Press enter after choosing selection

Pot Resolution Lacks Support

Pot Resolution Lacks Support image
Parent Issue
Copyright Protected
Rights Held By
Donated by the Ann Arbor News. © The Ann Arbor News.
OCR Text

Pot Resolution Lacks Support

Wednesday April  11, 1973

Consideration of a resolution requesting that the City of Ann Arbor rescind its controversial marijuana ordinance was postponed indefinitely by the county’s Administration and Intergovernmental Relations Committee Tuesday.

The resolution, proposed by Cmsr. Jay L. Bradbury, R-Lima Township, was tabled after brief discussion.

Bradbury said he believed the city should conform to the state controlled substances act and that the $5 marijuana fine ordinance was making it difficult for the University of Michigan to attract qualified professors.

Bradbury said the goal of the resolution was to urge the city to conform to existing state laws, and that when and if the state law was changed, then the penalty for possession of marijuana in the city could become more lenient.

Bradbury’s resolution was opposed by Cmsr. James Cregar, D-Ypsilanti, who said he did not believe the county should interfere in city affairs. “I think by the time we will reconsider this, it will have been done anyway.”

Cmsr. Meri Lou Murray, D-Ann Arbor, opposed the resolution on slightly different grounds, stating that President Nixon’s commission on drugs had recommended that all marijuana laws be abolished ‘‘because it’s no worse for you than alcohol."

“If the police arrested every kid in this town who smokes marijuana, that county jail would be so full we would have real problems.” Bradbury was the only commissioner to speak in support of the resolution, which stated: “The city of Ann Arbor is hereby requested to suspend or rescind said marijuana ordinance thereby once again complying with the more stringent state laws as uniformly enforced throughout the state until such a time as the Legislature shall change or reaffirm the existing laws.”

The city’s ordinance is currently in limbo pending an appeal of a ruling by District Court Judge S. J. Elden that the ordinance is unconstitutional. The new Republican majority of the City Council is considering rescinding the ordinance.