Illustration by Milan Saunders
Although the use or possession of non-medical marijuana is still illegal in the state of Connecticut, recent legislation has decriminalized the possession of small amounts of cannabis. In accordance with SB 1014, which took effect beginning in July 2011, the criminal penalties for the possession of less than half an ounce of marijuana have been removed and the classification of the offense has been changed from misdemeanor to civil violation.
The fines for this offense have also been drastically reduced: first-time offenders will be cited and fined $150, and fines for subsequent offenses may increase to amounts from $200 to $500.
Support for this legislative change comes from numerous findings, including those of the Connecticut Law Revision Commission of 1997. After comparing data from states that had decriminalized cannabis with states that still imposed criminal penalties on cannabis possession, the commission determined that decriminalization is cost-effective, is not associated with increased cannabis use at the state level (indeed, they found larger increases of cannabis use in states that imposed criminal penalties) and is not correlated with rates of alcohol or other drug use.
The change seeks to re-appropriate the state’s legal resources, thus allowing for greater attention to be paid to more serious criminal offenses. Sarah Cardwell, Associate Dean of Student Life at Connecticut College, said, “I think it’s a fine change. Decriminalization is quite different from legalization,” and noted that the change is administrative, rather than moral.
But what does the decriminalization of marijuana in Connecticut mean for the student body of Connecticut College?
As it turns out, not that much. Dean Cardwell said, “The college’s policy on marijuana use has not changed in accordance with the new law because the legislation targets fines and logistics.”
The Student Handbook says, “Federal, state, and/or local laws govern the use, possession, and distribution of illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia.” However, Conn’s policy on marijuana use frames the nature of the violation as an unhealthy lifestyle choice to use drugs, and focuses primarily on the illegal status of marijuana in the state.
Sanctions are therefore educational, not monetary, and have not been amended to reflect the decriminalization of marijuana because use of the drug in any amount is still illegal. Alicia Cauteruccio ’12, Honor Council Chair, said, “The student code of conduct isn’t about punishing students but about encouraging healthy habits. We don’t place people on social warning right away for minor offenses because we are more interested in addressing the choice at an educational level.”
Dean Cardwell explained that, following the restructuring of Conn’s judicial system last year, minor drug use offenses are addressed as violations of the Student Code of Conduct at the administrative level, and not by the Honor Council. Students found in possession of minor amounts of marijuana are instead required to meet with Dean Cardwell personally and to attend educational workshops.
After three offenses, however, the matter is dealt with by the Honor Council, as it is reflective of an unhealthy pattern of behavior. Both Cauteruccio and Cardwell expressed their satisfaction with the newly restructured system.
Dean Cardwell said, “I think the change has been very successful, and it has made the process less bureaucratic and more focused on educating students about good decisions.” She noted that it has become easier to address conduct violations on a personal level at the root of the problem, and that matters of honor are now regarded more seriously.
Conn’s status as an educational institution allows for certain inconsistencies between college policies and state law, so long as these policies are enacted with the primary goals of education and safety in mind.
The Student Handbook opens with the assertion that Conn’s judicial system operates under a different set of standards from the court system: “The Honor Code, Student Code of Conduct, Student Bill of Rights and Adjudication Procedures are integral to the educational mission of the College. They are designed to foster an effective learning environment and support the values of our educational community. They are not based on, nor are they intended to mirror, the rights or procedures in civil or criminal court proceedings.”
In fact, the Honor Council operates under the principle of “preponderance of evidence,” and not “beyond all reasonable doubt,” because the goal of the proceedings is not to punish students but to inform them about the consequences of their actions.
Therefore, the college justifies its approach to the discipline of minor drug use violations by noting its educational value.
Other instances in which Conn policy differs slightly from state law have been regarded less favorably by students, most notably the procedure regarding room searches. According to the Student Handbook, if a student refuses consent to having his or her room searched, the matter is appealed to the on-call staff member at the Student Life office, and this staff member must approve or deny the request. A search warrant does not need to be obtained for room entry to be approved. (An officer of the New London Police Department, however, would be required to obtain a search warrant, and would need to be escorted by a Conn employee to perform the search).
While some students may claim that this practice violates their legal rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Dean Cardwell defended the policy by noting that unauthorized room entry is not a common occurrence and is approved only under circumstances in which the safety of the student or the community is at risk.
“We operate under a different set of standards here,” she said. “We don’t use principles of ‘reasonable suspicion’ or ‘probable cause’ necessarily, because we are not the legal system. Rather, we assess the situation to determine if there is a safety risk, and act according to our best judgment.”
Since the disciplinary policies of the college are designed to encourage members of the college community to make healthy and safe decisions, its policies may occasionally reinterpret state and federal legislation.
Although students may hold different opinions about the perceived fairness of these policies, Cauteruccio noted, “It’s important that people are informed about and understand the rules.” •
Now that cannabis use is no longer a criminal offense, why is the University of Connecticut concerned with students who use it? Is U of C clamping down on other more dangerous civil offenses like traffic violations? Smoking cannabis is rarely an unhealthy lifestyle. U of C should educate students (and themselves!) about the effects (both positive and negative) of cannabis and allow students to decide for themselves what they put in their own bodies. Dictating to students what constitutes a healthy life style (isn’t it different for everyone?), and forcing students to comply with an arbitrary standard which has little basis in science or fact, is completely contrary to the principles of education and sends the message that students can’t think for themselves.
If the U of C is truly concerned about the health of their student population, why are they targeting cannabis users? In the US, cigarettes cause 430,000 deaths per year, poor diet and lack of exercise causes 365,000 deaths per year, and alcohol causes 100,000 deaths per year while cannabis has caused zero deaths per year. Alcohol is associated with 90% of all sexual assault on college campuses. This is not to say that cannabis cannot, in relatively rare circumstances, cause harm. But if U of C’s health concerns were genuine, why are they not dictating what foods students can and cannot eat and how much exercise they get? Why are they not targeting tobacco and alcohol users? These concerns far outweigh the potential harms of cannabis.
Lastly, to the extent U of C wants to address unhealthy lifestyles, they would be far more effective if they did so through un-coerced education and by providing health services to those that wanted them rather than sanctioning cannabis users, which causes more problems than it solves.
“A search warrant does not need to be obtained for room entry to be approved… While some students may claim that this practice violates their legal rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Dean Cardwell defended the policy by noting that unauthorized room entry is not a common occurrence”
The ACLU ought to bring suit. These searches are unconstitutional and illegal. Dean Cardwell’s defense that these violations only occur infrequently is no defense at all. It is an admission of guilt. Yet another example of how cannabis prohibition has shredded our constitution. Shame on academicians who should know better.
You bring up some interesting ideas, Wayne. However while the searches may feel like a violation of student privacy, by living in campus housing, students agree to a certain code of conduct, and in doing so sacrifice some of their rights to privacy. Campus Security officers do not have the same legal obligations as law enforcement.
Also, as every Conn student has said at some point in their life, “Connecticut College, not UConn.”
Many apologies for confusing Conn College with U Conn. I should know better, I went to Wesleyan!! Eek!!
Do students sign an agreement or contract waiving their constitutional rights? If they do, whether or not this waiver is unconstitutional is up for debate. As a matter of law, the legality of agreements are regularly contested and as I suggested, the ACLU should investigate this and possibly bring suit to allow the Courts to decide the matter (not the college).
If the college has legally removed the constitutional rights of its students, then my last point still stands: yet another example of how prohibition eliminates our constitutional rights. Shame on academicians who should know better.