For Consideration by the Lawrence City Commission:
An Ordinance Banning the Adult Possession of Marijuana
and Drug Paraphernalia
Submitted by
Laura A. Green
Executive Director, Drug Policy Forum of Kansas
941 Kentucky Street
Lawrence, KS 66044
784-841-8278
www.dpfks.org
August 2005
Penalties against drug use should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself. Nowhere is this
more clear than in the laws against the possession of marijuana in private for personal use."
-President Jimmy Carter: Message to Congress, August 2, 1977.
Why an Ordinance Banning the Adult Possession of
Marijuana is necessary in Lawrence, Kansas

In Kansas, first-time possession of marijuana conviction is a class A misdemeanor.

The second possession of marijuana conviction is a felony, drug-severity level 4, even if the
previous conviction was in another city, county, state, country, or 30 years ago.

The Higher Education Reform Act-Drug Provision (section 484-r) denies or delays federal student
financial aid to anyone convicted of possession of marijuana in state or federal court, even if the
person is charged with a misdemeanor.

Nationally, more than 160,500 students have been disqualified from receiving aid since the Higher
Education Drug Amendment was added in 1998. KU and Haskell Indian Nations University
students who are issued a citation for first-time violation of a city ordinance banning the adult
possession of marijuana would not lose their student financial aid under the HEA amendment.
The 1996 Welfare Reform Act, denies federal assistance, including housing, job training, food, and
drug treatment, to adults convicted of first-time possession of marijuana. This denial of benefits has
shown to have an adverse effect on the children of persons convicted of drug possession.
Nationally, children are more and more living in poverty, while the median income of persons
with a college degrees goes up.


Taxpayers dollars used now to arrest, charge, and prosecute persons for possession of marijuana
could be better spent on property and violent crime investigations.
Summary of the Proposed City of Lawrence Ordinance
Banning Adult Possession of Marijuana
 The ordinance pertains only to persons 18 years of age or older on the day the
offense was committed.
 The amount charged for possession of marijuana is defined by the Kansas State
Statute.
 The Adult Possession of Marijuana ordinance directs the Lawrence Police Department
to issue a Uniform Notice to Appear and Traffic Complaint summoning the person to
a mandatory municipal court appearance.
 If the person is found guilty of adult possession of marijuana as defined in the
ordinance the penalties shall be the same as they would be in the District Court.
 The ordinance directs the Lawrence Police Department to make marijuana possession
a low priority.
 Persons charged with a second marijuana possession offense will be forwarded to
District Court because if convicted the penalty is a felony offense under Kansas law
which can not be tried in municipal court.
A Few of the many Kansas Cities with Ordinances on
Marijuana
Topeka
Overland Park
Wichita
Manhattan
Olathe
Leavenworth
Winfield
HEA Drug Provision
The following provision was contained in subsection (r) of section 484 of the Higher Education
Act of 1998 (see 20 U.S.C. 1091(r)).
(r) Suspension of eligibility for drug related offenses.(1) IN GENERAL- A student who has been convicted of any offense
under any Federal or State law involving the possession or sale of
a controlled substance shall not be eligible to receive any grant, loan,
or work assistance under this title during the period beginning on the
date of such conviction and ending after the interval specified in the
following table:
If convicted of an offense involving:
The possession of a controlled substance:
Ineligibility Period
First Offense - 1 year
Second Offense - 2 years
Third Offense - Indefinite
The sale of a controlled substance:
Ineligibility Period
First Offense - 2 years
Second Offense - Indefinite
REHABILITATION- A student whose eligibility has been suspended
under paragraph (1) may resume eligibility before the end of the
ineligibility period determined under such paragraph if-(A) the student satisfactorily completes a drug rehabilitation program
that-(i) complies with such criteria as the Secretary shall prescribe in
regulations for purposes of this paragraph; and
(ii) includes two unannounced drug tests; or
(B) the conviction is reversed, set aside, or otherwise rendered
nugatory.
(3) DEFINITIONS- In this subsection, the term `controlled substance'
has the meaning given the term in section 102(6) of the Controlled
Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(6)).'.
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendment made by paragraph (1),
regarding suspension of eligibility for drug-related offenses, shall apply
with respect to financial assistance of cover the costs of attendance for
periods of enrollment beginning after the date of enactment of this
Act.
The following student governments have endorsed a resolution
calling for the repeal of the provision of the Higher Education Act
that delays or denies college financial aid to persons with drug
convictions:
U.S. Student Association • Association of Big Ten Schools • Florida Student Association • Oregon Student Association Student
Association of the State University of New York • United Council of University of Wisconsin Students American University
(DC) • Amherst College (MA) • Appalachian State University (NC) • Baltimore City Community College Bates College (ME)
• Bergen Community College (NJ) • Brandeis College (MA) • Brown University College of William and Mary • Columbia
College (Columbia University) Dalton College (GA) • Dartmouth College (NH) • De Anza College (CA) • Douglas College
(Rutgers University) Earlham College (IN) • Florida A&M University • Florida International University at University Park
Florida International University at Biscayne Bay Campus • Florida State University Georgetown University (DC) • George
Washington University (DC) Goshen College (IN) • Gettysburg College (PA) • Grand Valley State University (MI) •
Hampshire College (MA) Howard University (DC) • Illinois State University at Normal • Indiana University at Bloomington
James Madison University (VA) • Lewis and Clark College (OR) • Linfield College (OR) Louisiana State University • Loyola
University (IL) • Mercyhurst College (PA) • Monroe Community College (NY) Mount Holyoke College (MA) • New College
of Florida • North Carolina State University Northwestern University (IL) • Ohio State University • Ohio University •
Oregon Students of Color Coalition Pennsylvania State University • Pitzer College (CA) • Pomona College (CA) • Portland
Community College at Cascade (OR) Portland Community College at Rock Creek (OR) • Portland State University (OR) •
Rice University (TX) Rochester Institute of Technology (NY) • Saint Cloud State University (MN) • Smith College (MA) South
Carolina State University • Southern Illinois University at Carbondale • Southern Oregon University SUNY Albany • SUNY
Binghamton • SUNY ESF • Syracuse University • Texas State University - San Marcos Union College (NY) • University of
California at Berkeley • University of California at San Diego University of California at Santa Barbara • University of
Colorado at Boulder University of Connecticut • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • University of Iowa •
University of Kansas University of Maryland at College Park • University of Michigan • University of Minnesota at Twin
Cities University of Missouri at Columbia • University of Montana - Missoula • University of Nevada at Las Vegas University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill • University of North Carolina at Wilmington • University of North Texas University of
Pennsylvania • University of Rhode Island • University of Southern California University of Texas at Austin • University of
Texas at Dallas • University of Toledo University of Wisconsin at Eau Claire • University of Wisconsin at Madison •
University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee University of Wisconsin at Richland • University of Wyoming • University of Vermont
• Utica College (NY) Washington University (MO) • Wesleyan University (CT) • Western Connecticut State University •
Western Maryland College Western State College (CO) • Western Washington University • Yale University
Organizations with Ties to Lawrence Supporting the
Repeal of the HEA Drug Provision













