A referendum previously slated to be on yesterday's election ballot concerning Tufts' marijuana policy was not included because of concerns about a loss of federal funding if the policy were to change, according to Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman.
The proposed policy would have imposed a $100 fine if a student was found with one ounce or less of marijuana. The change would have made Tufts policy consistent with Massachusetts state law.
The goal was to separate Tufts' marijuana and alcohol policies, Reitman said. However, the referendum did not make it on to the ballot after the Committee on Student Life (CSL) failed to approve the policy change, Reitman said.
"It was found to be inconsistent with the federal mandate in the Drug-Free Schools and [Communities] Act [(DFSCA)], which ties federal funding to schools and institutions of higher education in compliance with the act, which includes enforcement regarding illegal drugs," Reitman told the Daily in an email. "This inconsistency made it impossible for the referendum to go forward."
Up to that point, the change had been approved by a Tufts Community Union Senate resolution from last year, student petitions, Reitman and the Tufts University Police Department, according to Lauren Traitz, president of Tufts Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP).
Massachusetts currently levies the $100 fine without legal consequences, and the federal government cannot technically enact legislation restricting illegal drug use. The university, though, falls under the jurisdiction of the DFSCA and could thus face repercussions.
The DFSCA states, "As a condition of receiving funds or any other form of financial assistance under any federal program, an institution of higher education must certify that it has adopted and implemented a program to prevent the unlawful possession, use or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol by students and employees."
"We're not limited by law; we're limited by legal extortion," Traitz, a sophomore said. "This is an issue of our federal government not respecting us."
The referendum would have proposed that the $100 fine be excluded from the tuition bill and instead be sent in a separate statement to the student, according to Traitz. Students would have also needed to speak with a Health Service representative but not with Judicial Affairs Officer Veronica Carter, as current policy requires, she explained.
Traitz said the referendum was proposed because marijuana and alcohol violations should not be treated equally at Tufts since the state does not treat them the same way.
"If you drink yourself into the hospital, you're clearly abusing a drug," Traitz said. "[Under current policy,] that's treated the same as smoking a joint."
"From [University President Anthony Monaco] to every person I've met, no one thinks marijuana is a problem at Tufts," she added.
Traitz said that the final issue with the DFSCA that the CSL identified was the only step in the process during which she felt the referendum was threatened. She said that, from the start, Reitman was open to discussions about a new marijuana policy.
"It was probably one of the more positive steps of this experience," Traitz said. "It really made me feel that my school is on my side."
"My state decriminalized it, my school's ready, my police department's ready," she added. "What we're asking for isn't anything radical."
The process of turning last year's Senate resolution into a referendum happened in a matter of weeks, according to Policy Director of SSDP Evan Gale. SSDP members could not find another school with a similar policy, though, meaning that Tufts would have been the first to propose a change, Gale, a senior, explained.
The next step for SSDP is to launch an inquiry into whether the fine would truly be a problem and speak with other Boston-area schools about forming a coalition to approach the change.
Although the university and SSDP are not certain that the $100 fine would fail to meet DFSCA requirements, they are wary of running into legal trouble.
"It's really scary for an institution to kind of take the first dive," Traitz said.
"Tufts and Dean Reitman were pretty concerned about being the guinea pig," Gale said.
Juan Carlos Montemayor Elosua, a junior from Mexico who signed the most recent SSDP petition, does not think the proposed changes would be controversial.
"For me as a foreigner, that's very confusing," he added. "Something that's not illegal in the state wouldn't be illegal in the country."
SSDP will continue to work toward separating Tufts' alcohol and drug policies and providing a less restrictive marijuana policy, Traitz said.
"I don't know if the treatment of alcohol and drugs will always be addressed in a single policy," Reitman said. "I know that the entire policy will periodically be examined and adjusted as societal and campus values change. That has been its history and will no doubt continue to be the case."
