The Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate on Sunday passed a resolution that called for Tufts' disciplinary policy on marijuana usage to mirror recent changes to Massachusetts' drug laws. Drafted in part by members of the student organization Tufts Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), the resolution seeks to mitigate the university's penalty for being caught with marijuana.
The TCU Senate declared that the punishment for being caught with one ounce or less of marijuana should match the penalties of the Commonwealth, which currently treats the offense as a civil offense punishable by a small fine. While the Daily supports the fundamental argument made by SSDP and the Senate, we recognize that, in practice, Tufts is already ahead of the curve.
Until 2008, Massachusetts treated possession of marijuana as a criminal offense. In the November 2008 elections, voters approved a sensible marijuana policy that decriminalized possession of less than one ounce of marijuana, replacing arrest with a $100 fine for offenders over 18. The penalties for growing, selling or distributing marijuana, however, are still treated as felony offenses in Massachusetts. The new policy did not seek to legalize marijuana or make it more easily available, but merely aimed to make the punishment less severe for a rather common infraction that many agree does not warrant arrest.
The state views possession of small amounts of marijuana as less offensive than criminal offenses, and so should Tufts, proponents of the Senate resolution argue. In theory, they are right: It does not make sense for the university to treat a student caught with marijuana the same way it would deal with a student implicated in what the state views as a more serious crime, such as underage drinking.
But Tufts' penalty for marijuana usage is already lenient — perhaps more so than the Commonwealth's. At Tufts, being caught in possession of marijuana on campus currently results in placement on Disciplinary Probation One, or "pro-one." Yet despite the fact that Tufts imposes an equivalent punishment for small amounts of marijuana possession and underage drinking — an offense which is criminal in Massachusetts — the university's policy is fair: Students who are placed on pro-one for marijuana possession can have that designation lifted after meeting with a university health official, and pro-one never goes on one's academic transcript. In fact, Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman told the Daily that he believed that no student has been disciplined for marijuana use this year. Such facts make it clear that the university is relatively lenient for an offense that, off the Hill, could result in fines.
Supporters of a weaker policy make a valid argument that future employers and graduate schools might ask whether one was ever disciplined as an undergraduate. Most employers, however, ask about criminal infractions, not university-imposed disciplinary infractions.
For so many students to sign SSDP's petition — 500 in three days — means that a sensible drug policy is clearly an issue about which many people care. And the fact that the motion to fundamentally shift how the administration views marijuana possession made it this far demonstrates that there is some logic behind the idea. We agree that if Massachusetts views a certain crime as a minor issue, then institutions in that state should adopt the same policy as well.
But it is clear that Tufts does view possession of small amounts of marijuana as a minor issue, in practice if not in theory. Thus, while the Senate resolution and SSDP's arguments are valid and the university should change its marijuana policy to align with state law, let's be honest: Possessing small amounts of marijuana is not treated at all harshly at Tufts. In the books, our drug policies should be sensible, but in practice, they already are.
