The Daily Pennsylvanian :: Lisa Zhu | A tale of two punishments

This weekend, a large proportion of Penn's student body will be celebrating a holiday that has become an essential part of the culture and lifestyle of many Americans. While I do wish a happy Passover to my Jewish peers, the festivity that I speak of has nothing to do with Moses.

Rather, I'm referring to April 20, the one day of the year unofficially dedicated to the iconoclastic consumption of marijuana in the United States. But as certain students at Penn gleefully light up a joint this weekend, the consequences of doing the same for our neighbors a block away remain much more of a buzz kill.

Specifically, the regulations governing marijuana use and possession within many universities serve as a glaring indication of the privilege given to those of a certain socioeconomic status. And the disparity between Penn and Philadelphia's persecution of marijuana users is further indication of intrinsic unfairness in our criminal justice system.

My cursory investigation into how Penn deals with marijuana yielded few results. In other words, the University seems to have a very opaque or informal procedure for dealing with cases of marijuana possession.

"We do get cases of possession of marijuana. I have no clue how many we get, and I have no clue how many go to court," said Office of Student Conduct Director Susan Herron. "There's no set sanction for any particular type of case; it's all very fact sensitive."

And because most marijuana cases involving students are kept confidential, it is difficult to describe the range of punishments meted out by the University. However, anecdotal evidence indicates that the few existing repercussions hardly qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.

For instance, "Last year, I was caught with weed in my room, and I was sent to speak with the House Dean," an unnamed College and Wharton sophomore told me. "They talked to me about getting a drug test, but they never really followed up on it, and nothing ended up happening."

In other words, from my very informal poll of my peers, it would seem that most Penn students smoke up without the fear of being hauled down to 4040 Chestnut Street for a heart-to-heart with Mo-Mo Rush.

"From friends that I've known that have been caught with marijuana in a college dorm, it's basically a slap on the wrist," Engineering and Wharton senior Azim Munivar told me. "There's no real legal action that happens. It's really handled internally within a College House."

In contrast, the consequences of drug possession outside of Penn's campus are much more dire. A Philadelphia Inquirer article from April 1, 2008 stated that out of the entire country, Philadelphia had the highest incarceration rate in its jails. Some of these inmates are arrested simply for possession of marijuana. Unsurprisingly, the demographics of these prisoners show an overwhelming number of them are racial minorities who live below the poverty line.

"Though many universities, especially four-year private institutions, recruit for diversity, they still draw predominantly middle- and upper-class students," said Ware House Dean Nathan Smith, "Most of them offer a certain level of protection from legal repercussions for non-violent crimes."

But that's not to say that Penn should automatically crack down on students caught with marijuana.

There are no easy solutions to the problems of class- and race-based disparity in America's criminal justice system.

The nature of urban crime is far too complex for us to easily differentiate between what's right and wrong, what warrants a prison sentence and what does not.

Suffice it to say, however, that Penn has the right idea in acknowledging that students will be students, that even our most powerful leaders have raised a joint to their lips from time to time (but never inhaled).

It's high time (no pun intended) that Philadelphia learns the same.

Lisa Zhu is a Wharton and College junior from Cherry Hill, N.J., United Minorities Council chairwoman and Undergraduate Assembly member. Her e-mail is zhu@dailypennsylvanian.com. Zhu-ology appears Fridays.

Comments (16)

I would like to know where you got your lack of data from? Do you really know what percentage of prisoners are in there for marijuana possession? I really doubt that it�?s any real percentage. I don't think the city of Philadelphia has the resources to house inmates for simple possession. Most of these inmates would be repeat offenders. You fail to mention the high rate of violent crimes in Philadelphia, or non-violent felonies that happen to cause the high rate of incarcerations. This is a dangerous city, and we cannot afford to waste our resources on non-violent misdemeanors (which is what simple possession is). Repeat misdemeanors would warrant jail time but the city definitely would not waste precious jail space on a one time misdemeanor. I know of a past Penn student who got arrested by Philadelphia Police with several bags of marijuana prepped for distribution as well as large quantity of prescription narcotics that were not prescribed to him. All he got was community service from the city (he did go through the legal process, faced a judge, and got a public defender and all). OSC did even less. They basically refused to get involved with it and allowed the city to handle the case. OSC is a piece of shit organization within the Penn system. They do not handle cases with objectivity. They do not weigh the severity of cases within the breadth of cases that they handle. They rather punish severely petty little cases such as MIPs or destruction of property than deal with actual felonies such as possession with intent to distribute or students with DUIs. It's a shame that people such as Ed Rentazelez had the ability to turn his back on real cases that should have real consequences and deal with the petty little bullshit that happens everywhere. It's a shame that they waste their time on little things rather than crack down on real crime. It would be one thing if they only handled academic cases and let all other legal cases be handled by the justice system. But they selectively pick and choose the cases that they handle and pursue based on their own personal whims and fancies.

