DAs FIGHT BID TO EASE PENALTY FOR MARIJUANA

As a student at Stonehill College, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel
F. Conley found himself in a room with guys passing around a bong.
"When it came to me, I inhaled so hard that it burned my lungs," he
says. "I don't want to sound Clintonesque; I inhaled, but I couldn't
handle it."

Gerry Leone, Middlesex district attorney, also admits to smoking pot.
"It was years ago, when I was a young man," he said. "I tried it
once, and it wasn't something I was ever into."

Michael O'Keefe, district attorney for the Cape and Islands, would
only hint at his past: "Like a lot of people in my generation, we did
a lot of things that were unwise, unhealthy, and illegal," he says.

The prosecutors - who would have faced obstacles to attaining their
law enforcement positions had they been caught - are now among the
leading opponents of a proposition on the Nov. 4 ballot that would
decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. They argue
that the initiative would send the wrong message and lead to a host
of social problems.

Proponents argue, however, that if the question passed, possession of
small amounts would remain illegal but would no longer tarnish
someone's future.

Under state law, those convicted of possessing even a small amount of
marijuana now face up to six months in jail, a fine of $500, and a
lifelong criminal record that may be available to potential
employers, housing agencies, and student loan providers. In 2006,
6,902 people were arrested in Massachusetts for marijuana possession
- - more than 38 percent of all the drug arrests in the state that
year, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.

All arrests for marijuana possession are archived by the state's
Criminal History Systems Board - even when there isn't a conviction.
The board is obliged to disclose such Criminal Offender Record
Information, known as CORI, to any employer seeking to hire a
teacher, police officer, day-care center employee, school bus driver,
or nursing home worker, as well as prosecutors.

The proposed change in the law - Question 2 on the ballot - would
make possession of less than an ounce of marijuana punishable by a
civil fine of $100, the equivalent of getting a speeding ticket.
Nothing would be reported to the criminal history board.

Those younger than age 18 would be required to complete a drug
awareness program with a community service component. The fine would
increase to as much as $1,000 for those who fail to complete the program.

Proponents of the initiative say it would maintain the law's existing
penalties for growing, trafficking, or driving under the influence of
marijuana, while ensuring that those caught with less than an ounce
of pot would avoid the taint of a criminal record. (Nearly 100
million Americans report having tried marijuana at least once,
according to a 2005 study by the US Department of Health and Human
Services.) They also argue it would save the state millions of law
enforcement dollars and match similar marijuana possession laws in
Maine, New York, California, North Carolina, Oregon, Ohio, Arizona,
Colorado, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, and Nevada, all of which
have adopted some form of decriminalization.

"Marijuana will remain illegal, but the new law wouldn't prevent
someone who makes a mistake when they're young from becoming a
teacher, a foster parent, or a prosecutor," said Whitney Taylor,
chairwoman of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which
collected about 125,000 signatures and raised more than $922,000,
nearly half from billionaire financier George Soros. "I think it's
hypocritical for the district attorneys to insist on keeping lifelong
barriers for folks who weren't as lucky as they were by avoiding arrest."

The prosecutors - who insist they have learned from their mistakes -
and other law enforcement and education officials opposing the
initiative say they worry that decriminalizing marijuana possession
would promote drug use and benefit drug dealers. They said that if
the question passes, dealers could evade arrest when carrying as many
as 60 joints - which they say equals about an ounce. They warn it
would increase violence on the streets and safety hazards in the
workplace, and cause the number of car crashes to rise as more youths
drive under the influence.

"There are a lot of reasons why I think this is a bad idea," said
state Attorney General Martha Coakley. "The bottom line is that this
sends a message that it's OK to use marijuana . . . but to pretend
it's not a public safety issue is disingenuous."

Coakley said she has never used marijuana.

She and others said most of those charged with marijuana possession
are arrested for other reasons, such as driving under the influence
or possessing a more potent drug like crack cocaine. They also said
most people arrested for marijuana possession have their records
cleared within six months.

"It's very rare we arrest someone for marijuana possession alone,"
said Chelsea Police Chief Brian Kyes, another vocal opponent of the
initiative, who also said he has never smoked pot. "Right now, the
law is very lenient for marijuana possession. There aren't people
going to jail solely for possession of marijuana - and the current
statute requires that after six months the conviction is continued
without a finding and that the records be sealed."

But Georgia Critsley, general counsel for the state's Criminal
History Systems Board, said that marijuana possession arrests and
convictions are records that remain visible to many employers.

She said schools, law enforcement agencies, nursing homes, camps, and
most companies employing someone who works with children or the
elderly can see arrest records, even if the charges were dismissed.
She said certified professional groups overseeing lawyers, doctors,
nurses, plumbers, electricians, and others can review records for
pending cases - before adjudication - as well as any convictions.
Noncertified employers can see only convictions punishable with a
jail sentence of five years or more.

"It's complicated because different employers see different things,"
Critsley said.

In a study of the potential effects of marijuana decriminalization on
Massachusetts, Jeffrey Miron, a senior lecturer in the economics
department at Harvard University, disputed the contention that few
arrests are for marijuana possession alone. Based on a review of
court records in Brockton and Barnstable and interviews with judges
and lawyers, he estimated that about one-third of
marijuana-possession arrests in the state involve only that charge.
He also said studies of decriminalizing marijuana possession in the
United States, Australia, and the Netherlands have shown that it does
not increase usage.

He estimated decriminalizing marijuana would save the state's police
departments, courts, and jails nearly $30 million.

"I think the policy does more bad than good," said Miron, who was
paid $2,000 for his study by New England Policy Advocates in support
of the initiative. "I think all drugs should be legal. Prohibiting
drugs like marijuana drives the market underground - and that
increases crime and makes it hard to regulate quality."

Jack A. Cole, executive director of the Medford-based group Law
Enforcement Against Prohibition, argued the initiative would do more
to dissuade youths from abusing marijuana than the current law
because of the required drug awareness program. "I've spent my whole
life fighting drug abuse, and believe me, not one of us wants to see
one more drug abuser in the world," he said.