cannabisnews.com: City Council Revises Pot Ordinance





City Council Revises Pot Ordinance
Posted by CN Staff on February 21, 2006 at 07:05:29 PT
By Joanie Hammes
Source: Columbia Missourian
Missouri -- The city’s marijuana ordinance was tightened after the City Council approved a revision with a 6-1 vote Monday night. Under the revisions, decriminalization of the possession of the drug no longer applies to repeat offenders, including those found guilty of a felony in the last 10 years, a Class A misdemeanor other than a charge for possession of marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia, or a person who has had two or more prior marijuana convictions in the last five years.
“There should not be a one-size-fits-all standard when it comes to marijuana offenders,” Boone County Prosecutor Kevin Crane said. The ordinance, which originally deferred prosecution and limited the fine to $250 for possession of 35 grams or less of marijuana, was passed by Columbia voters in November 2004. It has been criticized by the Columbia Police Officers Associaion since its inception. A controversial change to the ordinance was the deletion of the reference to deferment of prosecution. A report from the city attorney’s office predicted that under this change, no marijuana cases will be deferred. The expected increase in city prosecutors’ workloads caused concern among council members. Defense attorney Dan Viets, who represents the Columbia Alliance for Patients and Education, and Crane assured the council that city prosecutors still have the choice whether to defer prosecution. Viet’s organization spurred the original ordinance.Sixth Ward Councilman Brian Ash, who voted against the ordinance changes, questioned whether the City Council had the right to change the ordinance without voters’ approval. Others were satisfied with the changes that became effective upon the City Council’s approval.“I believe it’s for the best and hope this will put the issue to rest,” said Bailey Hirschburg, president of the MU chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.Source: Columbia Missourian (MO)Author: Joanie HammesPublished: February 21, 2006 Copyright: 2006 Columbia MissourianContact: editor digmo.com Website: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/Related Articles & Web Site:University of Missouri NORMLhttp://www.students.missouri.edu/~normlMarijuana Ordinance Defendedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20538.shtmlPolice Pot Petition Challengedhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20537.shtmlPolice Launch Petition Drive Against Pot Law http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20349.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by FoM on February 22, 2006 at 09:25:31 PT
Related Article from The Maneater 
Council Passes Pot Law Changes***By Steve Oslica, Staff WriterFebruary 21, 2006The Columbia City Council heard arguments Monday night in favor of and against proposed changes to the city’s marijuana ordinance and decided in favor of the amendments. “With this law, our police department is telling us they are uncomfortable with how this law was written, and we as a city should listen to our police department,” said Randy Minchew, a representative of the Columbia Police Officers’ Association, which helped draft the amendments. The council voted 6-1 in favor of changing the ordinance to make repeat offenders and other state and federal offenders exempt from the current marijuana laws in the city. The current ordinance makes possession of less than 35 grams of marijuana within the city of Columbia a misdemeanor offense rather than a felony like it is in the rest of the state. The dissenting vote came from Sixth Ward Councilman Brian Ash. Before the meeting, Ash expressed concerns about the method the council was using to change the ordinance. “I don’t have a problem with the changes per se, but the thing that I’m struggling with is, should the council modify something voted on by the people?” he said. “I wasn’t a fan of the ordinance when it got passed, but once the people have spoken, the people should be the ones to change it.” Dan Viets, a board member of the Columbia Alliance for Patients and Education, the group that introduced the original marijuana initiative, addressed concerns like Ash’s during the council meeting. “These amendments are significant because if not for CAPE asking for this amendment, it would be improper for the council to act,” Viets said. “Our help in creating these amendments creates a reasonable exemption to the unwritten rule that the council shouldn’t tamper with things that voters pass.” Mayor Darwin Hindman also addressed these concerns. He said the city charter had “good, solid reasons” to allow the council to change laws passed by initiatives. “For an initiative, you have to have all sorts of things, but there’s not much room for flexibility,” Hindman said. “Sometimes the initiatives need changes, and the people need their representatives to tweak it some after experience with the law.” Ash said the overlying democratic principles couldn’t be disputed by the arguments presented, and therefore he couldn’t, in good conscience, vote for the amendments. “Even though I’m not in favor of the ordinance overall, I think it sets a dangerous precedent for the council to be changing things the people decide,” Ash said. Before the meeting, First Ward Councilwoman Almeta Crayton said she was unsure how she would vote on the bill because she had just begun to consider it. Crayton expressed concern during the meeting that the amendments would keep the law from being applied equally to everyone. “We need to make it clear to the public what these laws mean and what the people’s rights are,” she said. “I’m very anti-drug, and I don’t think it’s fair that someone with a crack-cocaine violation gets the book thrown at them while a person with a marijuana violation walks around free.” Tony Nenninger, an MU law student who testified before the council, said he was also afraid the laws would not be applied equally to everyone. “There would be disparate racial effects to these laws,” he said. “A large percentage of former convicts are young black males. Voters didn’t intend for marijuana prohibition ordinances to affect these peoples’ lives. This is a modern Jim Crow law, and we should be aware of that.” Viets said he was happy the council passed the ordinance because there would be no more worries about the entire ordinance being scrapped. “We realize we’re giving up some of what we’ve won in exchange for not losing the whole thing,” he said.Copyright: 2006 The Maneater http://www.themaneater.com/article.php?id=23410
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Hope on February 22, 2006 at 07:52:05 PT
soon
I intend to write some editors and ask if they thought that they had the freedom of the press enough that they might call cannabis...the "herb"...istead of the "drug", every once in a while.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by OverwhelmSam on February 22, 2006 at 03:04:58 PT
Simply Sue, I Detect An Impending Law Suit
There's a law approved by the voters, the city changes the law, someone sues the city if charged under the changed law.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by whig on February 21, 2006 at 11:04:23 PT
runderwo
"Under the revisions, decriminalization of the possession of the drug no longer applies to repeat offenders, ...other than a charge for possession of marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia," except including "a person who has had two or more prior marijuana convictions in the last five years."Very confusing. Maybe we should look at the ordinance.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by runderwo on February 21, 2006 at 11:01:16 PT
ok...
So let me get this straight:"Under the revisions, decriminalization of the possession of the drug no longer applies to repeat offenders, including those found guilty of a felony in the last 10 years, a Class A misdemeanor other than a charge for possession of marijuana or marijuana paraphernalia, or a person who has had two or more prior marijuana convictions in the last five years."So if you repeatedly violate this law, does that count as "prior marijuana convictions"? But it's not a "prior conviction" is it, since you pay a fine instead of being prosecuted for a crime now? I'm not sure if I totally understand.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment