2 SIDES TO POT QUESTION

Police, ACLU Vie on Question 2

A ballot question that would decriminalize -- but not legalize --
possession of small amounts of marijuana is vehemently opposed by
members of law enforcement, who say the new law would encourage drug use.

Supporters of Question 2 argue that replacing criminal penalties for
possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of
civil penalties would prevent a relatively minor offense from
ballooning into a stumbling block to future jobs and college
scholarships. And they say that drug use has not increased in 11
other states that have decriminalized marijuana, including New York.

If passed, the new system of civil penalties would exclude
information regarding the 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.
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.

Sutton Police Chief Dennis Towle, like many in law enforcement, is
opposed to Question 2.

"I don't think it's refutable that marijuana is a gateway drug," he
said. "I think passing this would undoubtedly lead to increased usage
in teenagers, and will undoubtedly lead to more of them getting
behind the wheel of a car."

The law currently gives police officers and the courts plenty of
discretion in handling marijuana possession, he said. Of the 59
criminal cases of drug possession in Sutton this year, 30 were
arrested, and 29 were summoned to court with a citation.

Chief Towle said that his officers probably confiscated and destroyed
marijuana from at least that many individuals over the course of the
year without arresting or summoning them.

"I think we have pretty lenient drug laws already," he said.

Beverly Chorbajian is a Worcester defense attorney and member of the
Worcester County chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

She says the current system punishes an offender long after the
arrest, booking and court arraignment. "You can lose job prospects,
college funding. Kids need to finish school. They don't need a
relatively minor offense to get in the way of that."

Ronal Madnick, director of the Worcester County chapter of the
American Civil Liberties Union, said that the current penalties for
marijuana possession are too strict.

"Even if this passed, marijuana would still be illegal," he said. "It
doesn't change the other laws. Selling? Driving under the influence?
They're not changed by this at all."

Mr. Madnick said passing Question 2 would save the state $30 million
a year, according to a study by Harvard professor Jeffrey A. Miron.

"It's really a drain on the police and the courts," he said.

Opponents of Question 2, like Worcester District Attorney Joseph D.
Early Jr., said that passing Question 2 sends a bad message.

"What we don't want to have is a law that says it's OK to smoke marijuana."

He said the $30 million savings touted by proponents of Question 2 is
overblown. "We question the numbers. We don't give them a lot of credit."

If the real issue behind Question 2 is removing the stigma of a
marijuana-related arrest, than effort should be made to fix that law, he said.

"You shouldn't fix the CORI law by decriminalizing marijuana."