DA SPEAKS OUT AGAINST MARIJUANA DECRIMINALIZATION

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'Ts 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 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. a 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.
Therea'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 backed 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. 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.