SMART SENTENCING INITIATIVE A STEP FORWARD ON POT POLICY.

On April 8, Columbia voters will consider the Smart Sentencing Initiative,
a proposal to make three important changes in city ordinances concerning
marijuana possession. The initiative legalizes "medical" possession upon
the recommendation of a physician, reduces the penalties for non-medical
possession by setting a maximum fine of $25 for the first offense, and
directs city officials to handle all such issues in municipal court. Under
existing law, possession of up to 35 grams is a Class A misdemeanor
punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine, with such cases
frequently referred to state courts.

For people like me, who support the full legalization of marijuana, the
initiative is a welcome but minor step in the right direction. The
initiative will not have a major impact on marijuana prohibition because
both state and federal laws will continue to outlaw possession and sale of
marijuana. This means the marijuana market will remain underground, with
numerous undesirable consequences. The initiative nevertheless draws
attention to the folly of prohibition and signals politicians that many
voters support marijuana legalization.

For those who oppose marijuana legalization, the initiative might seem less
appealing. In fact, the initiative makes sense even for those who support
marijuana prohibition. To begin, the initiative does not constitute a
radical change in enforcement of marijuana laws. Rather, it makes official
what already occurs regarding possession of small amounts. Few people
arrested for such possession ever serve time in jail. Instead, they pay a
fine and receive probation or a continuation without a finding, subject to
"good" behavior for a period after the arrest.

The main effect of the current law, therefore, is to force police,
prosecutors and judges to spend valuable time making arrests and dealing
with the associated administrative and bureaucratic tasks rather than
focusing on serious crime. The Smart Sentencing Initiative means police can
sanction small-scale marijuana possession with a fine, as occurs now for
many traffic violations. This is in practice what already occurs at much
higher administrative cost.

In a study I completed recently in connection with decriminalization
proposals in Massachusetts, I estimated decriminalization would save the
state about $24 million per year in police resources. The savings to
Columbia would be a fraction of that total given the smaller scale of
police enforcement, but the proportional savings should be similar - about
1.7 percent of the expenditure on police.

A second benefit of the initiative, even for those who support marijuana
prohibition, is to "make the punishment fit the crime." Under current law,
people found in violation can have their cases referred to state court,
where a conviction means loss of access to federal student loans. This is a
severe penalty for someone whose only offense is, say, possession of a
single joint, especially since convictions for rape or robbery do not
eliminate eligibility for federal financial aid. Under the initiative,
"youthful indiscretions" do not have permanent consequences on a person's
ability to pursue higher education.

The initiative also makes sense for anyone who accepts that people with
severe illnesses should be permitted to use marijuana when a physician
believes such use constitutes effective treatment. By allowing possession
for those who have the recommendation of a physician, the initiative puts
marijuana on the same footing as morphine and cocaine, two prohibited drugs
that can be legally prescribed by doctors under appropriate conditions.

The main concern of those who oppose the initiative is fear that
decriminalization will increase marijuana use. Existing evidence, however,
based on decriminalization in numerous cities, states and countries over
several decades, provides little indication that decriminalization
increases marijuana use.

This result might seem surprising because standard economic principles
suggest that lowering the penalties for marijuana possession should
increase use. The reconciliation between this perspective and actual
experience is that decriminalization typically ratifies what has already
taken place in the form of reduced enforcement of marijuana laws. The same
situation likely applies in Columbia, so marijuana use is unlikely to
increase because of changes embodied in the initiative.

The Smart Sentencing Initiative is therefore a sensible modification of
existing law even for those opposed to marijuana legalization. Some might
nevertheless oppose the initiative on the grounds that decriminalization is
the first step down a slippery slope toward full legalization.

Would that it were true! In fact, the decriminalization experiments that
occurred in 11 states during the 1970s were followed by an enormous
escalation of the war on drugs over the subsequent two decades. And the de
jure and de facto decriminalization experiences of many other countries
have had no discernible effect in pushing the United States away from
prohibition.

Indeed, decriminalization of the kind embodied in the Smart Sentencing
Initiative probably weakens support for legalization, since it eliminates
the most extreme practices of prohibition, thereby reducing the outrage
associated with these excesses. This might give legalizers reason to pause
but should reassure those who are worried about slippery slopes.

In sum, the Smart Sentencing Initiative is a modest change in current
practice that better aligns the benefits and costs of marijuana
prohibition. Columbia voters of all persuasions should be proud to vote in
favor in April.