Herb Ninja

Marijuana Law

Unequal Enforcement

11-30-2004 | HENRY J. WATERS III | Columbia Daily Tribune

Columbia voters passed a new law earlier this month lessening punishment for marijuana offenses, but the law is being ignored by most law enforcement agencies making arrests in the city.

Despite the stated intent of Columbia residents that all misdemeanor marijuana cases be sent to city court, arrest cases handled by the highway patrol and the sheriff and repeat-offender cases handled by University of Missouri police are sent to the county prosecutor for resolution in the state court system, where implications are harsher for convicted offenders.

Highway patrol and sheriff’s officers say they are legally empowered to enforce state laws and do not have authority to file cases in city courts. Attorney Dan Viets, a primary proponent of the new law, is researching whether the city law prevails for arrests made within city boundaries.

My hunch is the new law only is binding on city police, but even if not obliged, could other officers send cases to city court if they want?

Obviously, that practice would comply with the legally stated intent of Columbia voters, who decided these arrests made within the city should go to city court.

By ignoring this intent, one can argue police are creating a system of unequal enforcement within city boundaries. People committing identical crimes should not be subject to different standards of justice based merely on the identity of the arresting agency.

Contrarily, police officers might say the odd city law causes the inequity, and they have a point. Just because whimsical Columbia voters want to reduce marijuana penalties doesn’t mean authorities representing larger state or county jurisdictions must comply.

But, the other side says, we’re talking about what happens within city boundaries. When an officer, including a Columbia police officer, makes an arrest outside, obviously state laws will apply. But inside, regardless of who is making the arrest, city laws should apply.

So the debate goes, apparently not headed for a resolution suitable to supporters of the new law.

If you ask me - and nobody has recently - I’ve got a slick way to avoid this double-standard: Legalize use and sale of the weed and be done with it.

Clearly, that would establish a single standard. Also it would eliminate a lot of wasteful, unproductive law enforcement activity. And it would declassify as criminals hordes of ordinary citizens engaged in private activity clearly less harmful to society than drinking alcoholic beverages.

To prohibit marijuana while living happily with legalized booze is the height of societal hypocrisy and foolishness. This disparity exists only because mainline society is not upset enough about drug - even marijuana - prohibition, not because the odd configuration of the laws makes any sense.

Drug prohibition laws in general cause most of the crime and jail crowding in America and cost citizens billions of dollars, a gusher law enforcement is quite happy to continue receiving.

But I digress. Given the odds, I doubt the new marijuana law ever will be equally enforced. The best we can hope for is that city police will not get in the habit of transferring authority to one of the other agencies, thus flouting the law in their own jurisdiction.

So far city cases seem to be going to city court, and despite moderate expressions of skepticism by their chief, we should expect city police will perform in straightforward compliance.

We have good debates around here, and then, regardless of their personal opinions, our officials act responsibly or they do not persist among us.

__________________
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies." -Ron Paul

Dennis

This situation presents an unprecedented opportunity to confound and tie up law enforcement and local government resources. They want to be prejudice against marijuana users, then let the law suits commence.


Dennis