Bobbie Walthall From: Peetu PuppyDog <
[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 11:57 AM To: Bobbie Walthall; Lisa Larsen; Matthew Herbert; Jennifer Ananda; Leslie Soden; Stuart Boley Cc: Patrick Wilbur; Tresa McAlhaney; Kirsten Kuhn Subject: Marijuana Ordinance Draft 031919 Some notes I have on the draft ordinance: 1. The second conviction doesn’t need to be $200 plus an evaluation – This seems excessive, there are no ordinances where the second conviction is 200 times worse than the first. The second should also be $1. 2. The age limit needs to be 18 because the higher education act drug provision is still in effect - denying or delaying financial aid for college students who are convicted in state or federal court of a drug-related offense. 3. We should remove the paragraph about the evaluation. If you are convicted in municipal court of battery while drunk, or open container, or consuming alcohol in public you are not required to get a drug & alcohol evaluation, why should we give an otherwise law-abiding citizen an evaluation for possessing marijuana without another serious offense, like driving under the influence? The judge can order an evaluation at any time. I would like to comment on the Lawrence paraphernalia ordinance. I spoke with Maria Garcia yesterday, and she confirmed that is possible to lower the fine from $200 to $1. I think this is wise. It doesn’t make sense to fine someone $1 for marijuana and $200 for a pipe. If someone is found with crack cocaine and a pipe, they would be charged in district court because it’s a felony drug charge.