Elgin committee OKs change to punishment for marijuana possession

Misdemeanor possession of under 30 grams of marijuana is expected soon to no longer be a crime for certain first- and second-time offenders in Elgin.

The Elgin City Council's committee of the whole approved the measure 8-1 on Wednesday night. The ordinance, which will have different fines for possession of under 10 grams and possession of under 30 grams, will need approval from the full city council, which next meets Oct. 14.

Elgin's move comes in the wake of Cook County's decision in April to stop prosecuting such offenders. Approximately 17 percent of Elgin is in Cook County and the rest in Kane County.

“Making it consistent between Cook and Kane County ultimately makes the most sense,” Police Chief Jeff Swoboda said.

Police could still criminally charge people if there are aggravating factors such as gang activity, intent to deliver, being near a school and possession of a firearm.

The issue was first discussed at a special council meeting in July at the initiative of Councilwoman Tish Powell. Elgin is not decriminalizing marijuana, just making sure people — especially youth — who make initial mistakes don't end up paying for it later in life, Powell said. It also makes things more equitable across the entire city, she said.

“Hopefully it will free up some time for our police officers to focus on more serious, more violent crimes but also give people a second chance who I think deserve a second chance,” she said.

Ninety-five percent of the 1,415 cannabis possession arrests made by Elgin police from 2011 until now were for misdemeanor amounts, city officials said. All those cases resulted in criminal arrests records, and a majority resulted in convictions. More than 40 percent were people under the age of 21, and 83 percent under the age of 30.

Aurora, Naperville, Carpentersville, Streamwood, Hanover Park and St. Charles are among suburbs that have similar ordinances. “We are being forward thinking,” Councilwoman Carol Rauschenberger said.

Councilman Rich Dunne, who voted against the proposed ordinance, said he supports its reasons but believes the issue should be dealt with at the federal level.