Summary: 1) I don't actually know how the University handles marijuana possession, so I asked two people and used that as my data set. 2) I don't actually know how many people are locked up for pot possession, so I'll just say that a lot are. 3) I'm going to ignore the fact that University disciplinary procedures are different from those followed by the Penn Police, who will enforce the law just as Philly PD does. 4) Without any real information that would enable me to compare the University to the City of Philadelphia, I'm going to make a comparison between the two and randomly attribute the discrepancy to racism and unfair treatment.

The author here makes ridiculous conclusions based on false information. The Penn Police handle pot possession the same way the Philly PD do, in accordance with the law. Whether RA's and other individuals call them or not is another story. But how many people in Philly report someone for pot possession? It's probably even less. And trust me, the Philly cops aren't locking up most people for pot possession - they write them a summons and send them on their way, unless it's a lot (i.e. intent to distribute) or unless they cause a problem.

This is one of the worst piece of writing I've ever read. I think a middle schooler from Northeast Philly would have written a more insightful piece on this subject.

What's more important that actual incarceration rates is arrest rate. In that respect, the race discrepancy is most prominent. For example, in 2006 in Philadelphia county, according to the Pennsylvania Unified Crime Report, 6,572 people were arrested. Of those, 5,137, or 78.2% were African American. According to the 2000 census, only 43.2 percent of the city's population is African American. I think focusing on decriminalizing marijuana in Philadelphia would be a better use of time. Why even bother arresting for possession when a ticket (or nothing at all) would suffice? That's the best way to avoid wasting police officers' valuable time.

Oh please, this isn't a racial issue. If someone breaks the law, then the police arrest them, regardless of race, and if coincidentally those persons who break the law are disproportionately of one race then they'll comprise the majority of arrests. I'm sure if you traveled to a heavily Caucasian community you'd find that almost all arrests involved persons of that race. And as to legalizing marijuana: it's a controlled, dangerous substance that serves as a gateway drug to more dangerous drug habits, causes higher unemployment rates and serves as a catalyst for further crime as addicts attempt to support their own addiction. Stricter enforcement of existing drug laws, and the implementation of harsher ones, is what the city, not to mention the country, needs. Make the risks to great to justify the rewards, and eventually people will stop abusing it.

[QUOTE id="5a4acb66-579a-4f64-946e-2d4e9472cc34"]Oh please, this isn't a racial issue. If someone breaks the law, then the police arrest them, regardless of race, and if coincidentally those persons who break the law are disproportionately of one race then they'll comprise the majority of arrests. I'm sure if you traveled to a heavily Caucasian community you'd find that almost all arrests involved persons of that race. And as to legalizing marijuana: it's a controlled, dangerous substance that serves as a gateway drug to more dangerous drug habits, causes higher unemployment rates and serves as a catalyst for further crime as addicts attempt to support their own addiction. Stricter enforcement of existing drug laws, and the implementation of harsher ones, is what the city, not to mention the country, needs. Make the risks to great to justify the rewards, and eventually people will stop abusing it.[/QUOTE] The first paragraph makes sense but the second convinces me you learned everything you know about marijuana from DARE programs and sensationalist hearsay. You know, kind of like how marijuana is legally a narcotic, but scientifically (and to anyone who's intellectually honest), it isn't a narcotic. This issue is like the incarceration rate in the United States, and virtually all issues relating to crime. If politicians were to speak the truth, they'd be less popular for being seen as soft on crime. After all, people's safety isn't the important thing, it's making oneself popular in the eyes of others. Enjoy your koolaid.

