POLICE AND DISTRICT ATTORNEYS NOT SURE HOW TO PROCEED WITH NEW POT LAW

Massachusetts voters last week, including 65 percent of Milford
voters and 66 percent of Framingham voters, approved Ballot Question
2 to decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. Now what?

For area law enforcement officials, the answer prompts a long list of
more questions. Among them:

Who is going to maintain the registry for the offense?

How are the police going to be trained?

What happens if someone doesn't pay the fine?

"The only thing I can see clearly is that there is going to have to
be a little more time to figure things out," said Norfolk District
Attorney William Keating. "This was never thought through."

And the clock is ticking. All these questions must be answered in the
next 30 days, before the new law takes effect.

Keating and other district attorneys met Friday, at the request of
the state Office of Public Safety, to address implementation questions.

But Keating said the informal meeting led to more questions than answers.

According to Keating, municipal leaders are worried about being sued
for unlawful arrests and police chiefs want to know what to do if
someone without identification is stopped with a small amount of pot.

Milford Police Chief Thomas O'Loughlin said one of the biggest
challenges he faces are legal guidelines that have yet to be clarified.

"If I pull over a car and find three people smoking a joint, is there
a consensus that I still have a right to search?" he asked.
O'Loughlin said it is now up to the Legislature to take a look at
these grey areas and key questions.

In addition to these concerns, there are simple technical details -
such as getting the tickets printed - that must be dealt with.

These logistical problems are a common concern among district
attorneys and lawmakers. According to Worcester County District
Attorney Joseph Early, the amount of marijuana that constitutes a
civil offense provides for anywhere from 30-60 joints.

He wondered if someone has less than an ounce but it appears it is
divided in such a way that indicates intent to distribute, can they
be charged with a criminal as opposed to a civil offense?

"That has really been the biggest roadblock," said Early.

O'Loughlin and Keating also expressed concern about the equity of the new law.

"A kid standing with a can of beer that is worth a dollar faces
greater penalties than a kid with an ounce of marijuana worth $600,"
said O'Loughlin. "We have to treat kids fairly."

Keating said the severity of penalties for underage drinking as
opposed to the new law are fueling uncertainty.

"The most difficult portion of this are those issues that surround
people under 21 because we are left with such an uneven situation
here," said Keating.

Keating said the law creates a handful of unintended consequences,
such as the effect it has on school policies regarding pot use and
foster care screening of potential caregivers with pot records, which
he says are "even more far reaching than just the basic law questions
that are being asked."

Corey Welford, a spokesman for Middlesex District Attorney Gerard
Leone, said until the new law is implemented the existing marijuana
law will remain in effect.

"We want to send a clear message to our kids that marijuana is
unhealthy, dangerous and illegal in Massachusetts," he said. "It
doesn't change our resolve to prosecute drug traffickers."

One district attorney is already operating as though the new law were
in effect. Hamden District Attorney William Bennett said last week
after the landslide vote he planned to drop all pending marijuana
cases where the amount of pot in possession is less than one ounce.
He plans on acting as though the law is in effect now to instead
focus on prosecuting drug dealers.

Under the new law, those caught with less than one ounce of marijuana
face a $100 fine and must forfeit the drug. The current law
stipulates that those caught with small amounts of marijuana face a
$500 fine and up to six months on jail.

One of the main arguments of Question 2 opponents was that
decriminalization was tantamount to legalization.

But state Rep. John Fernades, D-Milford, said all trafficking laws
remain on the books.

"The possession of marijuana is now decriminalized, the acquisition
of it is not," he said. "Distribution is still a criminal offense."

Many proponents of Question 2 argued that the current law prevented
students from obtaining scholarships and unfairly affected their
admission to schools for a minor offense.

"From a personal point of view, I don't want to see somebody not get
a scholarship or not get into a particular school because of a minor
offense," said O'Loughlin.

Fernandes said he spoke with many parents of young children who have
been caught up in the court system because of marijuana convictions.

"You have to look at an election like this and see that the
generations that were voting were more tolerant than previous
generations have been," he said. "The people have spoken."