cannabisnews.com: Chief Says He’s Sorry for Article Chief Says He’s Sorry for Article Posted by CN Staff on April 03, 2003 at 10:46:41 PT By Quinn O’Brien Source: Columbia Missourian Columbia Police Chief Randy Boehm apologized Tuesday for using a city-financed newsletter to campaign against the marijuana initiative on the April 8 ballot.Boehm wrote an article in the March 24 issue of the “Neighborhood Watch — Crime Blockers” newsletter, which is published and mailed by the Columbia Police Department in which he urged voters to “go to the polls and vote NO on the proposed ordinance.” Improper Action Under Section 115.646 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, no contribution or expenditure of public funds can be made to advocate, support or oppose any ballot measure.“It was improper,” Boehm said on Tuesday. “I was not as familiar as I should be about that rule. I put an article in every newsletter. I didn’t take into account that it could be against the law.”Dan Viets, a lawyer and advocate of the proposed ordinance, brought the newsletter to the attention of public officials including Second Ward Councilman Chris Janku last week.“The state statute prohibits spending any public money on campaigns,” City Counselor Fred Boeckman said. “After Councilman Janku called it to my attention, I called Chief Boehm and explained the law. He was apologetic.” The proposal The city proposal, which will appear on the ballot as Proposition 1, would require that all misdemeanor marijuana possession cases be sent to Municipal Court, reduce fines for first-time offenses to $25 and allow medicinal use of the drug for seriously ill patients with a doctor’s recommendation.Mayor Darwin Hindman said Tuesday that he had not heard about Boehm’s article, but he said any decision by the council to take action against Boehm would take place in an open meeting of the City Council.“I don’t mind admitting when I make a mistake, but I hope we can find a way to keep the focus on the proposed ordinance,” Boehm said. “I hope the public can get proper information so they can make an informed vote.”Note: Randy Boehm urged a ‘no’ vote on Prop. 1 in a Neighborhood Watch newsletter.Proposition 1: http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/Council/City_Election/proposition1.htmlSource: Columbia Missourian (MO)Author: Quinn O’Brien Published: April 1, 2003 Copyright: 2003 Columbia MissourianContact: editor digmo.com Website: http://www.digmo.com/Related Articles:Pot Initiative Draws Federal Attention http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15864.shtmlProp 1 Pits Proponents Against Law Enforcement http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15849.shtmlMarijuana Proposition Worries Law Enforcementhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15845.shtmlWhite House Weighs in on Pot Issue http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread15835.shtml Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help Comment #3 posted by John Tyler on April 03, 2003 at 20:07:32 PT ignorance of the law is no excuse “It was improper,” Boehm said on Tuesday. “I was not as familiar as I should be about that rule. I put an article in every newsletter. I didn’t take into account that it could be against the law.”The police breaks the law and says he is sorry! Ignorance of the law is no excuse. He should be punished for this lawbreaking as severly as possible and see how he likes it. What kind of an example is he setting? Think of the message this is sending to the children. [ Post Comment ] Comment #2 posted by mayan on April 03, 2003 at 17:21:44 PT malleus2... Don't count on them backing off. They can't afford to at this point! Besides, these officials are mostly crooks in the first place. They wouldn't know what to do if they had to abide by the law or play on a level field. If they played by the rules, the war on cannabis would have been over a long time ago.These antis sure are desperate! They've called all the dogs on this one! [ Post Comment ] Comment #1 posted by malleus2 on April 03, 2003 at 17:00:14 PT It's about time This is why somebody here some time ago kept harping on about the Hatch Act and why politicians could find themselves on the wrong side of the law by using their publicly paid for resources to engage in political action against the reform intiatives.A little more of this, and even the feds might back off. [ Post Comment ] Post Comment