BALLOT'S MARIJUANA INITIATIVE DESERVES VOTERS' ATTENTION

Columbia voters should carefully examine the marijuana initiative on the
April 8 ballot.

Partly because it was written by Anthony Johnson, a former student of mine
and now a University of Missouri-Columbia law student, I have mulled the
proposal for several months. After speaking with him, reviewing material on
drug policy and seeking the insight of a variety of people around town, I
have been unable to decide which way to vote.

The proposed ordinance would greatly reduce penalties for marijuana
possession in the city. Now, an offender can get up to a year in jail and a
$1,000 fine for possessing 35 grams of marijuana or less. But the ballot
proposal would replace those maximums with fines of $25 for a first
offense, $50 for a second offense, $100 for a third offense and $500 for
subsequent violations. The fines for first offenses are too low.

The proposal would also direct offenses involving less than 35 grams of
marijuana to municipal court rather than state court. This change is
proposed because federal law bars student financial aid to anyone convicted
in state or federal court of selling or possessing drugs. Reportedly 60,000
college students nationwide, and 38 at MU, have lost financial aid for this
reason. This is a valid concern.

Additionally, the proposed ordinance would allow seriously ill citizens to
possess up to 35 grams of marijuana for medical use upon the recommendation
of a physician.

Illicit drugs are bad. People should not use them. I do not understand why
students who spend a lot of time and money putting knowledge and skills
into their heads would mess with their minds by using drugs and alcohol.

But they do. More than one of four high school seniors reportedly use
marijuana at least monthly. Nearly half the population older than 12 is
reported to have tried illegal drugs. "Getting caught" is a matter of bad
luck and poor judgment. For those who are caught, the sanctions imposed can
be much worse than the potential harm from smoking the drug. It's clear
that current drug policies are ineffective. The war on drugs is
increasingly expensive. The number of prisoners in Missouri - though
obviously not all are incarcerated for marijuana offenses - has risen from
15,409 in 1993 to 29,871 this year. State corrections costs have almost
doubled to $565.8 million this year, with a projected 5 percent increase
next year at a time when most other state programs are being cut. Drug
policies are also misguided. First-time use of marijuana is simply not the
same as making methamphetamine or dealing heavy drugs.

Several local health-related professionals, however, tell me the argument
for medicinal use of marijuana is weak. They say that while marijuana might
reduce pain in some instances, better treatments usually are available.
Others disagree. The local chapter of the League of Women Voters, generally
a reasonable group of citizens, endorses medical marijuana but has taken no
position on the local initiative.

Those who oppose decriminalizing any use or possession of marijuana make a
good point when they argue that such action would strengthen the
drug-distribution system and lead to social tolerance and even acceptance
of more serious drugs. Because drug intoxication - like that caused by
alcohol - compromises individual responsibility with potentially dire
social consequences, I don't accept the Libertarian argument that people
should be free to make their own decisions about drug use.

The ballot initiative is similar to one adopted in Ann Arbor, Mich., in the
1970s. Drug use there appears no different than anywhere else, as indicated
by the 33 percent of students in Ann Arbor who report using marijuana in
the past year, compared with 34 percent nationally.

Those who support easing marijuana laws argue that alcohol use is a more
serious social problem. That might be true, but is it wise to ease
sanctions on one bad behavior because another is worse? That's hard to see.

Adopting the ordinance would send a mixed signal about the acceptability of
drugs, although increasing the proposed fines would help correct that
problem. If the proposed ordinance is adopted, the Columbia City Council
can amend it just like any other ordinance on the books. I would suggest
the council increase the proposed fines to $100 for a first offense and
$500 thereafter.

The council should also create a local drug court for first-time offenders
convicted in municipal court. Drug courts have had a positive impact in
many places across Missouri and should be part of this proposal if the goal
is to more gently discourage marijuana use.

In an era when many state and federal policy-makers take no action despite
their awareness that drug policies are ill-conceived, the proposed Columbia
ordinance represents a small step toward highlighting a policy problem that
soon will cause a crisis.

The people who drafted the initiative, and its key supporters, should be
commended for putting a touchy topic on Columbia's agenda.

David Webber is an MU associate professor of political science. You can
reach him via e-mail at editor@tribmail.com.