POT SHOTS: DA SAYS POT INITIATIVE WOULD BE BAD FOR KIDS

North Shore - Opponents of this year's ballot Question 2 ,which would
decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana and make the
penalty similar to a traffic ticket, have built a traditional case
against the proposal. They have said marijuana is a gateway drug that
has the potential to lead to other types of substance abuse. They've
argued that pot today is about 30 percent stronger than it used to
be, and that it is, in fact, a dangerous drug.

But if the statewide coalition of district attorneys, police chiefs
and drug abuse counselors who are working to defeat the proposal at
the polls next month really want to gain some political ground, it
seems like all they really might have to do is say one word -- Alaska.

Back in 1975, the Alaskan State Supreme Court ruled it was legal to
possess and use small amounts of marijuana in one's own home. Smoking
pot is a regular everyday right in the moose-shooting,
snow-machine-racing home state of VP republican candidate Sarah
Palin. Tie Question 2 to Palin's peculiar universe, and the
opposition against it is bound to pick up some support in
Massachusetts, you betcha.

But that's not how opponents of Question 2 are playing it.

Essex County District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett adamantly opposes
Question 2 and he has been out and around talking to groups and
making the case against the proposal.

"We think it's a terrible idea," says Blodgett. "The Massachusetts
Department of Public Health says we've had a decrease in drug use
among teens since 2001. Why would we want to reverse that?"

Blodgett says the only real data about marijuana and its link to
other drugs comes from a 15-year-old study from the Columbia Center
for Substance Abuse and Addiction.

"It's scientifically proven that you are five to six times more
likely to develop serious addictive behaviors with other drugs if you
use marijuana," says Blodgett.

And he has some strong local support.

"I stand with the D.A. and the rest of the chiefs in the Commonwealth
on this," says Newburyport's Police Chief Tom Howard. "It's been
proven time and time again that marijuana is a stepping stone for
other drug use."

Howard also points out that the current laws allow police to step in
and make a difference where it counts.

"Courts play an important role in intervention," says Howard.

Juveniles who are arrested for marijuana possession and use are often
referred to the Diversion Program that consists of an online course,
sessions with a counselor and possibly community service. The court
system mandates that kids get some advice and help about drug use
before they are out of their league with other drugs.

"With just a fine we don't get to intervene until much later," says Howard.

And from a pure law enforcement perspective, Howard says the current
laws on marijuana are useful in stopping crime.

"A lot of good information is gathered through investigation of drug
use," says Howard. Those opportunities would be lost if Question 2
passes and marijuana is decriminalized.

Looking for Legalization

Those who favor decriminalizing marijuana believe that tide has
changed. They point the fact that that this is not the first pot
question to appear on a Massachusetts ballot. There have been 30
non-binding public policy questions calling for similar reforms that
have passed in districts across Massachusetts since 2000, with an
average of 62 percent of people voting in favor of the reforms. They
also tout a recent Suffolk University/WHDH Ch. 7 poll that shows 72
percent of the respondents favor ending criminal penalties for
suspects carrying less than an ounce of pot.

For years, Georgetown's Steve Epstein has been out in front on the
fight to reform marijuana laws. 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,"
says Epstein. He adds 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 just as 10 other
states have done.

"Marijuana use is going to happen," Epstein says. "The cat is out of
the bag...All you can do is teach your children that moderation is key."

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 says.

And Epstein and other proponents of Question 2 also believe the
current laws unfairly handicap those who have been convicted of
possession of small amounts of marijuana with a criminal record that
follows then for the rest of their lives. They say decimalization
would help those caught with marijuana from being denied jobs and
volunteer opportunities because the charge would no longer show up on
a background check.

But Blodgett believes that argument is apples and oranges.

"If that's the issue, we're talking CORI (Criminal Offender Record
Information) reform. The governor has proposed changes. It's an
active discussion," he says.

'Not an Open Door'

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

"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 for the Georgetown Record.

And Epstein argues that controlling the industry and charging fines
could be a revenue maker for the state.

"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 intent to distribute and
they can be arrested," he says. Even if Question 2 passes, 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.

Still, Blodgett asks why proponents of the bill would want to be part
of the "dumbing down of America."

"This is a drug dealers' protection act. This will seduce more kids
to smoke and buy marijuana," he says According to Blodgett, his
office spends as much time on prevention as they do in prosecution of
drug-related crimes.

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

And there are other organizations trying to take that positive
proactive approach. Newburyport's Beacon Coalition, which was founded
several years ago in the wake a of a highly publicized case involving
a local teen who was killed by an underage drunken driver, fights
substance abuse by trying to create a healthy community that offers
positive opportunities and options to kids.

Because the coalition is just that, a coalition made up of many
voices and opinions throughout Newburyport, the organization has
decided not to take a political stand on Question 2. They do,
however, say that the federal organizations that fund the coalition
argue that ballot initiatives like Question 2 ignore prevention
efforts and their message that marijuana is dangerous and can have
serious consequences.

Prevention groups like the coalition believe legalizing or
decriminalizing marijuana is not the solution to reducing drug abuse
and solving the issues that surround Question 2. They feel giving
kids the information and the chance to make healthy decisions is the
better way to go.

And that's an argument Blodgett and other opponents of Question 2
hope will resonate with voters as they go to the polls on Nov. 4.

"For anyone to think that this is no big deal, that marijuana is just
a rite of passage, they are keeping their eyes shut," says Blodgett.
As he puts it, decriminalizing any amount of marijuana, no matter the
size, is just bad health policy.

FYI

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.