Marijuana.com

Lothar121

Marijuana Compromise Wins City Council Approval
Matthew Leblanc | Columbia Daily Tribune | 02/21/2006

The Columbia City Council last night approved a revised marijuana possession ordinance that supporters say will prevent felons and repeat drug offenders from taking advantage of the law’s lenient sentencing guidelines.

However, detractors of the updated law called it disingenuous and accused council members of shortchanging Columbia voters who overwhelmingly approved the original pot law in 2004.

"I don’t think you should be deciding what the people have already decided," said Tony Nenninger, a law student at the University of Missouri-Columbia. "It’s the people you should listen to."

The original law decriminalized small amounts of marijuana - 35 grams or 1¼ ounces - and reduced the penalty for possession to a $250 fine. Violators also do not get a criminal record under the ordinance.

A compromise agreement negotiated last year between Boone County Prosecuting Attorney Kevin Crane and attorney Dan Viets keeps those initial measures in place but adds four exemptions to the law:

● Anyone found guilty of a felony in the preceding 10 years.

● Anyone found guilty in state or municipal court of a Class A misdemeanor, other than misdemeanor marijuana possession or possession of marijuana paraphernalia, within the preceding five years.

● Anyone found guilty in state or municipal court of misdemeanor marijuana possession on two or more prior occasions during the preceding five years.

● Anyone arrested on misdemeanor marijuana charges who also is being held on suspicion of a felony or another misdemeanor offense chargeable only in state court.

Viets, a chief supporter of the measure, began meeting with Crane to iron out the compromise after members of the Columbia Police Officers Association began circulating a petition in an effort to bring the issue before voters again. The four exemptions to the law first were suggested in a September letter from Viets to Mayor Darwin Hindman.

Nenninger and another man who spoke at the meeting last night, Jonthon Coulson, said the deal amounted to back-room dealing and that the compromise casts aside the will of the voters.

Others who spoke praised the agreement and the council’s approval of the revised ordinance.

In other business last night, the council agreed to rezone 12 acres around College Avenue and Broadway for Stephens College. The college had asked the city to zone the land for commercial use to help with an expansive restoration effort on the campus. The new designation eliminates parking and other land-use requirements.

"It gives a lot of flexibility to property owners and businesses," Second Ward Councilman Chris Janku said of the zoning designation. "I think" Stephens "needs that flexibility. I think it’s perfectly appropriate."

Reach Matthew LeBlanc at (573) 815-1720 or mleblanc@tribmail.com.

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference.. Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

 

Dennis

Changing a law passed by voter initiative is an opening for the city to be sued. I like it when "representatives" are tutored by the courts.

dedbr

plus cruel and unusual punishment could fall under both categories, but I do believe precedent has been set for municipalities to pass their own ordinances. Ded

__________________
"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

Abraham Lincoln
Happy New Year.......

lil_d_truegangs

**** I live in Missouri

smokebud4life

I really cant understand this can anyone help me? How does the supreme court pass a law saying these people cant legally use DMT for religous reasons, and Wont even let Suffering cancer, HIV patients use a PROVEN effective sustance to cope with their illneses. RELIGION HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN CANCER HAS. WHAT THE F*CK ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING?http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/21/sc....ap/index.html GO HERE.

 

vladimir

which is why i dont see how the cities in california can turn that around and sue the voters who legalized medical marijuana there....

as in for columbia, i know several people there, and they all say that it really wasnt working out as great as the law sounds anyways....maybe this will put some clarity into the whole situation, making it easier for everyone.

__________________
If a drug (or technique or process) were ever to be discovered which would consistently produce a plus four experience in all human beings, it is conceivable that it would signal the ultimate evolution, and perhaps the end of, the human experiment.

Buzzby

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't mean that they'll win or even that a judge will hear the case. AFAIK, a law passed by a voter initiative is no different than any other law: it can be amended by the legislature (or city council).

A suit against the state of California over Prop 215 might be ill-advised, but there is nothing illegal about it. It questions the constitutionality of a state law that contradicts a federal law. That question, however, has been answered in the decision of Raich v. Ashcroft. Prop 215 was not declared to be unconstitutional. The decision merely verified the status quo: federal possession laws may be enforced even though the person is exempt from prosecution under state laws.

__________________

stoneygreenbud

And that just makes my blood boil!
This is suppose to be "The land of the free". We are a nation of people that want to be governed but we "the people" want to be heard as well!

To live in a state (as I do) that has medical marijuana laws in effect,where "the people" have spoken (voted) , only to have our Government step in,is not only "wrong" it goes against the "will of the people"!

I hope you dont mind the vent buzzby,I guess I'm in a mood today.

Think I might even go vent some more...

I just hate waking up every day knowing my biggest fear is my own Government


Stoney