VOTERS OF TWO MINDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Last Tuesday's yes vote on Question 2 was resounding, yet puzzling
and, in our view, fraught with peril.

Just two years ago Bay State voters rejected a measure which would
have simply allowed the sale of wine in supermarkets. Tuesday they
approved a measure that makes the penalty for the possession of up to
an ounce of marijuana the equivalent of a speeding violation.

Those who pushed for the change deserve to celebrate the overwhelming
65-35-percent victory. But they and everyone else should keep in mind
the fact that this does not legalize pot. And it does not make dealing
drugs any less of a criminal offense than it was on Monday.

The intent, according to backers, was to change the law so that those
caught with a small amount of the drug intended for their personal use
would not be tarred with a criminal record for the rest of their
lives. That wasn't happening anyway, at least not to first-time
offenders; but the fact that marijuana possession was a crime served
as a significant deterrent to drug use.

Given its broad public support, the new measure deserves a chance to
work. It has been tried in a dozen other states with varying results.

Yet those in law enforcement are already grappling with questions as
to how the new civil penalties will be administered.

Will police be expected to carry scales in order to determine exactly
how much pot someone has on his or her person? If it's less than an
ounce they confiscate it and issue you a ticket. More than that, and
it's a crime.

And how do they make sure the fine is paid? Under current law, police
have no right to demand a person produce identification unless they're
behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. And unlike with a speeding ticket
for which failure to pay can result in loss of one's driver's license,
pursuit of marijuana violation scofflaws will involve long and costly
court proceedings.

And then there's the question of whether possession of a joint -- no
longer a crime -- constitutes grounds for a search that uncovers other
activity still regarded as criminal.

No one, including those who put Question 2 forward, can know where all
this will lead. But we find it curious that the same voters who in
2006 were convinced the sale of wine in supermarkets would lead to
rampant alcohol abuse, this year had no qualms about lessening the
penalties for marijuana consumption.