420
Founder
An ordinance outlawing the possession of marijuana in Lawrence appeared in front of the city commission for a vote Tuesday, only to be pushed back to be considered again on Nov. 29.
The ordinance, which started on Sept. 6 when the commission directed city staff to draft it, would have moved jurisdiction of possession of marijuana and paraphernalia from district court to municipal court for first-time offenders.
The ordinance was pushed back because commissioners couldn't agree on a minimum fine. Commissioners Sue Hack and Mike Amyx insisted on a $300 minimum, while Mayor Dennis "Boog" Highberger and commissioner Mike Rundle wanted something smaller - in the range of zero to $100.
Highberger and Rundle reminded Amyx and Hack that the Kansas Uniform Controlled Substances Act has no minimum fine, but they were not swayed.
Commissioner David Schauner proposed a compromise and suggested the ordinance have a minimum fine of $300, but a possible decrease of that fine at the judge's discretion if "mitigating factors" existed. Schauner could not say what those factors would be.
"I have a goal of making sure the public understands that we aren't trying to decriminalize, but I want to give judges the ability to deal with each defendant in regard to particular circumstances," Schauner said.
Rundle and Schauner voted in favor of the amended ordinance, while Highberger, Hack and Amyx voted against it.
Immediately after that vote, Highberger proposed a vote on the ordinance as it stood, without a minimum fine. The ordinance was again voted down 2-3, with only Rundle and Highberger voting for it.
All five commissioners wanted to know the exact definition of "mitigating factors" before they could vote again, so they sent city staff to find it.
Amyx disagreed with Schauner because he didn't want to put a judge in a situation to pick and choose who was going to be subject to a lesser fine. Schauner said making decisions was what judges did.
Laura Green, director of the Drug Policy Forum of Kansas, said she had expected the ordinance to pass but was pleased that the commission thoughtfully considered it.
Green said she would have been glad to see the ordinance pass even with a minimum fine because her concern was to reduce the amount of harm on students. Students convicted in municipal court instead of district court wouldn't lose financial aid.
Leslie Eldridge, community affairs director of the Student Senate, said the Student Senate supported the ordinance because it would keep more students in school.
"We believe the ordinance is a student rights issue," Eldridge said. "We recognize that many students depend on federal financial aid to finance their educations. We also know that some students will unfortunately have to leave school if they lose financial aid."
Green thought Schauner's compromise was reasonable even though she did not agree with imposing a minimum fine. Mandatory minimum sentences do not allow a judge to use his or her discretion for deciding an appropriate penalty, she said.
Ordinances contain minimum fines only when offenders harm other people, property or the environment, Green said. Smoking marijuana doesn't fall under any of those three categories, she said.
"Personally, I think $300 is outrageous," Green said. "A DUI is $500. That's pretty cheap considering that a drunk driver could kill someone. It should be $5,000."
Schauner, Hack and Amyx all said they sought the public's comment on the issue and didn't want to proceed without a minimum fine based on that comment.
Rosemary Hill was one Lawrence citizen who was outraged about the ordinance's possible passage. Over the weekend she sent a letter, which strongly opposed the ordinance, to the commission.
She said she couldn't believe Schauner said on Oct. 25 that a minimum fine could become a financial burden for the defendant.
She said her biggest problem with the ordinance was that students convicted of violating it for the first time would still receive financial aid.
"I don't want my tax dollars going toward someone breaking the law," she said.
"This is not a slap-on-the-wrist thing. It's a drug. I have two grandsons at a vulnerable age, and they've been taught that drug use is wrong."
City staff will provide their findings to the commission at the Nov. 29 meeting, when the commission will vote on the ordinance again.
- - Edited by Alison Peterson
Source: University Daily Kansan, The (Lawrence, KS Edu)
Copyright: 2005 The University Daily Kansan
Contact: editor@kansan.com
Website: kansan.com | The Student Voice Since 1904
The ordinance, which started on Sept. 6 when the commission directed city staff to draft it, would have moved jurisdiction of possession of marijuana and paraphernalia from district court to municipal court for first-time offenders.
The ordinance was pushed back because commissioners couldn't agree on a minimum fine. Commissioners Sue Hack and Mike Amyx insisted on a $300 minimum, while Mayor Dennis "Boog" Highberger and commissioner Mike Rundle wanted something smaller - in the range of zero to $100.
Highberger and Rundle reminded Amyx and Hack that the Kansas Uniform Controlled Substances Act has no minimum fine, but they were not swayed.
Commissioner David Schauner proposed a compromise and suggested the ordinance have a minimum fine of $300, but a possible decrease of that fine at the judge's discretion if "mitigating factors" existed. Schauner could not say what those factors would be.
"I have a goal of making sure the public understands that we aren't trying to decriminalize, but I want to give judges the ability to deal with each defendant in regard to particular circumstances," Schauner said.
Rundle and Schauner voted in favor of the amended ordinance, while Highberger, Hack and Amyx voted against it.
Immediately after that vote, Highberger proposed a vote on the ordinance as it stood, without a minimum fine. The ordinance was again voted down 2-3, with only Rundle and Highberger voting for it.
All five commissioners wanted to know the exact definition of "mitigating factors" before they could vote again, so they sent city staff to find it.
Amyx disagreed with Schauner because he didn't want to put a judge in a situation to pick and choose who was going to be subject to a lesser fine. Schauner said making decisions was what judges did.
Laura Green, director of the Drug Policy Forum of Kansas, said she had expected the ordinance to pass but was pleased that the commission thoughtfully considered it.
Green said she would have been glad to see the ordinance pass even with a minimum fine because her concern was to reduce the amount of harm on students. Students convicted in municipal court instead of district court wouldn't lose financial aid.
Leslie Eldridge, community affairs director of the Student Senate, said the Student Senate supported the ordinance because it would keep more students in school.
"We believe the ordinance is a student rights issue," Eldridge said. "We recognize that many students depend on federal financial aid to finance their educations. We also know that some students will unfortunately have to leave school if they lose financial aid."
Green thought Schauner's compromise was reasonable even though she did not agree with imposing a minimum fine. Mandatory minimum sentences do not allow a judge to use his or her discretion for deciding an appropriate penalty, she said.
Ordinances contain minimum fines only when offenders harm other people, property or the environment, Green said. Smoking marijuana doesn't fall under any of those three categories, she said.
"Personally, I think $300 is outrageous," Green said. "A DUI is $500. That's pretty cheap considering that a drunk driver could kill someone. It should be $5,000."
Schauner, Hack and Amyx all said they sought the public's comment on the issue and didn't want to proceed without a minimum fine based on that comment.
Rosemary Hill was one Lawrence citizen who was outraged about the ordinance's possible passage. Over the weekend she sent a letter, which strongly opposed the ordinance, to the commission.
She said she couldn't believe Schauner said on Oct. 25 that a minimum fine could become a financial burden for the defendant.
She said her biggest problem with the ordinance was that students convicted of violating it for the first time would still receive financial aid.
"I don't want my tax dollars going toward someone breaking the law," she said.
"This is not a slap-on-the-wrist thing. It's a drug. I have two grandsons at a vulnerable age, and they've been taught that drug use is wrong."
City staff will provide their findings to the commission at the Nov. 29 meeting, when the commission will vote on the ordinance again.
- - Edited by Alison Peterson
Source: University Daily Kansan, The (Lawrence, KS Edu)
Copyright: 2005 The University Daily Kansan
Contact: editor@kansan.com
Website: kansan.com | The Student Voice Since 1904
