°£. Page 4-Friday, March 28, 1980-The Michigan Daily ash Bash Eve look at marijuana law reform More than ttree hundrd million citizens of marijuana policies. Government is not allowed marijuana are rapidly driving us to the point at Harris polls have shown majority support for IN EARLY 1979, Senator Hart rei the world use cannabis for medical, spiritual, dostrae clera eling ulic in which we literally will not be able to afford the decriminalization since 1977. It is also Senate Bill 65 as our twenty-first app and recreational purposdes; fifty million o temonstrate clear and compelling pub c - costs of marijuana prohibition, if we haven't becoming increasingly evident to many derstandable policy. In its original f them are Americans. Only caffeine, nicotine ven the most foolish opponent of marijuana reached that point already. , criminal justice personnel that marijuana con- offered a rational structure for crim and alcohol are more popular drugs of choice reform that the "murder-insanity-death" theory It is apparent that marijuana use is a socially victions are very difficult to achieve; many regarding marijuana use. There w and they, unlike marijuana, are legally was doomed (i.e., when the middle class accepted behavior for a significant and Michigan jurisdictions no longer ring to trial penalty for private use or possessio ....._.. certainkinds of cases. snal dwellin.ivil fines for Dub] ntroduced eal for un- rm, SB65 nal policy uld be no n i a per- Lic use oil available for recreational use. None are risk free, and at least two are significant public health problems. Only cannabis is non-toxic, and only cannabis has demonstrated medical value. And only cannabis carries criminal san- ctions against private, personal use. Marijuana use has been prohibited and medical research severely limited since the 1930s when the Director of theFederal Bureau of Narcotics could say with a straight face, "The marijuana user is a violent criminal with an insatiable appetite for rape, homicide, and mayhem. Eventually it renders the user totally insane." Harry Anslinger's "Reefer Madness" myths have been replaced by a subtler working hypothesis that openly recognizes the har- shness, futility, and irrational roots of current penalties, but asks us to retain them "just in case." HENCE, PRESIDENT CARlTER on the one hand calls on Congress for federal decriminalization, while on the other-in the person of White House drug-policy advisor Lee, Dogoloff-exhorts the scientific community to "take the necessary leap of imagination (to prove) that marijuana use poses a serious threat. Further, Carter encourages the Justicey Department to call for state enactment of con- stitutionally untenable anti-paraphernalia legislation. Something is obviously wrong with our discovered marijuana), emphasis was shifted to the.protection of individual health. Brain damage, broken chromosomes, anti-social behavior, lowered immunity to disease, and impaired sexual. function became topics of debate, and remained long after the original studies has fallen by the scientific wayside. All nine of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's annual reports to Congress titled "Marijuana and Health"' have come to the reluctant conclusion, following exhaustive review of all the scientific literature available, that moderate use of marijuana by adults does not constitute any significant public health dangers. This does serious damage to the foundation of marijuana prohibition, but in recent years courts have become increasingly reluctant to overturn criminal statutes. The burden of removing criminal penalty from per- sonal, private behavior has been placed on the state legislatures. THERE HAS NEVER been a successful prohibition of any type, but the marijuana prohibition in America has been spectacularly unsuccessful. One-third of the adult population has now used cannabis, and four million adults were arrested for that use during the last decade. The human and social costs of making so many citizens outlaws are incalculable, but the fiscal costs have been measured. State and local governments spend well over $500,000.on marijuana enforcement each year. American consumers spent another $7,000,000,000 last year to import from Columbia a plant our federal government grows in Mississippi for a little more than $5 a pound. A significant balance of trade deficit and a multi-billion dollar (tax-free) cash economy based on growing cross-section of our society. Support for outright legalization has grown from 8 per cent in 1972 (when the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse recommended removal of all penalties for personal, private use and possession) to nearly 30 per cent of all registered voters today. Both Gallup and MARIJUANA POLICIES present no excep- tion to the axiom you must speak to be heard. Eleven states have decriminalized marijuana use and subsequently expressed satisfaction with their decision. Nineteen states have taken steps to make marijuana medically available, including Michigan. In no case was the refor- mation accomplished, much less attempted, without a broad base citizen support. The Hash Bash represents the tip of a very large Michigan iceberg-government estimates make it clear that three million Michigan citizens have used marijuana, each at the risk of being branded a crimpinal. In contrast, that is more citizens than generally turn out for a general election. Decriminalization is endorsed by interest groups as varied as the Michigan Council on Alcohol Problems and the American Civil Liberties Union chapter, the state Office of Substance Abuse Services, the State Bar of Michigan, New Detroit, PIRGIM, and the.State Sheriff's Association, as well as most of the major newspapers. We're very close to decriminalization, and it all depends on us. Many people will be surprised to learn the Michigan legislature has entertained twenty- one separate attempts to decriminalize certain marijuana offenses since 1968. The first seven- teen died in committee, often without so much as a hearing. The next three failed on the House floor, although