A MISGUIDED JOINT INITIATIVE

THE QUESTION 2 initiative to decriminalize possession of small
amounts of marijuana should be Exhibit 1 in the case against using
ballot questions to make public policy.

What seemed so simple to 65 percent of the state's voters on Tuesday
- - replacing the criminal penalties for possession of 1 ounce or less
of marijuana with a civil penalty of $100 - is already fogging the
legal landscape.

Supporters of Question 2 sold the public on the idea that the penalty
for pot possession should be on a par with traffic violations. But
traffic violators, at least, are required to show their driver's
licenses to police officers. Law enforcement officials are unsure
about what, if any, identification can be demanded from violators of
the new pot law. Currently, Massachusetts residents are not required
to carry identification unless engaged in specific acts, such as
driving. Suffolk District Attorney Daniel Conley predicts that police
will be handing out quite a few citations "to Mickey Mouse" unless
the Legislature amends the new law.

The high-spending backers of Question 2 put one over on the public in
other ways, as well. They emphasized the need to prevent someone who
makes one mistake from running up criminal records. But first-time
offenders receive unsupervised probation under current law and their
records are sealed. Now there is no teeth in the law at all. The
possession of dozens or even scores of joints, depending on strength,
has become akin to a leash-law violation.

It would be ironic if the Legislature winds up expanding police
powers to accommodate Question 2. The state of Maine, for example,
has a similar law decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana. But it
also criminalizes the act of refusing to provide police with a
credible form of identification, even when the violation that prompts
the request for ID is only a civil offense.

In the best-case scenario, adults cited for possession of small
amounts of marijuana will take their citations along with their
recreational drugs. But the incentive for underage pot smokers to lie
to police is much greater. Question 2 specifies that the parents of
offenders under age 18 will be notified in addition to a $100 fine
and mandatory attendance at a drug awareness program. It won't take
long for the schoolhouse lawyers to advise their peers how best to
evade justice, regardless of whether it takes the form of a citation
or a parent's wrath.

Perhaps backers of Question 2 just wanted people to be able to smoke
marijuana with impunity. But rather than arguing openly for that
goal, they chose to make a mess of the legal system instead.