OU COMMITTEE RIGHT TO DELAY DECISION ON TOUGHER POT PENALTY

Ohio University was right to postpone a decision on whether to recommend
tougher penalties for simple possession of marijuana. Now that they've
postponed it, they should scrap the idea altogether.

It's difficult to imagine a pot-smoking scenario at OU that would warrant
kicking a student out of school forever. Yet, a university committee is
proposing that possession of small amounts of marijuana expose students to
a maximum penalty of expulsion.

Currently, under OU's Student Code of Conduct, possession of minor
misdemeanor amounts of pot (under around three ounces) carries a maximum
penalty of disciplinary probation. Students on probation can be suspended
if they get in trouble again. In other words, as things stand now, if a
student gets nabbed with a joint a second time, he can get booted for up to
a year. That's no slap on the wrist.

Since The Athens NEWS publicized the proposed change in penalties for
possession of marijuana, students have begun mobilizing against the plan.
They question how such a proposal could come so close to approval without
input from the student body at large, or adequate explanation from the
committee that proposed it.

They have a good point.

From the looks of it, the university's Review and Standards Committee had
hoped to slide the rule change over to the Board of Trustees with little
fanfare, where it would receive the usual rubber-stamp treatment. Though
the proposal reportedly has been pending in the committee for a couple
years, its details only recently leeched out to the student body at large.
That's partly the fault of Student Senators who sit on the committee, and
failed to adequately communicate these important changes to students.

To justify tougher pot penalties, some OU officials have cited an increase
in pot-smoking infractions on campus in recent years.

Asked recently about the proposal, Student Affairs VP Rich Carpinelli, who
chairs the Review and Standards Committee, reeled off some eye-glazing
boilerplate about how the change will allow the university to "articulate
expectations and how serious we view drug issues," and that "most students
would expect harsh rules for this issue."

What Carpinelli didn't do was explain the benefits of lumping possession of
a marijuana joint into the same Code of Conduct category as manufacture of
methamphetamines, distribution of cocaine, or peddling crack cocaine.

Neither did he explain the usefulness of placing minor pot possession into
the same penalty section as theft, cheating, sexual assault, battery,
destruction of property and possession of explosives.

Even though Ohio criminal law does draw a clear distinction between
possession of small amounts of marijuana and more serious drug and criminal
offenses, Carpinelli's committee wants it all lumped into the same sloppy
gumbo. That way, Judiciaries has the power to name the penalty, without any
technical barriers.

Supporters of the change, including, it must be said, some students, note
that Class A offenses carry penalties up to expulsion. So university
Judiciaries, in all its mercy, could ease up and simply hand down a
one-year suspension for a student pinched with a half joint. Oh boy.

But again this raises the question -- what conceivable situation might
arise, involving a first-time offender caught with under 100 grams of
marijuana, that would warrant the ultimate penalty -- permanently banning
the student from the grounds of this university?

And if there is no such scenario -- and believe me, I have strained to
imagine one -- why include a penalty that will never be used? Why not just
keep pot possession as a Class B offense, and suspend persistent student
violators after their second infraction?

ONE DISTURBING POSSIBILITY is that Carpinelli and his committee really do
believe that pot-smoking students are a danger to the institution and ought
to be eradicated.

If that's the case, it makes me wonder what they've been smoking for the
past 30 years.

As a (usually) sentient human being during the '70s, '80s and '90s, I
couldn't help noticing a lot of people smoking marijuana, including many
who attended college at OU and went on to successful careers in a
bewildering array of endeavors. Many of them are parents of current OU
students, and others, I dare say, are highly regarded faculty and
administrators of this institution.

Doesn't it seem bizarre to potentially expel a modern-day college student
for an infraction that thousands upon thousands of OU alumni, as well as
many of the student's current professors, routinely committed and may still
commit today?

One can't help wondering how many bright futures would have been tarnished
if this alum or that alum had been busted for the joint in the
Gamertsfelder restroom, or the pipe-full of hash behind James Hall, herded
through Judiciaries, and then suspended or expelled.

Agreed, possession of marijuana violates both the law and OU's Student Code
of Conduct. Students shouldn't be doing it, and should expect punishment if
caught.

It's the degree of punishment that's the question, and students have every
right to challenge the university's efforts to rachet up those penalties
out of all proportion with common sense and justice, not to mention Ohio
criminal law.

It's gratifying to see the Review and Standards Committee postponing its
recommendation, in order to receive more input from students. It's not so
good to suspect that absent recent media attention and the resulting
opposition, this stealth proposal would have become the law of the campus,
without any meaningful input from the student body.