One toke over the line
Every so often, one of those situations pops up in Vermont that produces a knotty conflict where neither side has a monopoly on common sense. Such would seem, at first blush, to be the case involving a 61 year-old Windsor County lawyer and part-time family court judge who was busted last month for growing marijuana at her home.
For those of you who haven’t been following the ins and outs of this fascinating case, the Windsor County States Attorney recently opted to let off the offending lawyer with what would seem to be a legal wrist slap, ordering her into a court diversion program, which, if successfully completed, would result in no criminal record. Outraged, Gov. Jim Douglas responded by ordering the state police to refer all drug cases in Windsor County to the attorney general or the U.S. attorney general’s office, bypassing Robert Sand, the Windsor County States Attorney.
Somewhere, Abbie Hoffman and the rest of Woodstock Nation must be howling with laughter.
After the chuckling is over about a member of the legal community being hoisted by their own petard, there’s a serious issue at stake.
If court ordered diversion is a standard practice in such a case – a first time offender charged with possession of a controlled substance, Sand may have a point that this is an appropriate ruling. It's a typical punishment for first-time pot offenders in cases his office has handled, he has said. Hopefully, it would be so if the offender were an ordinary working young person as it is for a professional woman who is almost at retirement age.
But there is more involved here. Martha Davis, the lawyer and alleged marijuana cultivator, was arrested with more than two pounds of cannabis in her possession. That’s a plentiful stash if it was intended solely for personal use. It suggests intent to distribute, which takes us to another level.
Secondly, isn’t it fair to expect legal officers of the court, whether they are lawyers or judges, to be held to a higher standard when it comes to violating the law? They are the ones sworn to uphold it. The credibility and impartiality of the administration of justice – its “blindness” to social rank or stature – are critical in creating a civil society that respects the law. It would seem that officers of the court should strive to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, while we recognize they are fallible human beings like every one else.
Maybe Sand would have handed down the same decision for anyone. But if Davis had been living in another county, would her fate have been the same? Maybe, maybe not.
Marijuana use by private individuals is a slippery subject that different people view differently. Clearly it has potentially lethal effects on youngsters too young to consume it without courting physiological risk. Clearly, for some people, it’s a gateway drug that opens the doors to the hard stuff. For a 61-year-old, such risks may be much less of an issue. If we impose two standards based on age when it comes to things like driving an automobile or consuming alcohol, maybe it’s fair to do so with marijuana.
Meanwhile, the law is the law, and in this case, a temporary disbarment from being able to practice law would seem to be not unreasonable for attorneys who knowingly take such a risk. That just shows bad judgment.