Greetings, This is the first time I have posted on this list as I have just started to monitor the discussion. My name is Aaron Marcus and I am a second year student at the U of M law School. I have recently proposed to several members of City Council a draft for an ordinance that addresses one of the topics being discussed--drug/marijuana issues at the city level. The proposal comes in the form of a marijuana enforcement policy of prioritization regarding police crime enforcement policies and priorities.
The proposal urges that the police be asked to make the enforcement of possession/cultivation/ or use of small amounts of marijuana on ones personal property the lowest level of enforcement priority. What this does is to ask the police to focus their crime enforcement efforts on other property, and especially violent offenses and not expend limited time, money, and efforts on surveilling, arresting, and then processing those whose crime was the possession of marijuana for their own use on their own property. While of course this proposal is a little more flushed out in an actual ordinance, the benefits are great. There is substantial worry about crime, violence and the livabiltiy of many minneapolis neighborhoods. These concerns often stem to issues of drug dealing and distribution. WHile the legalization debate is something that is outside the cities power, enforcement priorities are not. By deprioritizing possession and cultivation of a small number of plants or a low amount of cultivated and dried marijuana on ones own property, the policy creates an two fold incentive with many benefits. One, the policy urges people who are going to use marijuana to grow their own. This in no way encourages the use of marijuan, but simply recognizes the safety concers associated with buying drugs on the street from strangers. Personla growing ensures that the marijuana is not laced with PCP, fermaldihide (sp?), horse tranqualizers, or ther dangerous drugs. Second, the policy decreases the fear that ones own growing could be detected thereby decreasing the reliance on street level dealers and it would effectively take money and business away from those people and organizations that are causing many of the problems our citizens are concerned about. Third, the incentive to bring marijuana indoors may also urge gangs who are distributing to bring their operations inside. The policy however, only allows small amounts to be possessed, 300 grams or less, which would not be enough to sustain a distribution opperation, and police enforcement could and should still target these groups, but the possibility that gangs may go indoors is a benefit to all. When dealers are busted, we all know it is not long before someone else takes their place. Thus, crime will not be deminished by the continued policing of street level sellers. So, by sending the message that it would be wiser to go indoors, even if these organizations contuinue to distribute, the level of street crime and violence associated with direct street level confrontation, drive by shootings, turf wars, etc, would deminish because the street would not longer offer a safe haven for distribution. Further, livabiltiy in tyhese neighborhoods would likey increase because by prioritizing the enforcement strategies of police, more efforts could be used to target those violent offenses that are the buiggest cause for concern in any neighborhhood. I would appreciate feedback on this issue and please be candid. I believe this is a proper strategy to take and it is imprortant that we utilize every effort to make Minneapolis a city where all can live. Aaron Marcus Phillips _________________________________________________________________ Get a speedy connection with MSN Broadband.� Join now! http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