University of Kansas Student Government
KNEA
League of Women Voters
NAACP
Kansas Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers
Students for Sensible Drug Policy
Episcopal Church
Church of Christ
Methodist Church
Unitarian Church
American Academy of Physicians
American Nurses Association
Kansas Families Against Mandatory
Minimums
Opinion from NY Times Calling for the Repeal of the
HEA Drug Provision, July 20, 2005
Cutting College Aid, and Fostering Crime
One of the most irrational initiatives in the war on crime was a decision by Congress in the 1990's to cut off some exoffenders from federal education aid. It's highly unlikely that anyone has been deterred from lawbreaking as a
result. But if people who have paid their debts to society and are seeking new starts are denied education aid, they
could well be locked out of the new economy and sent right back through the revolving door into prison.
Congress is revisiting a particularly onerous law under which tens of thousands of students have been turned down for
federal grants and loans because of drug offenses, some of them minor and as much as a decade old. A proposed
change in the law would improve the picture slightly. It is aimed at penalizing students who commit drug-related
crimes while receiving federal aid. It would be better to repeal the provision entirely, as many observers have
suggested.
Law enforcement officials have learned over and over again that ex-offenders who get an education and find jobs are
far less likely to end up back behind bars. Barring former offenders from school aid makes it virtually impossible for
them to get the necessary schooling for joining the mainstream. The law has a disproportionate impact on poor
and minority communities, where the drug trade is rampant and young men often have run-ins with the law
before they get their lives on track.
By narrowing access to affordable education, the federal government further diminishes the prospects of young people
who are already at risk of becoming lifetime burdens to society. Members of Congress are understandably hesitant
to cast votes that might brand them as being "soft on crime." But it doesn't take a genius to see that barring young
offenders from college leads to more crime - not less. Student aid was never intended for use as a law enforcement
weapon. Any attempt to employ it that way will inevitably yield perverse and unfair results.
Life Sentences:
Denying Welfare Benefits
To Women Convicted of Drug Offenses*
Our report, Life Sentences: Denying Welfare Benefits to Women Convicted of Drug Offenses, documented the
harmful effects to women, children, and communities of the 1996 welfare reform provision imposing a lifetime
welfare ban on people convicted for possessing or selling drugs. As this report documents, legislative action in the
areas of welfare reform and the war on drugs has combined to produce negative consequences for many lowincome
women, with a disparate impact on African American women and Latinas. Since our report was issued,
several states have reconsidered their ban.
Report highlights:
Lifetime Welfare Ban Provision
· Section 115 of the welfare reform act provides that persons convicted of a state or federal felony offense for
using or selling drugs are subject to a lifetime ban on receiving cash assistance and food stamps. No other
offenses result in losing benefits.
· 34 states and the District of Columbia have eliminated or modified the lifetime ban, including California,
Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York, North Carolina and South Carolina.
· The growing trend among states to modify or opt out of the ban reflects mounting recognition that a complete
lifetime welfare ban is unsound public policy.
National Impact of the Lifetime Welfare Ban
· Over 92,000 women are currently affected by the lifetime welfare ban.
· The ban also currently places over 135,000 children at risk of coming in contact with child welfare services and
the criminal justice system due to the prospect of reduced family income support.
· More than 44,000 white women, nearly 35,000 African American women and almost 10,000 Latinas are
affected by the ban.
* Kansas puts a lifetime ban on a person convicted of a felony drug offense.
Impact of the Ban on Women and Children
· The loss of welfare benefits adversely affects the ability of women, especially women of color, to become self-sufficient,
provide for their children, and be active participants in their communities.
· The ban endangers the basic needs of low-income women and their children, including housing, food, job
training, education and drug treatment, which are all key ingredients to help poor families lift themselves out of
poverty.
· The ban will lead to higher incidences of family dissolution and further increase child welfare caseloads.
· The lifetime welfare ban has a disproportionate impact on African American and Latino families.
Recommendations
· Congress should hold hearings to consider the immediate repeal of the lifetime welfare ban.
· State governments should opt out of the ban or at least modify it. For those states tying drug treatment to
welfare assistance, additional programs, such as job training or GED programs, should be provided as an
alternative to maintain welfare benefits.
· The federal government should shift its focus in the “war on drugs” and allocate a greater proportion of funds
to prevention and treatment.
* State modifications updated January 2005
514 10TH STREET NW, SUITE 1000
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
TEL: 202.628.0871 · FAX: 202.628.1091
STAFF@SENTENCINGPROJECT.ORG
WWW.SENTENCINGPROJECT.ORG
Common Questions about Marijuana
answered by the National Academy of Sciences (ISBN 0-309-07155-0)

