POPULAR POT

Wednesday's announcement that the Department of Resident Life will not
implement the proposed change in residence hall rules for marijuana
possession is profoundly disappointing. It would allow lenience in
cases of students caught in possession of marijuana so they would not
automatically have their housing terminated. This is not a compromise
of student democratic power that Students for Sensible Drug Policy is
willing to accept, and neither should the Residence Halls Association,
the University Senate or the Student Government Association.

The will of the students has been demonstrated through voter
referendum (April 2006), the RHA Senate (February 2007) and the SGA
(April 2007). This change has been publicly supported by multiple
student organizations, as well as by all three SGA presidential
candidates, the 2006-2007 SGA executives and Maryland State Delegate
Ana Gutierrez. SSDP did not take these actions blindly, but rather we
employed careful strategy that followed university student democratic
procedures. It is disheartening to see that students are being largely
ignored by the administration, especially because opposing arguments
are based on misconceptions that tie recreational marijuana use to
violent crime.

It is not the intention of this policy change to in any way endorse or
allow the use of marijuana on this campus. Is the university endorsing
underage alcohol consumption, possession of weapons or smoking in any
form in the residence halls by classifying all three of the
aforementioned activities as B-level violations? The answer is
absolutely not. These acts, including the possession and use of
marijuana in the residence halls, are prohibited, and for good reason.
The distinction here is to what degree such activities warrant
termination of a student's on-campus housing.

Moving marijuana possession from an A-level violation to a B-level
violation would allow the standard minimum penalty to be lowered from
automatic termination of housing to housing probation (along with
other sanctions). The university would still have the authority to
impose a harsher sanction on a student caught with marijuana in the
dorms if other aggravating factors are present. We are asking that the
minimum sanction be lowered so students who have made a mistake are
given a second chance instead of falling victim to a zero-tolerance
policy enacted in the wake of the Len Bias incident, which was more
than two decades ago and did not involve marijuana.

SSDP and other supporters have the same goals and concerns as the
administration. We do not want violence, guns or behavior that
endangers students' safety on this campus. It is for precisely this
reason that the marijuana policy must be changed. All too much of our
resources is being spent on seeking out and punishing recreational
marijuana users to the fullest extent. We feel the university should
be more focused on more serious and outwardly dangerous acts such as
sexual assault, assault, robbery and arson. Marijuana possession is
prohibited behavior indeed, but should be placed as a lower priority
than it currently is.

Beyond the arguments of the danger of marijuana, this is an issue of
student democratic power. Times change, and with that, attitudes,
behaviors and policies must change. To keep a policy such as this on
the record simply to make a statement against drug use is ignorant of
the respect students should be granted to handle themselves in a
manner that is respectful and responsible to others in their living
environment. It is our duty as individuals directly affected by
residence hall and other university policies to voice the need for
change. We have done so, and in the process we have followed the
bureaucratic rules. Therefore, there is no reason we should continue
to be ignored.