The marijuana sold today has much higher THC chemical content than the marijuana sold in the '60s and '70s. THC content has increased from 1 percent THC in 1975 to 6 to 14 percent THC in 1985 due to hybridization techniques. Today's marijuana presents serious health threats and major psychological damage. Also, it offers much greater potential for dependence. THC is absorbed quickly into fatty tissue and is stored there for a long time. Because of this, a single dose may take 3 to 4 weeks to get out of the system completely. The higher THC concentration of today's marijuana has increased the percentage of people who will become dependent on it. -Courtesy of a rehab hospital. Funny that we'd need those if weed isn't addictive. http://schick-shadel.com/marijuana.asp "No one would argue that marijuana is as addictive as alcohol or cocaine. However, it's wrong to say that it is not at all addictive. More and more studies are finding that marijuana has addictive properties. Both animal and human studies show physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms from marijuana, including irritability, restlessness, insomnia, nausea and intense dreams. Tolerance to marijuana also builds up rapidly. Heavy users need 8 times higher doses to get the same effects as infrequent users. For a small percentage of people who use it, marijuana can be highly addictive. It is estimated that 10% to 14% of users will become heavily dependent. More than 120,000 people in the US seek treatment for marijuana addiction every year. Because the consequences of marijuana use can be subtle and insidious, it is more difficult to recognize signs of addiction. Cultural and societal beliefs that marijuana cannot be addictive make it less likely for people to seek help or to get support for quitting." -Courtesy of Brown University. Interesting that highly qualified academic and medical professionals also find weed so addictive. -URL won't copy. It's Brown's Student Health services, if you wish to look it up. If I was you, my friend, I'd get off your far-left, legalize marijuana websites and get the scientific and medical facts before attempting to expound upon my wisdom. Enjoy your coolaid :) Feel free to continue the debate.

I love how the marijuana debate is the one time when young potheads actually do know more about something than old fogies. Gateway drug? hahaha. Oxygen is a gateway drug. Virtually everyone who does cocaine, heroine, etc. will have already breathed oxygen, just as he will have already smoked marijuana. Funny how it doesn't occur that smoking marijuana makes you extremely likely to use cocaine or heroine, though. If something being a gateway drug doesn't mean it makes you significantly more likely to do other drugs, but only that it is a drug someone will have already used before going on to harder drugs, then yes, your argument is calling oxygen a gateway drug if followed to its logical conclusion. Maybe you should stop using this shitty argument, or just admit that you oppose the use of marijuana for other, more personal or vindictive reasons, whilst acknowledging that it is not dangerous, addictive, etc. Because the more you use bad evidence to defend your beliefs, the more you convince your listeners there must not be any good arguments to defend them. If there were, you'd be using those supporting evidences and decent arguments, not the fallacies you're using now. I'd bet DARE programs encourage more students to use drugs, by teaching them that policemen and teachers are dishonest or ignorant of the effects of a wide variety of drugs, particularly marijuana.

