DA BLODGETT SPEAKS OUT AGAINST QUESTION 2

Georgetown - Mary Jane, pot, weed, ganga -- call it what you want,
but Massachusetts voters will decide on a burning issue in the Nov. 4
election that's caused quite a stir between advocates and opponents
of current marijuana laws in the commonwealth.

Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett talked about his opposition
to Question 2 -- which would decriminalize possession of small
amounts of marijuana -- at a meeting Friday morning with Community
Newspaper Company reporters and editors in Beverly. His opinions
differ sharply with those of Georgetown's Steve Epstein, a well-known
local advocate of reducing the penalties for marijuana possession.

"Ballot Question 2 would undoubtedly have a negative effect on
children. It will facilitate young people smoking grass," Blodgett said.

Blodgett focused on what decriminalization would mean and the dangers
of marijuana during the informal question-and-answer session.

"There's no question this is a baby step [for supporters]. Their
ultimate goal is the legalization of drugs," he said of Question 2,
which he said is being back by Hungarian-born American financial guru
and political activist George Soros.

If Question 2 passes it is binding legislation and will go into
effect eight weeks after the election.

Question 2 on the Nov. 4 statewide ballot asks voters to approve or
deny a proposed law that would, "replace the criminal penalties for
possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of
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 subject to forfeiture of the
marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Their parents would also be
notified of the offense and the option to complete a drug awareness
program. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same
forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one
year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.

The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of
marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of
tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of
marijuana or THC in one's body.

A YES vote would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one
ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties. A NO
vote would make no change in state criminal laws concerning
possession of marijuana. The money received from the new civil
penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.

"I would have a better debate with you if the fine was $2,000. It
would be a more serious discussion. Don't tell me a $100 fine isn't
going to be a joke for people who can afford to buy an ounce,"
Blodgett said, noting that an ounce of marijuana typically sells for
$300 to $600.

He added, "I don't want the guy next to me drunk on I-95. And I don't
want the guy next to me on 95 stoned."

Looking for Legalization

Georgetown's Steve Epstein disagrees that a move toward legalization
would be bad policy.

Epstein, an attorney and Georgetown resident since 1987, is one of
the founders of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, which
was started in 1989.

"I think it should be [fully] legalized. I make no bones about it,"
said Epstein this week. He says that's where he differs from the
Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which is backing Question 2.
That group is currently not lobbying for further decriminalization
beyond what is called for in the ballot initiative, but Epstein
thinks Question 2 should just be a first step.

Epstein has worked for years to turn simple marijuana possession by
adults into a civil, rather than a criminal, offense. He also
supports legal marijuana use for medical purposes, saying in past
interviews, "If marijuana dealers were licensed and taxed, they'd
have an incentive to keep marijuana out of the schools."

Ten other states have legalized marijuana use for medicinal purposes.

Blodgett argued that those states' illegal marijuana use is higher,
saying Alaska is pushing to go back to criminalizing the possession
of marijuana.

Marijuana use is going to happen, Epstein reasons, saying, "The cat
is out of the bag."

"All you can do is teach your children and that moderation is key," he said.

Epstein calls current marijuana possession enforcement arbitrary
because the law grants the arbitrary power to the police to arrest,
summons or verbally warn the offender.

"That's one of the key things to me -- the arbitrariness of
enforcement. It depends on who or where," he said this week.

Blodgett argued that no one in Essex, Suffolk or Middlesex counties
is arrested just for possession of small amounts of marijuana, a
Class D substance. They are instead summoned to court.

Blodgett said juveniles who are caught with small amounts of
marijuana are placed in a juvenile diversion program that consists of
an online course, sessions with a counselor and possibly community service.

An adult typically gets six months unsupervised probation and then
the matter is closed in court, Blodgett said. They would only lose a
day off of work to show up to court.

"The criminal justice department is the single biggest referral of
services," he said, arguing if Question 2 passes people who would
otherwise be in the system and receiving health services would no
longer have access when they start getting addicted.

Proponents of Question 2 say the bill would help those caught with
marijuana from being denied jobs and volunteer opportunities because
the charge would no longer show up on a CORI check.

It now says you've been charged with a crime and it's been dismissed.

"If that's the issue, we're talking CORI reform. The governor has
proposed changes. It's an active discussion," Blodgett said.

'Not an Open Door'

Epstein argued that more than 10 percent of people over the age of 18
use marijuana each month.

"All too often race, age and financial status are implicated not only
in whether or not charges are brought, but also with the outcome of
those charges," he wrote in a guest column to the Georgetown Record in 2005.

A conviction may result in incarceration in jail, loss of license,
loss of a permit to carry, and more, Epstein reasons.

"Prohibition fails to keep marijuana away from children more
effectively than regulation of alcohol and tobacco keeps alcohol away
from children. It appears the wiser course for Congress and the state
legislature to tax and regulate this agricultural commodity while
prohibiting it to children as we do tobacco and alcohol," Epstein
wrote in a 2005 guest column.

He argued controlling the industry and charging fines similar to a
parking ticket for possession of small amounts of marijuana could be
a revenue maker for states.

"It's not an open door for dealers. If someone is caught with a lot
of small packages, or a lot of cash, it's indent to distribute and
they can be arrested," he said.

It would still be a crime to grow marijuana, possess marijuana with
the intent to distribute and to operate a motor vehicle while under
the influence of marijuana.

"No one should drive while impaired," Epstein said, but cites a study
that found smoking pot leaves the body impaired on a similar level as
taking Nyquil.

Blodgett stated that levels of THC in marijuana have risen to 30
percent, calling the marijuana found on the streets today, "Not your
father's Oldsmobile."

The stronger varieties tend to come from Canada across the border and
can be laced with stronger drugs.

Blodgett asked why proponents of the bill would want to be part of
the "dumbing down of America," asking who would benefit from this legislation.

"This is a drug dealers' protection act. This will seduce more kids
to smoke and buy marijuana," he said.

The district attorney's office spends as much time on prevention as
they do in persecution of drug-related crimes, Blodgett explained.

"We're in the schools. We're helping kids make good decisions," he said.

He argued decriminalizing any amount of marijuana, no matter the
size, is a bad health policy.