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

Winchester, MA - For the first time in years we have some good news
on drugs: Marijuana use among Massachusetts teens has declined
significantly since 2001.

It's good news because kids who smoke marijuana are more likely to do
poorly in school and engage in violence. It's good news because
drivers who've smoked pot are 10 times more likely to be injured, or
injure others, in car crashes. It's good news because marijuana is
more carcinogenic than tobacco and young people who smoke pot are
much more likely to then use other illegal drugs.

Unfortunately, there is a radical effort underway to undo this
progress. Question 2 on November's ballot will decriminalize
marijuana use and turn possession of an ounce or less of marijuana
into a fine similar to a traffic violation. For kids under 21, the
penalties will be reduced well below penalties for alcohol possession.

In the weeks ahead, out-of-state proponents of Question 2 will spend
a lot of money to support their false claims and misplaced agenda.
But at its core, this is an issue of simple common sense -- and
common sense will lead you to vote against this dangerous proposal.

Common sense tells us that if we decriminalize marijuana, removing
the significant deterrent effects and increasing its accessibility,
then we will see an increase in its use.

A vote for Question 2 will begin a slippery slope resulting in
several negative consequences. It will result in increased addiction,
to marijuana and other drugs, as we know that pot is a powerful
gateway drug. It will result in increased related crimes, and
additional taxpayer costs to combat them, as we know that drugs are
the root of much of the violence that erodes our communities. And it
will result in increased instances of impaired driving, and the
tragic deaths that result from it.

This measure also will result in other unaddressed problems. For
instance, there are no regulatory reviews in place to assure that
these newly decriminalized drugs are safe, and we know that marijuana
is now exponentially more potent than a decade ago. More
disturbingly, it does not address the fact that if young people want
to buy pot, they will still need to buy it from illegal drug dealers.
We cannot think of many more dangerous, combustible situations than that.

In short, if this initiative passes, it is a virtual certainty to
lead to more drug abuse by our young people, more lives lost, and
more crime in our communities. There is no benefit of this measure
that outweighs these great costs.

The proponents of Question 2 have two central arguments. First, that
existing laws unfairly punish those caught with an ounce or less of
marijuana. That is simply untrue. In fact, current law mandates that
first time marijuana users receive no more than probation and have
their record wiped clean if there are no further violations. Jail is
not an option. Want further proof? In Suffolk and Middlesex Counties
last year, there were exactly zero defendants sentenced to jail for
first-time marijuana use alone.

Their second claim is that enforcement of marijuana laws leads to
expansive police costs. That is also false. A survey of our busiest
courts revealed that marijuana prosecutions account for only a tiny
fraction of cases, and many of those also involved other violent
crimes that so frequently accompany drug abuse. To claim that
officers are out trolling the streets for marijuana users, at great
cost to taxpayers, is simply not reality.

And despite their best efforts to paint an ounce of marijuana as
innocuous, the fact is that one ounce of marijuana is worth about
$600 and represents about 60 individual sales.

In communities throughout Massachusetts, law enforcement and
neighborhood and faith-based organizations work together to improve
public safety. Question 2 is a misguided approach that threatens to
derail much of that important work.

We cannot afford to take a step back in our efforts to combat drug
addiction and reduce violence in our communities. We cannot afford to
empower drug dealers and allow more tragic deaths due to impaired
driving. And we absolutely cannot afford to send mixed messages to
our kids about the seriousness and dangers of drug abuse.

For the benefit of our children and our communities, we urge you to
vote no on Question 2.

Editor's Note: Gerry Leone is the District Attorney of Middlesex
County, and Rev. Jeffrey Brown is co-founder of Boston Ten Point Coalition.