What is the difference between use and abuse? This is the question that Massachusetts voters asked themselves at the polls in November 2008, the question that Tufts Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) is now asking the members of the Tufts community. The answer for the Commonwealth came in the shape of legal reform, as roughly 65 percent of voters cast their ballots to "replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a system of civil penalties." This decision transformed not only the legal process but also the distinction between use and abuse in this state. Small possession of marijuana is no longer a crime but a civil offense. Today in Massachusetts, responsible users of marijuana have only the equivalent consequence of a parking ticket to fear. Under state law, underage alcohol consumption remains a crime.
Over the past year, Tufts Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) has been in ongoing negotiations with the administration to restructure the marijuana policy on campus, with the goal of effectively "decriminalizing" the substance and aligning campus policy with state law. As far too many Tufts students have experienced, if an undergraduate is caught in the act of smoking a joint, they're issued a warning. The student must subsequently meet with Veronica Carter of Judicial Affairs and Ian Wong of Health Service in order to prevent the escalation of their punishment to probation one. If that same undergrad is found with any amount of marijuana again, he or she is automatically placed on probation one.
The same policy is administered for the underage consumption of alcohol. The progress of disciplinary consequences for the two substances is identical: warning, to probation one and eventually to probation two. Despite the fact that these violations are distinguished legally and functionally, the two substances are treated in tandem: If a student is issued a warning for drinking, he or she can advance to probation for the use or possession of marijuana. This "mix and match" policy makes it far too easy for a student to receive a mark on his or her permanent record for an act that is no longer considered a crime in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The current system is flawed, and not only because of marijuana's apparent lack of damage to the Tufts community, as evidenced by this year's astonishingly peaceful and danger?free April 20 celebrations (compare this to the effects of the drinking?intensive Spring Fling). Those who voted for decriminalization in Massachusetts, the majority of voters, intended, among other things, to protect the futures of students from the irrational damage that formerly resulted from the responsible use of marijuana. The line between use and abuse was moved to a more reasonable position, at the possession of more than an ounce. And yet, although alcohol and marijuana laws are distinct in the Commonwealth, Tufts policies for both substances remain one and the same. A student who has committed a criminal offense in accordance with state law is administered the same punishment as a student who deserves no more than a parking ticket. The possession of any amount of marijuana on campus can lead to marks on a permanent record, even though two blocks off campus the same offense often leads to no more than the request by an officer to "just put it out."
In light of this inconsistency, Tufts SSDP decided to act. After acquiring more than 500 signatures on a petition to reform marijuana policy in a mere three days, we passed a resolution through Senate last spring. Although we did not accomplish the change we had desired, the pressure put on the administration resulted in the reduction of a first offense to a warning with the possibility of probation one, in place of the former policy, which automatically placed students on probation one. Despite this minor victory, we were far from satisfied with the results.
This semester, we proposed the Tufts Marijuana Policy Reform Act after attending multiple meetings with several members of the administration. We had the fortunate experience of sharing a similar concept with those administrators of what distinguishes use and abuse. With the administration's help, we garnered support from the Tufts University Police Department and wrote a new referendum that would change the marijuana policy on campus so that a student caught in possession of less than or equal to one ounce would receive a fine rather than disciplinary action, without the possibility of any escalation for future like offenses. We gathered over 250 signatures in favor of this referendum in one afternoon tabling at the Mayer Campus Center, more than enough to put this policy change on the April 24 ballot. Indeed, we began to spread the word, telling our friends and fellow activists that there would be a referendum on the upcoming ballot and encouraging them to vote for decriminalization on campus.
Unfortunately, our efforts were stopped just a bit short. The same week that we were gathering signatures in support of our referendum we received an alarming email from an administrator, informing us of a new concern over a federal law called the "Drug?Free Schools and Communities Act," passed during the height of drug war hysteria in 1986. The act encourages universities to employ punitive drug policy, or else risk losing their federal funding. We were implored to do research in the hopes that other schools had tested this limitation and overcome it, but it soon became apparent that we would be the first. Although we still believe our proposed policy would satisfy the conditions of the Act, the potential risks were daunting and the referendum was pulled.
Tufts SSDP understands the concerns of Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman and the administration, but we're used to fighting hard battles. All levels and institutions of American government have, since the early 1980s, committed themselves to criminalizing even the responsible consumption of several drugs, blurring the line between use and abuse as if the distinction does not exist. And yet, it is becoming increasingly obvious to the American people that these laws are outdated, draconic and scientifically unsound, and so we commit ourselves wholeheartedly to reforming these policies so that they can be more fit for reality.
The experience we had was very much a learning one. For many of our members, it was the first time we came face to face with the long arm of the federal government's Drug War. We are used to griping about the War on Drugs and the terrible consequences of the illegal drug trade, but most of us had never had first?hand experience with the government's ongoing, but failed, efforts to diminish freedom of substance consumption.
I am writing this op?ed to assert that we will not stop our fight. We are continuing to work to encourage the administration to separate marijuana and alcohol policy and we are in correspondence with other universities in Boston and across the country, in the hopes of igniting a larger effort to incite reform on college campuses in states with liberal marijuana laws.
We wholeheartedly thank all of our supporters for their signatures and vocal backing. You are courageous individuals and a continuing inspiration to us. We want to encourage Tufts students to continue to call for a decriminalized marijuana policy on campus, and to support us in our ongoing efforts to make this vision a reality. The conversation is far from over.
--
Lauren Traitz is a sophomore majoring in philosophy. She is the co-president of Tufts Students for Sensible Drug Policy.
