VOTERS OF TWO MINDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Last Tuesday's yes vote on marijuana decriminalization was
resounding, yet puzzling considering recent history.

Just two years ago Bay State voters rejected a measure that 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.

The measure also presents some interesting questions about just how
it will be enforced.

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 the person is 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.