[QUOTE id="b5c46fd9-4ac5-438a-a108-c2761e35536d"]"The marijuana sold today has much higher THC chemical content than the marijuana sold in the '60s and '70s. THC content has increased from 1 percent THC in 1975 to 6 to 14 percent THC in 1985 due to hybridization techniques. Today's marijuana presents serious health threats and major psychological damage. Also, it offers much greater potential for dependence.[/quote] When they did those studies, they used the lowest quality marijuana from the 70's and the highest quality from the present. No wonder there's such a high discrepancy. One thing you're forgetting is that THC is a non-toxic chemical, and that it's impossible to overdose on it by smoking it. This isn't surprising, considering nobody has ever died from it. For the sake of argument, even if marijuana's potency had jumped 100%, all that means is that responsible users would have to smoke less to get high. That's better for their health because they don't have to inhale as much smoke. [quote] THC is absorbed quickly into fatty tissue and is stored there for a long time. Because of this, a single dose may take 3 to 4 weeks to get out of the system completely. The higher THC concentration of today's marijuana has increased the percentage of people who will become dependent on it." -Courtesy of a rehab hospital. Funny that we'd need those if weed isn't addictive. http://schick-shadel.com/marijuana.asp [/quote] Dependence is not addiction. More importantly, statistics show that over 58% of people admitted into treatment come from the criminal justice system, while only 16% were referred by walk-in or by their parents. You can read more about that at http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2004/08/03/treatmentStatisticsOrTheDr.html [quote] "No one would argue that marijuana is as addictive as alcohol or cocaine. However, it's wrong to say that it is not at all addictive. More and more studies are finding that marijuana has addictive properties. Both animal and human studies show physical and psychological withdrawal symptoms from marijuana, including irritability, restlessness, insomnia, nausea and intense dreams. Tolerance to marijuana also builds up rapidly. Heavy users need 8 times higher doses to get the same effects as infrequent users. For a small percentage of people who use it, marijuana can be highly addictive. It is estimated that 10% to 14% of users will become heavily dependent. More than 120,000 people in the US seek treatment for marijuana addiction every year. Because the consequences of marijuana use can be subtle and insidious, it is more difficult to recognize signs of addiction. Cultural and societal beliefs that marijuana cannot be addictive make it less likely for people to seek help or to get support for quitting." -Courtesy of Brown University. Interesting that highly qualified academic and medical professionals also find weed so addictive. -URL won't copy. It's Brown's Student Health services, if you wish to look it up. [/QUOTE] If I were you, I would first check out the American College of Physician's recent paper on the subject, found at http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/medicare/medicare_fee.pdf , then read the recommendations of the Shaffer Commission, found at http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm . If you're really feeling up to it, you can check out the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report on medical marijuana (which the Clinton administration ignored), found at http://books.nap.edu/html/marimed/ Second, alcohol is a highly addictive and dangerous substance which is legal and used responsibly by the majority of the people who use it, yet has been directly responsible for the deaths of millions of people at a rate of tens of thousands per year. Marijuana on the other hand, has never been directly attributed to the death of a single person, and over 14 million people in the US use it regularly. Wouldn't it stand to reason that having marijuana as a legal alternative is a good thing? Lastly, and most importantly, people use marijuana regardless of the law, mostly to no ill effect. The demand is there, and the supply is most definitely there. Drug demand reduction efforts have failed horribly, and supply disruption efforts work in the very short term only. All it does is drive the price up and the quality down, but people can still get what they want. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to keep doing what doesn't work. If it were legal and regulated, like alcohol, teenagers would have a harder time getting it, and responsible adults would not have to rely on a shady black market for their choice of drug.

Correction: The American College of Physicians link I posted was the wrong one, this one is correct: http://www.acponline.org/advocacy/where_we_stand/other_issues/medmarijuana.pdf

Sadly, the late hour is most likely going to remove all eloquence from the following post, but here goes: "Better for their health because they inhale less smoke:" Best of all to inhale none at all :) Lung cancer, my friend (not that I'm a radical anti-tobacco type). "Dependence is not addiction" No, technically, according to the OED, it's not, but they're two sides of the same coin. Dependence and Addiction are both diseases characterized by a reliance upon a certain substance to obtain a pleasurable feeling and a negative side effect when one stops relying upon that substance. "Alcohol is a highly dangerous substance:" Only when abused. Otherwise, when consumed in moderation, it has no negative health effects, unless one happens to have certain medical conditions. The same cannot be said of marijuana. "Alcohol is dangerous and addictive:" Not to 14% of first or repeat users it isn't. Not that I'm denying that alcoholism is a serious disease, but again, the statistics characterizing are startlingly lower (I think that most studies rate it at less than 4% of users, though there have been a range that put it as high as 10%, those being extremely rare and often indicative of political/social bias). "Deaths directly associated to marijuana:" No, there has not been a case of THC poisoning. Ever. You're right on that one. What you're missing is the number of deaths directly related to its use: murders due to criminals trying to feed their habits, driving while under the influence of THC, irresponsible actions from THC, overdoses from harder drugs (it's a gateway drug, remember?), not to mention negative and immediate health effects of heavy use. Does alcohol have the above effects? Yes, but only when heavily abused. THC's effects are immediate. "If it were regulated, teenagers would have a harder time getting it:" Um...I'm not going to insult you here, but you are in college. You should know how easy it is for underage drinkers to obtain and abuse alcohol. "Legal and regulated:" that's not going to stop people from getting addicted to it, nor is it going to prevent persons committing crimes to feed their addictions. Oh, and in answer to your URLs: great research. Sadly, I don't have the energy at the moment to post conflicting data, but feel free to Google Marijuana + words such as dangerous, addictive, gateway drug, etc. You'll get plenty of answers. Looking forward to your riposte.

