THE PROS: TWO SIDES OF ONE LEAF; HASHING OUT THE PROS AND CONS OF
BALLOT QUESTION 2

Winchester, MA - Opponents of Question 2 suffer from "reefer madness."

This illness causes its victims to lose touch with reality. Sufferers
engage in fanciful speculation, false logic, misrepresentation and
outright lying. It causes them to defend current law by pointing to
individuals, who in the words of William F. Buckley Jr., "having
taken marijuana, moved on to severe mental disorder."

But that argument, to quote myself, is on the order of saying that
every rapist began by masturbating. General rules based on individual
victims are unwise. And although there is a perfectly respectable
case against using marijuana, the penalties imposed on those who
reject that case, or who give way to weakness of resolution, are very
difficult to defend.

Question 2 does not legalize marijuana, just as the decriminalization
of speeding did not legalize speeding. The only radical aspect is
that, if approved, District Attorneys will lose the power to
prosecute persons of all ages for possessing marijuana. They will
retain the power to prosecute dealers, growers, and those who operate
motor vehicles under its influence. Of course, they will never admit
that it is about power, they thunder it is about the children.

What about the children? Children should not ingest it. As summarized
on the ballot, in the Voters Guide mailed to all voters and available
on line at www.mass.gov/sec/ele, it treats persons under the age of
18 caught in possession very much like the District Attorneys'
"diversion programs," which force young offenders into "drug
treatment" ... Treatment most captured juveniles do not need ...
Treatment often paid by insurance, including Mass Health.

Furthermore, G.L. c. 119, s. 21 - 51F (Protection and Care of
Children) remains available, so that children under age 17 who
persistently refuse to obey, get the counseling services they need,
to hopefully become responsible citizens.

According to Federal data, Massachusetts leads the nation with the
greatest percentage of persons over 18 who used marijuana in their
lives (more than 50); use marijuana each year (about 14) and each
month (about 10). We are experienced with marijuana. The vast
majority never use other drugs, except alcohol. In Massachusetts,
marijuana use by adults is normal.

This explains the success of non-binding ballot questions calling for
reform of the marijuana laws that have appeared in representative and
senate districts between 2000 and 2006, including Winchester in 2000.

It explains the results of a 7News/Suffolk University Political
Research Center poll released in August that found, "72 percent
favored the proposed law, which would replace the criminal penalties
for possession of up to one ounce of marijuana to a civil penalty of
forfeiture of the marijuana and a fine of $100."

A more recent poll by the Western New England College Polling
Institute, taken after the DAs began to thunder, found 62 percent of
those polled support "the state decriminalizing possession of an
ounce or less of marijuana."

Like earth-centered astronomy, the "common sense" of opponents is
divorced from reality. Scientific studies confirm our experience.
These studies fail to establish marijuana consumption as a cause of
cancer or other disease, including psychological illness, nor as a
significant contributor to motor vehicle and workplace accidents. Of
course, one should not go to work or drive under its influence.

Passage of similar legislation elsewhere has not led to increased
marijuana use. A U.S. government-commissioned study concluded that
"decriminalization has had virtually no effect either on the
marijuana use or on related attitudes and beliefs about marijuana use
among American young people."

A 2008 state-sponsored report on implementation of Seattle's 2003
voter-approved ordinance making investigation and prosecution of
minor marijuana offenders the city's "lowest law enforcement
priority" found "no evident increase in marijuana use among youth and
young adults; no evident increase in crime; and no adverse impact on
public health."

The report also found that "there is some evidence of arguably
positive effects [including] fewer adults experiencing the
consequences of involvement in the criminal justice system due to
their personal use of marijuana."

Unlike the official sponsors, I believe the very best way to control
juvenile marijuana use is regulating and taxing marijuana, as we do
tobacco, beer, wine and hard cider. Of course, whether legal or
decriminalized, honest talk about marijuana provides the best way to
get children to defer marijuana use to adulthood, after all, look
what education alone has done when it comes to the scientifically
proven risks of tobacco use.

Editor's Note: Georgetown criminal defense attorney Steven S. Epstein
is a father of one young adult and two teenagers, husband of a
Licensed Social Worker and Drug and Alcohol Counselor. He has been
out in front on the fight to reform marijuana laws as one of the
founders of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, since 1989.