STUDENT GROUP MOUNTS EFFORT AGAINST STRICTER POT PENALTIES

An emergency meeting, called last Wednesday night by Students for a
Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) at Ohio University, laid an action plan
against a university proposal to toughen penalties for marijuana use
on campus.

The Alumni Lounge in Baker Center overflowed with students trying to
participate in the meeting, which was called by Abby Bair, vice
president of SSDP. She called the meeting in response to a recent
report in The Athens NEWS, and subsequent reports elsewhere, that a
university committee is recommending that the penalty for possession
of small amounts of marijuana be made more severe.

The change would require the current class B, minor misdemeanor
charge for possession of small amounts of marijuana to be changed to
a class A offense with a maximum penalty of expulsion.

"This amendment is going to affect hundreds of students' lives," Bair
declared at the meeting. "It's our responsibility to tell you guys."

Up till now, no effort had been made to inform all students about the
proposal, Bair maintained. She said that this was the main reason for
the gathering, to urge the university to postpone deciding on the
marijuana proposal until students have been made aware of the change,
and have had a chance to comment on it.

Ultimately, however, she said SSDP's goal is to stop the amendment
from going through at all. Plans introduced at the meeting to begin
the fight against the proposal included forming a coalition of
student groups such as Student Senate, and the student chapter of the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); staging public protests;
contacting leaders of the deciding committee by telephone; and
flooding local newspapers with letters to the editor.

"We strongly feel that it's the students' right to know what's going
to be brought down on campus," Bair said.

All these plans had to be implemented very quickly because the
university's Review and Standards Committee is set to meet this
Thursday to vote on whether to present the proposed change to the
Board of Trustees, which will make the final decision. The Trustees
generally -- though not always -- approve administrative
recommendations.

In an interview last month, Richard Carpinelli, the assistant vice
president for student affairs who chairs the Review and Standards
Committee, explained why the committee is proposing the change. He
and other officials have cited a marked increase in referrals due to
pot smoking on campus in the past year.

"Students recognize that drugs and possession are serious
transgressions against the university, and it is my sense that most
students would expect harsh rules for this issue," said Carpinelli,
who for many years served as head of OU's Office of Judiciaries.

He added that the change "will certainly give us the ability to
articulate expectations and how serious we view drug issues. We
regard the matter as very serious."

With the knowledge that the Review and Standards Committee is meeting
so soon, SSDP leaders Wednesday evening suggested action in the form
of a protest during the scheduled vote.

Throughout the room, heads nodded and students voiced their agreement
with the plan.

Jim Hintz, president of Student Senate, attended the meeting. Hintz
has a seat on the Review and Standards Committee this year, along
with several university officials and students whom those officials
appoint.

He explained that most committee members know how they will vote
before attending the meeting, and there's almost never a split vote.
He was unsure about the attendance policy and whether the meeting
will be open to the public.

Bair said that if the committee goes ahead and votes for the
amendment, her group will look for ways to appeal the decision.

However, Hintz predicted that the process will be difficult, "It
would take someone to convince the whole committee, which would then
have to go to the vice president for student affairs, to the Board of
Trustees, and to President Glidden to turn the decision around."

Luke Ellwood, who sat on the committee last year, recalled that he
was the only one who dissented from a decision to send the report to
the Board of Trustees. He did not understand why OU felt the need to
let a hearing committee have the authority to suspend or expel
someone for a minor misdemeanor which Ohio law deals with by handing
down a fine. He cited the fact that possessing either a dirty or
clean pipe ("which one can buy (locally)") could result in the same
penalty as possessing the actual drug if the change takes place.

"If the board really wants to pursue its goal of education (that is
their official mission), why is it necessary to have the option to
separate a student from OU for a first-time offense?" he asked.

When the emergency meeting was called, SSDP leaders had collected 250
signatures within five hours on their petition to get the amendment
stopped. Bair said that Jessica Markwood, the president of SSDP who
could not attend Wednesday's meeting, has a goal of 1,000 signatures
by this Thursday.

One student at the meeting proposed a formal group of students to
represent the student body in everything the university considers,
because he does not feel that every student group is represented
fairly in the Review and Standards Committee, and that there's a
"lack of student voice, lack of democracy, and too much student
transparency."

Bair agreed that the situation is frustrating. "It is totally up to
us," she said. "Unfortunately, things like this happen all the time,
and student rights are just jacked right out from underneath you."

About halfway through the meeting, Larry Hayman, president of the OU
ACLU, raised his hand and pledged the full support of his group.
Hayman said that the SSDP presented a "good message."

Hayman said he opposes what seems like "sneakiness and secrecy" by
the university in not informing the students about the proposal. He
is concerned for the rights of students and how they are governed, he
added. "I think a lot of people don't get involved until it's too
late," Hayman said. "Students should be non-complacent."

During the gathering, Bair as well as Hayman mentioned the disparity
between Ohio law and OU rules. "Apparently we can get punished worse
if we are caught (with marijuana) inside the dorm than if we walk
outside into a public place," she said.

According to Ohio law,if a person is in possession of a "bulk" amount
of illegal substances, he/she is assumed to be a seller of the drug,
no matter if that was the intended purpose for the drug or not. The
bulk amount of marijuana is 200 grams or 7.14 ounces (about enough to
fill a one-gallon freezer bag) for marijuana, and much smaller
amounts for other illegal drugs such as LSD and cocaine.

In Ohio, the maximum penalty for possession of fewer than three
ounces of marijuana is a $100 fine. If changed, the new policy at OU
would make the maximum penalty for the same amount of drugs expulsion.

Bair argued that the system, if the change goes into effect, will be
headed in the wrong direction. "It will be a domino effect," she
said. "A student caught with drugs here is in the best place he/she
can be, at school, but now, this amendment could place them under
criminal law. He/she could be expelled, or lose all of their
financial aid, taking them out of this setting. This is not a
sensible drug policy."

Junior Meredith Long said she came to the meeting to support the
"student voice and for an opportunity to take part."

A member of the SSDP last year, she said she thought the meeting had
a "great turnout."

She said she's willing to participate by helping with petitions,
demonstrations and e-mails, and serving on the central committee.

After the meeting, students lingered in the lounge discussing ideas
and opportunities to spread the word of their dissent about the
proposal.