each carried a majority of those present and voting on the issue. The last of these attempts was offered by Senator Jerry Hart of Saginaw/Bay City. After clearing the Senate, it lost by a single vote at the end of the 1978 season. possession of small amounts, misdemeanor penalties for small not-for-profit transfers,and felony status for larger sales or transfers to minors. The bill passed the Senate last spring, but in altered form. The privacy protection was lost on a tie, jail penalties were reinstated for minors (ironically, less than a week after a Dearborn Heights youth hung himself while being held on a possession charge), and presumptive felony possession sentences which have already been overturned by Michiga4 courts were added almost as an afterthought. The bill is now in the House Judiciary Commit- tee where it has significant support, although whether it has sufficient support to correct its deficiencies remains to be seen. The Hash Bash is a great way to reassert how deeply many of us feel about marijuana reform, and.to begin the election year drive for better marijuana policies. PIRGIM is bringing Roger Winthrop, state coordinator of NORML (National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws), to Ann Arb Wednesday, April 2, to discuss Michigan' marijuana decriminalization law (SB 65). The discussion will take place in conference room 4 of the Michigan Union at 7:00 p.m. The Public Interest Research Group in Michigan (PIRGIM) gddresses a number of consumer and student concerns in its weekly column on this page. This article was written by former PIRGIM membe Roger Winthrop, who is Michigan state coordinator of the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). Tq} A PARTICIPANT IN last year's April Fools Day Hash Bash is escorted from the Diag by a policeman. An increasing number of voters in the state favoring decriminalization of marijuana could prompt change in penalties for its use. lNuaet *(Yearsof EdNiorial IFret(Idons Vol. XC, No. 140 News Phone: 764-0552 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Let's call a party a party Every year, Michigan students pass up thousands of dollars that are available to them under two state programs, the Homestead Property Tax Credit and the Home Heating Credit. Despite the names, you do not need to be a homeowner or directly pay a utility bill in order to qualify for benefits, which can be substan- tial. It is also not necessary to file a Michigan Income Tax Return to receive benefits under these programs. The programs are designed to relieve the burdens of high. property taxes and home heating - costs on low income people. The formulae for each program are such that many students could receive cash from the state. UNDER THE Property Tax Credit, a person is entitled to a credit if his or her property taxes exceed 3.5 per cent of his or her "household income." In the case of renters, property taxes are assumed to equal 17 per cent of rent paid by the person for a domicile in Michigan. "Household income" is defined slightly different ly from- the definition of income for income tax purposes. For instance, non- taxable items such as scholar- ships (but not student loans) and veterans bonuses are included in Tax credits mean money for students By Tom Wieder W E HOPE it's not an omen of things to come, but already - almost two weeks before the balloting - there has been a complaint about the Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) election. Fortunately, this complaint can be answered, and the problem rectified, before another Pandora's Box of ac- cusations and mudslinging is opened. Last year's election brought enough surprises to last for a decade. The complaint concerns the con- fusing name of one party - "Indepen- dent Students" (IS). Earlier this week, Bruce Brumberg, an independent can- didate who is not a member of IS, com- plained to Election Director Ross Romeo that the IS name is misleading. Romeo ruled Wednesday that the IS name could stand . because the dif- ference between IS candidates and in- dependent (u'naffiliated) candidates will be clear on the ballot. While this may be true, Romeo has ruled incorrectly on this complaint. Brumberg's concern that voters could confuse campaign materials of in- dependents with those of IS members seems quite justified. IS should be required to make a simple change in its name by adding the word "Party." IS party chairman Bob Redko has argued that any confusion about the IS name can only help unaffiliated in- dependents. This assertion, however, presupposes too much. It is not certain that IS will attract great student sup- port, or that independents will want to be confused with IS candidates. IS is entitled to the benefit of the doubt that its name was not deliberately intended to confuse voters. In fact, the name seems ap- propriate considering'the party's com- position - a group of independent students, according to Redko. Brumberg has vowed to appeal Romeo's decision to the election board. We hope the board orders IS to add a P, that IS does not resist the change, and that this minor problem does not prove to be ominous. "household income," and there is no $100 dividend exclusion. On the * other hand, any amount paid for medical insurance may be deduc- ted. Here is how the Property Tax Credit might apply to a typical student. Suppose a student's in- come from a summer job, a part- time job during school, and dividends and interest equals $4,000. The student has an apar- tment in Ann Arbor, for which the rent totals 1800 dollars for the year. Seventeen percent of that rent (the property tax rate) equals $306. Three and a half per cent of the student's income equals $140. The student is entitled to a credit equal to 60' per cent of the dif- ference between the taxes paid and the income figure: $306 minus $140 equals $166; $166 times sixty per cent equals $99.60. THE CREDIT is not merely an offset against income tax liability. The student receives the full credit whether or not any in- come taxes are paid. The Home Heating Credit wor- ks somewhat differently. The