CASTING A RELUCTANT 'YES' ON QUESTION 2

My conservative is at war with my libertarian. I and myself are
having a conversation about Question 2, the initiative petition on
the November ballot to decriminalize marijuana.

A "Yes" vote would replace the criminal penalties for possession of
one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.
Offenders would no longer risk arrest, jail, loss of driver's
licenses; they wouldn't have a criminal record. Instead, a $100 fine
would be imposed, and offenders under age 18 would also have their
parents notified and be required to complete a drug awareness
program. If they don't, the fine is raised to $1,000.

Conservative Barbara: Taking drugs for recreation is dumb. Why would
anyone want to reject God's gift of a sharp, reasoning brain and turn
it to mush, even temporarily? Decriminalizing marijuana sends a
message to already dumbed-down Americans that marijuana is more
acceptable than is currently implied by the criminal penalties.

Libertarian Barbara: I agree with you that smoking pot is dumb. But
it's none of the government's business if people want to do dumb
things, as long as they don't hurt someone else. How would you like
to have been arrested the two times you tried marijuana in your misspent youth?

CB: The misspent youth was entirely yours, buddy. You were the one
who experimented with pot, I was the one who didn't know enough to
inhale the first time, and who inhaled so deeply the second time that
I got a wicked sore throat and never tried it again.

You're right, being arrested and getting a criminal record would have
been overkill for such a minor offense. But what about people who
like it, overdo it, sometimes drive under the influence, and use
their contacts with dealers to move on to worse drugs?

LB: People make bad choices, none of the government's business,
except the driving-under-the-influence part. If caught, a stoned
driver should lose his license and have the car confiscated. The fact
that this won't happen even under current law is a problem with
government -- we can't always count on its courts to protect the public.

I agree with myself: Government is generally so dumb that you'd think
it was smoking something. It's time to move outside myself for more
information.

After reading the red secretary of state's voter information booklet,
I went with my partner Chip Ford to a Beverly cable forum on the
three ballot questions, sponsored by The Salem News. Chip was
debating for "Yes on 1", and having made up my mind on that, I wanted
to learn more about the other two issues.

Debating for "Yes on 2" was our good friend and Georgetown attorney
Steve Epstein. "No on 2" was represented by Peabody police Chief
Robert Champagne, who is the image of what we all want law
enforcement to be. Both made the best possible arguments for their
side; I need a third opinion.

So I called my son Lance, who is a licensed alcohol and drug
counselor in Nevada. Having been a teenage marijuana smoker himself,
and a law enforcement officer later, he understood all the arguments
for Yes and No votes.

His first thought was facetious, sort of: Stupidity is legal, so why
not marijuana?

Seriously, he sees the "zombies" who are sent to him for treatment,
but who can be turned around when the fat-soluble marijuana is
finally out of their system. He doesn't think that pot itself leads
to more serious drugs, but notes that it draws the pot smoker into
the society that sells them, making it easy to be tempted.

Lance wonders why the proposed law draws a line at 18 years old; why
not 21, like alcohol? And he suggests that if marijuana is
decriminalized, users should be able to grow their own small supply
rather than support the evil drug cartels both here and in Mexico.

He is concerned that this change in the law would increase the use of
pot by kids and adults, and worries that it would increase the number
of stoned drivers. Lance describes the "thinking" of a stoned driver
as "Red light! Crash! Brakes." This scares me.

The "Yes on 2" campaign cites studies showing that those who smoke
pot don't decide based on whether it's a misdemeanor or a civil
infraction, that decriminalization in other states didn't increase
the number of users. Dumb, I guess, is also impervious to penalty.

Lance said that he would vote "Yes" despite concerns, liking the part
that gets kids to counseling instead of into the criminal justice
system. Chief Champagne says that the police rarely arrest for this
misdemeanor; but it seems to me that laws should not be arbitrarily
enforced, that it's better to decriminalize.

My son could have been arrested as a teenager for marijuana use when
I was focused on discouraging alcohol and tobacco use. I'd have
rather gotten parental notice and a fine, with Lance sent for counseling.

So I've decided, reluctantly, "Yes on 2." Then I'd support a law that
would severely penalize anyone caught driving while stoned.