective voters questioned by the Tribune were unaware of
details of either proposal.

CAPE claims several reasons to be optimistic. The ballot issues have:

. Won endorsements from the board of directors of the Columbia League of
Women Voters.

. Attracted a $50,000 campaign contribution from the Washington, D.C.-based
Marijuana Policy Project, which publicizes initiatives to reduce or
eliminate penalties for marijuana possession.

. The potential to benefit from young voters casting ballots in the
presidential election.

. No organized opposition. That's a contrast with last year, when a similar
proposition on the city ballot drew opposition from local, state and
federal officials. That ballot issue failed 58 percent to 42 percent; a
1985 marijuana proposition in the city failed 57 percent to 43 percent.

Columbia attorney Dan Viets, a leader of CAPE, argues that voting for the
measure only codifies existing Columbia police policy.

Police Chief Randy Boehm, however, said both propositions differ from his
policies. Boehm adopted a rule in April 2003, directing practically all
cases involving just first-time misdemeanor marijuana possession to
municipal court, where violators are subject to fines but not criminal records.

Boehm said Columbia police sometimes send second- or third-time offenders
to state court. They also combine marijuana charges with other charges that
are sent to state courts, and they automatically send marijuana cases to
state court if they're connected with search warrants.

The incongruity between the marijuana initiatives and Boehm's policy is
just one example of many hurdles that proponents face in getting their
issues passed.

That's why Viets is working with University of Missouri-Columbia students
to spread the word at forums in Columbia.

He and others are also are rallying support from patients and students, who
arguably stand the most to gain if the initiatives should pass. Among them
is Christy Welliver, who suffers from multiple sclerosis.

Welliver told the Tribune she has friends with MS who moved to Columbia
from California and learned they could no longer legally purchase marijuana
to treat muscle spasms related to the disease.

In California, patients older than 18 in several cities can receive medical
marijuana cards allowing them to buy marijuana at authorized outlets. Ten
states have legalized the medicinal use of marijuana, according to the
National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, or NORML.

While Welliver said she doesn't use marijuana, she said her legs recently
started to suffer from spasms, making it difficult to bend them to conform
to her wheelchair in the daytime and difficult to straighten her legs so
she can sleep at night.

Welliver and others also argue in favor of Proposition 2, saying the
penalty of having a state or federal criminal record outweighs the
seriousness of being caught with a little bit of marijuana. They contend
that pulling grants from students can force them out of college.

Proposition proponents readily cite research to argue that reducing
penalties for its possession wouldn't make marijuana use more common and
that marijuana is less addictive than nicotine and alcohol.

Despite the absence of a counterpunch to CAPE, one local opponent believes
the measure will fail again because core beliefs in Columbia aren't
consistent with either proposition.

"I don't see much sense in decriminalizing it," said Kim Dude, who is
director of the MU Wellness Resource Center but offered a personal opinion.
Marijuana use "has an effect on short-term memory and has an effect on
motivation, and both of those would be harmful to the college students."