PLENTY OF GOOD REASONS TO VOTE YES ON QUESTION 2

The election of 2008 holds promise of a sea change in Massachusetts
politics with a close vote on Question 1 and a powerfully strong vote
on Question 2.

My research since 1974 into the natural history of cannabis, the
scientific name for marijuana, has revealed myriad uses besides its
relatively benign effects on perception.

Its seeds are nutritious. The fibers of its outer stalk are among the
strongest found in nature. Early in the 20th century, scientists
found its cellulose-rich inner stalk ideal for making paper and
thousands of other products that today come from coal, natural gas,
petroleum and trees.

The primary ingredient of most medicines from the mid-18th century to
the early 20th, it was effectively outlawed with the passage of the
federal Marijuana Tax Act after a racist campaign in which it was
given the exotic name "marijuana." By 1930s standards, the
$100-per-ounce tax, an amount that may now be appropriate, was
ridiculously confiscatory. In order to aid the war effort during
World War II, the federal government suspended the tax so that
farmers would grow it again. The government even produced a short
film titled, "Hemp for Victory," to encourage its cultivation.

Almost every week now brings news from scientists of potentially
beneficial uses of chemicals it produces in treating many medical
conditions. The news also arrives of studies that reach the same
conclusion the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission reached in 1894: Cannabis
should be regulated and taxed, but not prohibited.

Earlier this month, the Beckley Foundation published such a report,
concluding the potential health risks associated with cannabis
including the more potent strains now available, are less than those
associated with alcohol and do not justify the criminalization of the
plant or its users.

The truth about cannabis and my study of law lead me to conclude that
the state and federal constitutions do not permit prohibition. They
compel regulation and taxation of marijuana as we do tobacco, beer,
wine, and hard cider (none of which may be provided to children) as
the only policy consistent with securing to the individual the
blessings of liberty promised by these great charters.

Question 2 moves state policy toward constitutionality by replacing
the criminal penalties for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana
- -- which opponents say are infrequently imposed to the maximum anyway
- -- with forfeiture of the marijuana and a civil penalty of $100.

It encourages enforcement by providing that fines are collected and
kept by the municipality in which the offender is captured. It ends
use and possession of marijuana as grounds for any other penalty,
sanction, or disqualification for those merely captured in
possession, which is a tiny percentage of the more than 10 percent of
residents over 18 in Massachusetts who consume each month and
consider their conduct normal.

Most importantly, it revokes the power, currently exercised
arbitrarily, of the police to hold for bail persons possessing an
ounce or less of marijuana without evidence of possessing it for distribution.

As for the children it virtually codifies the current practice of
diversion, which Essex County District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett
claims his office follows. It ensures parental notice and requires
offenders under 18 to perform community service and take a course on
substance abuse.

As the parent of three, I have great empathy for the parents who call
me when their child is captured. My experience and my wife's
experience as a licensed drug and alcohol counselor who "treats"
children diverted to her by the DA's office, confirms that few of
these children are on the road to ruin. For those under 17, who may
be on that road, Question 2 leaves intact the provisions of M.G.L. c.
119, s. 21-51F (Protection and Care of Children). Under this law, the
court orders children who persistently refuse to obey to receive
services needed to become responsible citizens.

Finally, Question 2 leaves intact existing law concerning operating a
motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana.

Ultimately, when it comes to the children, we must teach them that
using marijuana or alcoholic beverages, like driving a car, voting or
running for political office, are activities they must wait to engage
in until reaching the appropriate age. We must also teach them to use
alcoholic beverages and marijuana in moderation and not at work, or
before or while operating a motor vehicle. We must also exercise
moderation when punishing them for not waiting.

Please vote yes on Question 2 and bring our law into conformity with
practice, as described by opponents, and with the law in 11 other
states, none of which have a higher percentage of users than Massachusetts.