LET LEGISLATORS KNOW YOUR STANCE ON MARIJUANA

After pondering marijuana law reform since 2000, the Joint Committee
on the Judiciary is now required to hold a hearing this month on an
Initiative Petition for An Act Establishing a Sensible Marihuana
Policy for the Commonwealth submitted by over four score thousand
voters. The Constitution requires the committee to consider and
report its "recommendations, and the reasons therefor, in writing" to
the Legislature. The possible ballot question should provide momentum
for the Legislature and governor to act, as they did two years ago
when faced with a potential healthcare ballot question.

Although I believe regulating and taxing marijuana, as we do tobacco
and beer, is the only policy consistent with securing to the
individual the blessings of liberty promised by the state and federal
constitutions, they should enact legislation that: ends the power of
the police to arrest persons over the age of 18 for possessing
marijuana; requires police to hold those under 18 for their parents
or guardians; makes possession a civil violation, subject to a fine;
and, to encourage enforcement, splits the fine between the state
treasury and the municipality in which the offense occurred.

Prohibition is an unwholesome and unreasonable policy that has not
worked if the desired result is less use and restricted availability.
When Massachusetts enacted its first law prohibiting marijuana
possession without a prescription in 1911, a miniscule minority of
Bay Staters used it except in medicine. Now you can't get a
prescription, but the Federal Government estimates close to 10
percent of us over the age of 18 regularly pursue this conception of
our happiness at least once each month and that over half of us have
tried marijuana, placing Massachusetts first in the nation for
monthly and lifetime use.

The peoples' experience with marijuana explains the substantial
margins of victory by which voters in three senate and 23
representative districts instructed their legislator to support
making marijuana possession a civil violation since 2000. The people
understand decriminalization conserves police, prosecution, judicial
and probation resources, and is a sensible substitute for dismissal
after a period of probation usually recommended by the district
attorneys and imposed by the courts.

For the police, decriminalization means the loss of power to arrest
and hold for bail - a power currently exercised arbitrarily. Some
officers do not commence prosecuting marijuana possessors unless they
have committed another offense for which they have the power to
arrest. These otherwise law-abiding persons receive a verbal warning
and may see their marijuana seized and destroyed. Other officers are
not as lenient; they free offenders on the street after issuing a
Uniform Massachusetts Citation, the same piece of paper you get when
caught speeding, to the offender, or tell the offender they will be
summoned to court. The least lenient arrest and hold the person for
the bail magistrate.

For the district attorneys it will mean the loss of the power to
prosecute persons whose only criminal offense is the possessing of
marijuana and the leverage such charges provide for plea-bargaining
when other crimes are alleged, due to the collateral punishments that
accompany a marijuana possession conviction, such as loss of driver's
license for one year.

Of course, they will never admit that it is about power. Instead they
will thunder that decriminalization will result in increased use
among young people; a concern not supported by experience. Passage of
similar legislation elsewhere has not led to increased marijuana use
or altered perceptions regarding the potential "dangers" of marijuana
use. The only U.S. government commissioned study to assess the impact
of strict legal penalties on marijuana use concluded that,
"decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the
marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use
among American young people."

A 2008 state-sponsored report on Seattle's implementation of a 2003
voter-approved ordinance making investigation and prosecution of
minor marijuana offenders the city's "lowest law enforcement
priority" found "no evident increase in marijuana use among youth and
young adults; no evident increase in crime; and no adverse impact on
public health." The report also found that "there is some evidence of
arguably positive effects [including,] fewer adults experiencing the
consequences of involvement in the criminal justice system due to
their personal use of marijuana."

Opponents will thunder that marijuana use is hazardous to public
safety and public health. The truth is marijuana has been intensively
studied over the four decades since its use exploded in the 1960s and
it has yet to be established that marijuana use causes cancer or
other disease. Nor is its use a significant contributor to motor
vehicle and workplace accidents. Of course, one should not go to work
or drive under its influence, but the research indicates its effects
no more impairing than over-the-counter cold medicines.

What President Carter said to Congress in 1977 remains true today:
"Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging
to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are,
they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws
against possession of marijuana in private for personal use. We can,
and should, continue to discourage the use of marijuana, but this can
be done without defining the smoker as a criminal."

Whether you agree or disagree, now is the time for let your
representatives on Beacon Hill know your opinion.