Let's do a short exercise. Which of these things is not a crime in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Is it (a) possession of marijuana, (b) underage drinking of alcohol or (c) drinking alcohol in public?
If you don't already know, the answer is (a). On Nov. 4, 2008, the same day that President Barack Obama was elected to office, it was right there on the ballot — a real marijuana decriminalization referendum. Question 2, as it was known, said that if passed it "would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties." A stunning 65 percent voted yes. Think about that. There were more voters in Massachusetts who thought possession of small amounts of marijuana should not be a crime than there were those who thought Barack Obama should be U.S. President.
Unfortunately for us Jumbos, Tufts doesn't seem to have gotten the message. Possession of marijuana at Tufts is considered a Level A offense, which for first time offenders results in being placed on Disciplinary Probation One, commonly known as "pro-one." Marijuana is listed in this category with underage drinking, possession of alcohol and public consumption of alcohol, two criminal acts. This means that Tufts' policy equates possession of marijuana with underage drinking and public drinking, effectively saying that the three offenses are the same or at least should be dealt with as such. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts disagrees. A deep divide seems to have formed between state law and university policy. As co-president of Tufts Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), I'd like to suggest that we reconcile the two.
The question really must be asked: Why is Tufts pretending that marijuana is a crime when it's not? More than that, why does Tufts feel the need to be more conservative than the law? The very fact that marijuana-related infractions are dealt with by the Judicial Affairs office shows how out-of-touch Tufts' policy has become. Why is marijuana a judicial affair? Given its new status as a civil offense and not a criminal one, isn't the issue here a medical one?
SSDP has begun to gather signatures on a petition to right this wrong. We are advocating that marijuana-related infractions be divorced from the Judicial Affairs office and that no punitive disciplinary action be taken against students for possessing small amounts of marijuana. We are suggesting that marijuana-related infractions be dealt with by the Health Service only. It has the trained professionals who can evaluate a marijuana user and conclude whether he or she has any mental health issues or is in need of treatment or addiction services.
We should dispel the myths before they gain any traction. Tufts SSDP neither condemns nor condones drug use. Signing this petition in no way represents an approval or promotion of marijuana use. The point of this petition is to remove the unnecessary disciplinary penalties associated with possession of marijuana. We are not advocating that Tufts change its policy with regard to other standards of conduct, such as the penalties associated with distributing or manufacturing marijuana or other drugs or providing drugs to minors.
It's time that Tufts got up to speed with Massachusetts. If you would like to see marijuana-related infractions dealt with as the non-criminal offenses that they are, we'd love to have you sign the petition. We plan on presenting this petition to the Tufts Community Union Senate as soon as we have the necessary signatures to show that this is an issue that Jumbos care about. Your name will not be seen by anyone except the Senate and Tufts SSDP. Additionally, we will be tabling in the Mayer Campus Center next week.
--
Alexander Baskin is a sophomore majoring in philosophy. He is the co-president of Tufts Students for Sensible Drug Policy.
