CREATING A SENSIBLE MARIJUANA LAW

ALMOST HALF of American adults have tried marijuana, and the number of
people who use it regularly has increased to about 15 million. This
expanding use of marijuana can no longer be dismissed as simply a
youthful fad that can be eliminated through the war on drugs.

Still, marijuana arrests account for nearly 44 percent of all drug
arrests in the United States. According to the Uniform Crime Report,
nearly 830,000 people were arrested in 2006 on marijuana charges,
nearly a 15 percent increase over 2005. Nine out of 10 were arrested
for mere possession.

Despite the increasing threat of arrest, the growing demands of
employers for urine tests, and the ubiquity of the misinformation
purveyed by the US government and the Partnership for a Drug-Free
America, the number of Americans who experiment with or regularly use
this substance continues to grow. So many people have discovered its
remarkably limited toxicity and its versatility as a medicine that 12
states have now adopted legislation or initiatives that allow for its
medicinal use and 12 states have decriminalized it by reducing
penalties for possession of small quantities to a fine, with no arrest
or jail penalty.

Massachusetts is considering decriminalizing minor marijuana offenses,
with both proposed legislation and a proposed voter initiative. An
out-of-state group has been collecting signatures for the voter
initiative. Despite my agreement with the goal of eliminating criminal
penalties for minor marijuana offenses, I oppose the initiative as it
has been drafted.

The initiative reduces the penalty for possession of up to 1 ounce of
marijuana to a fine of $100, but it actually establishes a new
offense. The sponsors should withdraw it and replace it with a more
thoughtfully worded version.

The new offense is internal possession of marijuana metabolites.
Anyone discovered to have any of these metabolites in his body fluids
or hair would be prosecutable.

However, like many other chemicals that are fat-soluble, these
metabolites are excreted slowly, often long after their capacity to
exert any psychoactive effect has disappeared. For example, an
individual who has smoked marijuana on a Saturday night might have a
positive urine test when she reports for work on Monday morning even
though there is no evidence that she is "high."

If she has used it every night, in much the same way others have a
daily alcoholic drink after work, her urine would test positive for at
least a month after the last smoke. Currently no such offense exists
under Massachusetts law; an individual today cannot be charged with
any offense simply because he has inactive THC metabolites in his
system. The existence of these metabolites in the body does not
signify impairment; their presence simply establishes a history of
having used marijuana in the past.

A second flaw in the initiative that should be corrected is the
definition of marijuana as limited to cannabis sativa that contains no
more than 2.5 percent THC, the primary active ingredient in marijuana.

Most marijuana ranges from 8 to 15 percent THC, and any initiative
must redefine marijuana as the flowers and leaves of the cannabis
sativa plant without THC limitation. Instead, the drafters of the
initiative have responded to this inadequate definition of marijuana
by drafting language that would decriminalize up to an ounce of the
far more potent pure THC, perhaps an unintended result of trying to
make the initiative compatible with the present statute.

Overall, the wording makes the initiative defective and vulnerable, a
vulnerability that would surely be exploited by the drug warriors as
they attempt to build opposition to this proposal should it eventually
make the ballot.

So let's reject this fatally flawed proposal and work with the
Legislature for a well-drafted law that would effectively
decriminalize the possession and use of marijuana by adults in
Massachusetts. If that doesn't happen by early 2009, another
well-drafted initiative, one that would truly free adults to use this
drug responsibly, would be in order.