Oh, and I forgot to mention: there must be a reason rehab centers exist and why they are assigned. Allow me to explain simply: Symptoms indicate presence of disease (addiction) --> medical community develops treatment for disease --> treatment works, resulting in increase of patients and success. -True of rehab. And the legal process: I would think that the legal system would've stopped using diversionary programs (where a certain treatment program is completed in lieu of a suspended sentence) if they didn't work, if they didn't treat the addiction and if they didn't prevent recidivism. Symptoms cured = disease cured = presence of disease in the first place (in this case addiction).

Best of all to inhale none at all :) Lung cancer, my friend (not that I'm a radical anti-tobacco type): Marijuana does not cause cancer. In fact, it's been shown (in the largest study ever done on the subject, done by the same man who's been trying to prove a marijuana-cancer link for years) to have a negative correlation, even when users smoke very heavily. Hear it from the man himself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJmQ16cGBHU or read about it here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html. Other independent studies have shown THC to be an anti-tumor agent. As for addiction, your definition doesn't apply to 85% of all users, and definitely no casual user. By casual I mean someone who smokes once per week or less. As for the negative effects of marijuana, sure, there are a few. Nobody's denying that. But don't go and say that alcohol has none... if you go and binge drink in one night you can die from alcohol poisoning. If you smoke too much, you fall asleep. Big difference there. You earlier quoted this: "It is estimated that 10% to 14% of users will become heavily dependent.". Since you neglected to post the study, I'd love to know how many people were involved in it and how it was controlled. For how long do they become dependent? What happens when they stop using it? They don't die of withdrawal symptoms, they get restless or irritable, or can't sleep. That happens when you stop doing anything you really like. Try going a few days without the Internet, or without your morning brew. It's not going to kill you. On the subject of marijuana-related deaths, I believe you're confusing marijuana with the war on marijuana. It's not the drug itself that induces violence, it's the fact that it's worth its weight in gold because of the black market. A highly demanded drug (14 million+ regular users) which is easy to grow and distribute is only going to be worth so much if the risk in growing it is extremely high, and that's the exact situation we're in now. Remember alcohol prohibition? Remember Al Capone and all the violence and death that came from it? This is the exact same thing. As for people driving on marijuana, as far as I know there have not been any reputable studies done on the effects of marijuana use on drivers. What I do know is that it is extremely hard to attribute accidents on marijuana use, unless the person was literally smoking it when he got in the accident. Marijuana metabolites stay in your bloodstream for up to a week if used infrequently, or up to a month if used regularly. Also, please, marijuana has never ever been proven to be a gateway drug. Most users of marijuana never go on to harder drugs; however, most people who use harder drugs started with marijuana, tobacco, or alcohol. http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html Correlation is not causation. While you're right that it's easy to get alcohol while underage, it's still easier to get weed. Drug dealers don't card you, but the cashier at the beer distributor at 40th and Walnut will. People won't want to lose their business license by risking selling to underage teens. That doesn't mean it will be impossible for them to get it, it just means it will be harder than it is now. That's how effective regulation of something works. It seems to me that your main objection to legalization is that you have some moral objection to people doing it. That, however, is not justification for its legal status. It's not wrong because it's illegal, and it's illegal but not because it's wrong.

April 15 - College freshman Adam Friedman, 19, was arrested for allegedly possessing marijuana in the Quadrangle, located at 3600 Spruce St., at about 12:20 a.m. ...what were you saying, Zhu?

Comments are closed for this item.