Council Passes Pot Law Changes

[Alfa]

COUNCIL PASSES POT LAW CHANGES
The 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.

Source: Maneater, The (Columbia, MO Edu)