WEED IS NO LONGER A CRIME; HOW DID WE GET HERE?

QUINCY -- The Nov. 4 vote to decriminalize marijuana possession says
as much about ballot referendums as it does about drugs. According to
material posted on the web site of the state Office of Campaign and
Political Finance, the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy raised
more than $1.2 million in support of Question 2. More than 83 percent
came from outside Massachusetts.

The opponents of Question 2, the Coalition for Safe Streets, a group
organized largely by the district attorneys, raised just over
$60,000, or about 5 percent of what the proponents raised.

One particularly disturbing aspect of the proponents' campaign was a
series of 30-second television ads which featured two retired police
officers. In each case, photos of the former officers wearing police
uniforms were shown as the men touted the value of civil penalties.
One ad promised that the new law would free up officers to go after
violent criminals and that a 'yes' vote would "make our communities safer."

Both claims are erroneous and, by the way, the state Office of
Campaign and Political Finance web site indicates that the Committee
for Sensible Marijuana Policy paid the officer $4,000 for this 30-second ad.

So now we are left with a law that makes no sense. Civil penalties
will not save the state $30 million dollars each year in criminal
justice costs like the proponents promised. In fact, it will cost the
state money to develop and administer a drug awareness program
mandated by Question 2, and to pay the salaries of the program's instructors.

And the new law does not decriminalize only small amounts of pot - it
decriminalizes up to an ounce of marijuana or hashish. Non-drug users
probably don't realize that an ounce of marijuana generates about 50
joints and sells for about $500.

The proponents led the public to believe that people's lives had been
ruined because convicted marijuana users were left with a drug
conviction on their record. But under the old law, a person caught
for the first time with marijuana was placed on probation for six
months, then the case was dismissed and the record sealed. CORI files
accessible to the public contain only information on convictions, so
these records were not revealed.

What most people don't understand is that the CORI law is actually
designed to protect criminal records. Ironically, the new law moves
marijuana out of the arena of criminal records and into the civil.
There are no protections pertaining to the disclosure of civil
records by criminal justice agencies.

Under the old law, if a newspaper were to ask a police department for
a list of all the people charged with marijuana possession the
previous year, the police department would have been legally
prohibited from disclosing it. Once Question 2 goes into effect, a
police department will be required to disclose such information
because it will become a public record under Massachusetts law.

And contrary to the myths promoted by the Committee for Sensible
Marijuana Policy, marijuana arrests don't prevent students from
getting college loans for life and marijuana smokers don't serve jail
time in Massachusetts.

When the new law takes effect, the police will still be able to
arrest minors caught with alcohol, but not if they're carrying $500
worth of marijuana. A person under 21 who is convicted of
transporting alcohol will still lose his license for 90 days, but a
minor who transports marijuana or hashish will not lose it.

Getting caught with an open beer in a vehicle carries a $500 fine,
but getting caught with marijuana or hash will carry a fine of only
$100. High school teachers are already telling us that students are
talking about how much easier it will be to smoke weed.

The system that brought about this change in our drug laws is flawed
and the public was hoodwinked. Now law enforcement is left to deal
with this mess.