same 3.5 per cent figure is used, but it is offset against a standard allowance based on the number of exemptions the taxpayer claims. In the case of a single student, the standard allowance would be $200. Assuming the same $4000 in income, the 3.5 per cent figure is again $140. The taypayer is entitled to receive a credit equal to the total amount of the difference between the two figures: $200 minus $140 equalI $60. There is one catch in the Home Heating Credit program. Unlike the Property Tax Credit,- it may not be claimed by a full-time student who is claimed as a dependent by someone else. THE FORMS required for the two credit programs are included with Michigan Income Tax for-* ms. The form packets may be ob- tained at some local banks or from the Secretary of State's of- fice at 611 Church Street. You may file your credit forms with your income tax forms or separately. The final date for filing a credit for property taxes paid in 1979 is December 31, 1981. This means it is not too late to file a credit for taxes paid in 1978, since the deadline for this is December 31, 1980. For further information about the credits, call the Michigan Treasury Department at 971-6112. Tom Wieder is a University law school student. LETTERS TO THE DAILY: A survey can't solve dorm problems -. --- r % '-: l, ' . _. :. _ - ;. r , , , ,. 'rrif' 3R . , '; , 1 . To the Daily : I am sitting here in my dorm single looking at my copy of a Housing Office student needs survey and wondering exactly what I'm supposed to do with'it. The attached explanation ex- plains that this is not "just another survey" and that the in- formation garnered from the results will be used by Housing to provide improved, expanded, and individually-directed programs for residents and staff training. I am specifically wondering how all this information gathering relates to the fact that I had trouble getting a hot shower this-and most other-mornings. I'm also wondering what was in the meat served up as "sloppy joes" today in the dorm cafeteria for lunch; it had a queer light color and a distinctly ar- tificial aftertaste. I wonder why there is no mention in this latest survey of how I am dealing with financial difficulties, especially in view of the fact that I ex- perience them so regularly, and that all educational expen- ses-especially housing-will be rising again next fall. Most of all I wonder how, as a housing employee, I can recon- cile myself to my role as a fun- ctionary in this extensive bureaucracy, in view of the fact that in three years here at the University I have yet to encounter any high-level administrators that breed alienation and educational failures. The food is, legendary for its monotonousness and poor qualty. The plumbing and heating systems are generally old and in poor repair, contributing to rising costs as well as student dissatisfaction. Administrators, clerks, and other staff are too of- ten well versed in the "rules" made for every dorm by the cen- tral housing office, and insensitive to the considerable problems they often create for students. The university is a very large, complex community, and some of these problems are certainly unavoidable. But the high costs of university housing reflect cer- tain realities that are. not likely to go away as an aftermath to this new survey of more than 2,000 dormitory residents, namely waste, inefficiency, and a scar- city of necessary features for a D. C. draft protest coverage incomplete pleasantdorm existence. Housing cannot continue to issue surveys, regulations, and rate increases in, such alunilateral and unrespon- sive manner, or the kind of protest we have recently seen towards the draft and other aspects of American militaris will soon be levelled at a mue more accessible target: the Housing Offices in the SAB. -Tom Stephens March 26 . rr7Yt b To the Daily: Upon returning to Ann Arbor early this morning from the rally held to protest the draft in Washington D.C., I was par- ticularly distressed to find your coverage of that event shallow and misleading 'Daily, March 23). As a voice of the students, and at times an expression of a higher political consciousness, I would expect the Daily to present more than just the standard media approach. Unforunately, Gregg Wolper's article reads like the regular UPI or AP reports. While according to police estimates only thirty thousand protesters marched, organizers of the rally estimated many more. It is to the advantage of the police and the establishment to underestimate participation at such events. In the past it has hen my exnerience that a delivered an inspiring and power- ful speech. He congratulated and applauded the will and deter- mination of all people who struggle against social injustice and irresponsible government in- stitutions. He denounced not just the foreign but also the internal policies of this country and called on people to continue in their fight against the corporate power structure. He encouraged the third world to rise up and free themselves from all forms of economic and political im- perialism. Both David Dellinger, one of the Chicago Seven, and Stokley Carmichael, a civil rights activist and organizer during the 1960s, spoke. Even Michael Harrington's remarks were ex- cluded from Wolper's article. The arguments presented by many of the speakers focused on more than just the issue of the draft. The issue really to be debat4 by students and politically active people today is political and social justice. The draft is merely a focal point for such a discussion because it represents the in- justice and oppression charac- teristic of capitalism in American and throughout the world. The protesters who mar- ched Saturday were there to protest more than just American foreign policy and the draft. W were there to protest militarism, corporate power, and all the destructive institutions they represent. Whether AP, UPI, or The Michigan Daily choose to ignore this or not, people throughout the world will con- tinue to strive for liberation. -Daniel Levitas March 23 Ii f i i ! f j . ' :M / ,; r i ' 1, it =. , !. . 'Al Ai I I