February 9, 2012
Only a month ago, the University of Connecticut took a step forward for sensible college drug policy: It lowered the punishment for small possession of marijuana, equalizing it with the punishment for underage alcohol possession. Both violations now result in a warning, participation in a school health program and a “Wellness and Prevention educational sanction.” The university adapted their rules specifically in response to the state of Connecticut’s decriminalization of marijuana in summer of 2011, the 14th state to do so.
According to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law’s website, “Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption.” Decriminalization turns a crime into a violation, which is like a traffic ticket. Under Connecticut’s new law, those caught with under a half ounce of marijuana will receive a fine of $150 and a 60-day license suspension, while those caught possessing alcohol underage already receive a fine of $181 and a 150-day license suspension. (As a point of reference, the original marijuana sanctions were up to a year in a jail and a $1,000 fine.) Connecticut justified this policy change by pointing out that it was a waste of taxpayer resources and police time to prosecute small-time drug users, especially when the drug was not more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Thus, UConn’s new policy seems like a reasonable attempt to insert some equity into the—sometimes—arbitrary creation of rules.
But what does Hamilton have to do with any of this, you ask? In short, Hamilton still levies twice the number of points for a marijuana violation as for an underage drinking violation, when the state of New York decriminalized marijuana—just like Connecticut—in 1977. By New York State law, first-time possession of under 25 grams of marijuana will result in a fine of no more than $100; a near identical penalty occurs for underage alcohol possession. So, yes, it took UConn six months to do what Hamilton has been unwilling to do for over 30 years. Namely, lessen the antiquated penalty for small marijuana possession so that it lines up with the penalty for underage alcohol possession.
Currently at Hamilton, a student caught smoking a casual joint of marijuana outside—without an iota of alcohol in him or herself—will receive 4-6 points. Said student will receive an additional 2-4 points if her or she is using paraphernalia to smoke. So a student looking to get high and chill out for a few hours could end up with 8 points if a RA walks up on them. By comparison, a group of freshman caught shotgunning beers to get hammered will receive 1-2 points each. If these freshmen are taking shots of liquor, they can still only end up with 4-5 points maximum. Even Hamilton’s penalty for a fake ID is less severe than marijuana possession (2-4 points), a crime that can potentially result in seven years in prison according to New York State law. Granted, Hamilton does have some logic in their policies, insomuch as they differentiate marijuana from other controlled substances: Possession of cocaine or acid is 8-10 points. Nonetheless, this discrepancy between marijuana and underage drinking punishments strikes me as absurd.
However, even if one makes the arguments that UConn is a public school (more attuned to state law) while Hamilton is a private school, and that we shouldn’t just change our policies because of the bandwagon approach, let us look at this issue on pure empirical grounds. Two of Hamilton’s guiding principles for regulation, as listed on the website, are Respect for Others and Respect for Property. Since when has marijuana smoking ever led to property destruction, sexual assault or fighting? As anyone who has used marijuana can tell you, the most common effects of the drug include increased appreciation of humor, introspection and abstract thinking. Hardly a recipe for disaster.
Alcohol’s effects, meanwhile, often lead to staggering, vomiting and heightened emotions. Take a look through any of the most recent Nancy Thompson e-mails—which include occurrences like the recent smashing of an Opus window—and judge for yourself whether or not alcohol results in more “respect” than marijuana. (Although it does not say directly, it is more than obvious that all of the violations in the e-mails took place under the influence of alcohol.) Hence, in my opinion, the school owes it to its students to not pretend that marijuana is twice as destructive as alcohol, and thus levy twice the penalty.
I will not just use this space to complain, though, as I believe it to be unproductive. Here is a concrete solution: Make marijuana possession under 25 grams a 2-4 point violation and, if the school thinks this will be seen as too lax, add some kind of service or educational component. The most important thing is that the school recognizes the incoherence of its current policy and works with its students to make the Hill a fairer and safer place for all.