UP IN SMOKE

Pot, Politics and the Public. The Move to Decriminalize Marijuana.

Shelley doesn't want her real name used.

She's 40 years old, the mother of four, a full-time professional in a
Worcester office. And a pot smoker.

Eleven years ago, she was going through a painful divorce and taking
Zoloft to help her cope.

"It was awful. I didn't feel good, I didn't feel depressed, I didn't
feel anything. My physician at the time said, 'Look, I'm not supposed
to tell you this, but there is something that could help you.'"

He didn't "prescribe" marijuana, she says, but suggested there might
be some benefits. Shelley came off the Zoloft and began smoking
several nights a week out by the fire pit in her backyard, usually
after 9 p.m. If it rained, she retreated to the garage.

The pot relaxes her, helps her sleep. She said she suffers from
post-traumatic stress disorder dating back to childhood, and the weed
"re-sets me." She continues the ritual of a few nightly tokes, which
she equates to the glass of wine someone else might drink after a long day.

There is one significant difference.

"I would lose everything if I got caught," she says, shaking her
head. "For what? For smoking an herb that comes out of the earth."

Shelley has been writing checks to the Committee for Sensible
Marijuana Policy (CSMP), the group promoting the passage of Question
2 on the Nov. 4 ballot. Question 2 would decriminalize the possession
of an ounce or less of marijuana by replacing arrest and judicial
processing with a system of civil penalties. That baggie of grass, so
long as its weight stays beneath the magic number, would net the
holder a $100 fine, and no permanent criminal record.

Whether or not marijuana should be legalized is a debate that has
been waged in fits and starts since pot became the drug of choice for
a new generation. Currently, 12 states have decriminalized marijuana
at some level (see sidebar). Nevada was the most recent to
decriminalize, in 2001.

Now it's Massachusetts' turn to wrestle with the question of whether
the full force of the criminal justice system should be brought to
bear on low-level marijuana offenses. Question 2 made it to the
ballot in large part because of the financial backing of billionaire
George Soros, who in 2007 contributed $400,000 to the ballot
campaign. In 2000 Soros contributed heavily to a failed ballot
question that would have softened penalties for manufacturing or
distributing controlled substances.

Despite the heat generated between proponents and detractors,
Question 2 has largely flown below the radar, subsumed by a highly
charged presidential campaign, Wall Street woes and beetle invasions.
It's not even the most controversial question on the Nov. 4 ballot:
that title goes to Question 1, the repeal of the state income tax.

Still, while national leadership and pocketbook issues dominate the
airwaves, both sides on the pot decriminalization issue are ramping
up efforts to convince the public this is either the best or worst
idea to come down the Mass Pike in a long time.

$29.5 Million.

That's the amount CSMP pegs as the potential savings if the one-ounce
law is passed. The figure comes from a 2002 study by Jeffrey A.
Miron, Senior Lecturer on Economics at Harvard University (updated to
reflect 2008 values), who with several studies on the topic under his
belt has become something of a pied piper on decriminalizing marijuana.

Miron contends that tens of millions of dollars are being spent in
law enforcement, judicial and corrections resources in connection
with marijuana-related incidents. Resources, he says, that could be
better deployed.

"This is a modest proposal," says CSMP spokesperson Whitney Taylor.
"We're saying that $29.5 million should stay in public coffers to
fight serious or violent crimes. Jeff's economic model shows that
once a cop puts the cuffs on somebody, he's [the police officer] off
the street. He gets paid to go to court ... there are a lot of law
enforcement costs. We just think the money could be put to better use."

Taylor says the proposed law also means that someone arrested for a
marijuana offense will not have his or her name listed permanently as
part of CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information), as is presently
the case. A CORI check reveals if a person has been arrested, even if
the charges are dismissed. Such an arrest, Taylor insists, can be a
lifelong barrier to employment, housing, coaching youth sports,
becoming a foster or adoptive parent, or obtaining professional licensure.

"With Question 2, the penalty would fit the crime," Taylor says.
"Those lifelong barriers would not be there.

"We don't promote or condone marijuana use," she adds. "This is a
criminal justice issue to us." In the case of youthful offenders,
Taylor says, the CSMP proposal brings parents or guardians into the
loop immediately, since the citation is delivered directly to them.
The offender is then required to complete a drug awareness course and
community service.

"You put a kid in an orange jumpsuit picking up trash as his friends
go by, that's an effective punishment," she says.