Q: Is marijuana addictive?

A: "Compared to most other drugs ... dependence
among marijuana users is relatively rare." [p. 94]

Drug Category
Proportion Of Users that
Became Dependent(%)
Tobacco
32
Alcohol
15
Marijuana
(including hashish)
9
Cocaine
17
Heroin
23

"There is no evidence that marijuana serves as a stepping
stone on the basis of its particular physiological effect."
[p. 99]

Q: Is marijuana more dangerous than tobacco?

"In summary, although few marijuana users develop
dependence, some do. But they appear to be less likely
to do so than users of other drugs (including alcohol
and nicotine), and marijuana dependence appears to
be less severe than dependence on other drugs." [p. 98]
A: "Given a cigarette of comparable weight, as much as
four times the amount of tar can be deposited in the
lungs of marijuana smokers as in the lungs of tobacco
smokers. ... However, a marijuana cigarette smoked
recreationally typically is not packed as tightly as a
tobacco cigarette, and the smokable substance is about
half that in a tobacco cigarette. In addition, tobacco
smokers generally smoke considerably more cigarettes
per day than do marijuana smokers." [Pp. 111, 112]

Q: Does marijuana cause cancer?

Q: Does marijuana lead to harder drugs?


A: "It does not appear to be a gateway drug to the
extent that it is the cause or even that it is the most
significant predictor of serious drug abuse; that is, care
must be taken not to attribute cause to association." [p.
101]
A: "There is no conclusive evidence that marijuana
causes cancer in humans, including cancers usually
related to tobacco use." [p. 119]

Common Questions about Marijuana
answered by the National Academy of Sciences (ISBN 0-309-07155-0)

Q: Does marijuana cause other life-threatening
health problems?

Q: Does marijuana cause laziness (a.k.a.
"motivational syndrome")?

A: "Epidemiological data indicate that in the general
population marijuana use is not associated with
increased mortality." [p. 109]


Q: Is marijuana useless or unnecessary for medical
purposes?
A: "When heavy marijuana use accompanies these
symptoms, the drug is often cited as the cause, but
no convincing data demonstrate a causal
relationship between marijuana smoking and these
behavioral characteristics." [Pp. 107, 108]

A: "Nausea, appetite loss, pain, and anxiety ... all
can be mitigated by marijuana. Although some
medications are more effective than marijuana for
these problems, they are not equally effective in all
patients." [p. 159]

Q: Do criminal penalties deter marijuana use?

A: "There is little evidence that decriminalization of
marijuana use necessarily leads to a substantial
increase in marijuana use." [p. 104]

Q: Does marijuana cause brain damage?

A: "Earlier studies purporting to show structural
changes in the brains of heavy marijuana users have
not been replicated with more sophisticated
techniques." [p. 106]