"A dopey smokescreen" is William Breault's favorite description of
Question 2 (his favorite term for Soros: "Sugar daddy of drug
legalization"). It pops up in the packet of anti-legalization
literature he's been passing out. It crops up in conversation. It's
the rallying cry he's using in his Sherman's March from the
Berkshires to New Bedford to torch the arguments of his opponents.
For months the director of the Main South Alliance for Public Safety
has been visiting police chiefs, mayors and public officials of every
grade to spread the message that decriminalizing possession of even
small amounts of marijuana is a bad idea.

"If you lower the bar on use, then abuse will rise. If this passes,
getting caught with an ounce will be like getting a speeding ticket,"
he says, noting that an ounce is the equivalent of about 40 joints.

Breault bristles at the suggestion that marijuana is not a gateway
drug to harder stuff.

"I've seen it," he says. "I've lived with it. Through the years I've
seen people [with drug problems] who started smoking a joint at age
12, and the fact is if they don't smoke that joint they have a 70
percent better chance of not moving on to harder drugs."

He cites a report by the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association
that, in turn, pulls together studies done by organizations like the
National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, that shows marijuana use has declined significantly
among teenagers since 2001. Decriminalizing the drug, they insist,
could reverse that downward trend.

One thing both sides seem to agree on -- although they don't
acknowledge that they agree -- is that few people actually do prison
time for possession of marijuana. Representatives from each side say
it's not true that thousands are languishing in jails for pot
possession while murderers and rapists roam free.

"Nobody goes to jail for simple possession," says Worcester District
Attorney Joseph Early Jr., who has joined the other 10 D.A.s
throughout the state to oppose Question 2. Early says possession is
typically not a stand-alone charge, and is often clumped with other
offenses like assault and battery or operating under the influence.

The D.A. touts his Diversion Program, which allows offenders ages 17
to 23 to do eight hours of community service, take a substance abuse
counseling class online, and stay clean (testing is done), after
which possession charges are dismissed. Early stresses that all this
is done pre-arraignment, which keeps the charge off the offender's
permanent record.

The catch: you only get one bite of the apple. Subsequent arrests are
handled in standard fashion. Still, he notes, possession of an ounce
or less results in a continued-without-finding for six months, and if
there are no violations in that time, the person's record is sealed.

"We've got to look at it and say, 'Why are we doing this?'" Early
says of Question 2. As a matter of public safety, it's a no-brainer,
he believes, citing the incidence of motor vehicle and workplace
accidents due to marijuana use.

Early and Breault note that the pot being smoked circa 2008 is a far
cry from the stuff the baby boomers inhaled during the Summer of
Love. Breault points to a study by the University of Mississippi's
Potency Monitoring Project that found levels of THC -- the main
psychoactive substance in cannabis -- in samples the university
tested are more than double what they were in 1983 thanks to advanced
growing methods. The White House Office of National Drug Control
Policy also recently released a report that using marijuana increases
the risk of developing mental disorders by 40 percent, and that
teenagers who use are three times more likely to have suicidal
thoughts than nonusers.

Taylor says opponents are throwing up red herrings to refute CSMP's
arguments, especially regarding the amount of prison time, or lack
of, for offenders.

"We've never said the prisons are full of people arrested for
possession of marijuana. We know that's not true," she says. "If you
look at the other states that have decriminalized marijuana, an ounce
is about the median amount. This is a pragmatic course of action."

She contests the assertions of Breault and others that marijuana is a
gateway to harder drugs.

"That's like saying every person who rides a bicycle is going to ride
a motorcycle," Taylor says.

Not all local government officials oppose the relaxing of weed laws.

State Rep. Jim O'Day (D-Worcester) supports Question 2, and says the
key is to educate voters that the measure is not a blanket attempt to
legalize marijuana.

"If it was, I'd vote against it," he says. Until the CORI system can
be reformed, a pot arrest "haunts someone for a long time. If you can
keep them off of CORI and there is a fine associated with an offense,
there is still a consequence to negative behavior."

O'Day, a former bar owner, says "alcohol is the true gateway drug."

"I've seen behavior in people drinking that would boggle your mind,"
he says. "I can't remember ever seeing the violence and rage in
people who smoke marijuana that I've seen in people when they're drinking."

State Sen. Harriette Chandler (D-Worcester) offers the prevailing
legislative view that the laws are working. The "current law is
satisfactory," she says. "The district attorney and the police know
how to implement them. The laws are there and I see no reason to change them."

For now, Shelley, will continue to quietly write checks in support of
Question 2.

"Just saying pot is bad isn't enough," she says. "Saying I can't use
it responsibly is not enough. I'm sorry, but people don't go from
being potheads to being cokeheads because they like what pot does and
they want more. They go from pot to coke, or something else, because
they don't like the buzz they get from pot.

"Look, I'm involved in the community, I pay my taxes, my kids aren't
troublemakers. I don't drive when I'm high. If this passes, I
wouldn't change the precautions I take when it comes to smoking pot.
It's still a pretty intimate act."

[sidebar]

WHAT IT MEANS

If Question 2 passes, the new law would replace the criminal
penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with civil
penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude
information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal
record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be fined
$100; those under 18 would also pay a fine of $100 and be required to
complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense. The
program would include 10 hours of community service and at least four
hours of instruction or group discussion about the use and abuse of
marijuana and other drugs.

If the underage offenders don't complete the program, the fine could
be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an
inability to pay, or an inability to participate in such a program.
The offender's parents could also be held liable for the increased
penalty. Anyone under 17 who fails to complete the program could be
subject to a delinquency proceeding.

Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana
could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing
any other penalty, sanction or disqualifications, such as denying
student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance
including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor
vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent.
The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit
the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws,
practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking
other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful
possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling,
manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.

The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city
or town where the offense occurred.

. Summary from the Attorney General's Office

[sidebar By Andy Sullivan]

RALLY GOERS: IT'S HIGH TIME FOR CHANGE

"Vote yes" on Question 2, the Massachusetts Sensible Marijuana
Initiative Policy, was the cry for thousands of supporters on Boston
Common for the 19th annual Freedom Rally Sept. 20. With a mix of
activists, supporters and hippies of all ages, the field was littered
with acoustic guitars, games of hacky sack and a hazy cloud of smoke.
It was a relatively peaceful gathering filled with live music and
vendors. Worcester-area residents made the trip to Boston and found
the event a unique experience.

"It's a positive environment," said Sean LeVoir, 20, of Worcester.
"There's a lot of love going on around here.

"It's definitely not what I was expecting," he said. "I thought it
would be some crazy festival and everyone would be smoking pot.
There's really not that much weed-smoking going around. It's more for
the cause, I think."

The event was co-sponsored by the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform
Coalition (MassCann) and the National Organization for the Reform of
Marijuana Laws.

Some felt the benefit of the rally was the chance to share their
opinions about marijuana use in an open forum.

"If people get together, it'd be nice to see some changes," said John
Jacobs, 17, of Holden. "I don't think it's bad for anyone, as long as
you are responsible enough to control it."

LeVoir thinks Massachusetts could benefit from a change.

"Massachusetts tends to be a state that tries to impose laws on
freedoms and keep people from doing what they want," said LeVoir.
"People should be able to smoke weed if they want. There are a bunch
of things that are much more addicting. Nicotine is at the top of the
list, and you can buy that."

Police patrolled the area all afternoon; Six arrests were made.
Steven Epstein, a MassCann founder, said he hopes people don't fall
into the trap of perceiving the rally as a haven for slackers and
troublemakers, but rather as a call for reform.

With Question 2 appearing on the ballot, this year's event took on
more significance, Epstein said.

"If you take away the criminal aspect of [marijuana] and the
forbidden fruit, kids have become less interested," he said.

The rally seemed to have the kind of impact Epstein was anticipating.
Rally goers who were interviewed said they plan to make Question 2 a
priority when they cast their vote. The new policy would be a $100
fine, without any further disciplinary action for possession of an
ounce or less of marijuana.

"It's been passed in 11 other states," said Courtney Caramillo of
Worcester. "Why couldn't it be successful here?"

[sidebar]

WHAT OTHER STATES DO

Currently, 12 states have decriminalized marijuana at some level --
Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi,
Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Oregon.

A sampling of the penalties:

New York issues a civil citation for the first two offenses of
possessing 25 grams or less, and fines of $100 and $200 respectively.
A third offense is a misdemeanor, which can result in five days
incarceration and/or a fine of $250.

In Colorado, possession of less than 100 grams is considered a "minor
misdemeanor," which does not create a public record.

Nebraska issues a civil citation and fine of $300 for a first offense
of 1 ounce or less. There is also the possibility the offender may
have to take a drug education course.