NEXT STEP ON POT: GROW IT, TAX IT

Following an overwhelming victory for Nov. 4's "Ballot Question 2,"
some district attorneys, law enforcement officers and editorial
writers have questioned the people's wisdom. In doing so, they reveal
their own failure since 2000 to participate in the normal legislative process.

They should have seen the tidal wave approaching and worked with
advocates and the Legislature in passing reform sooner, saving
thousands from criminal charges we now know the people do not want to
impose upon the marijuana users among us.

These editorial boards, elected and appointed servants, were
oblivious to the petitioning activity of reform advocates, who in
2000 gave the voters in Winchester the opportunity to be among the
first in the state to be asked, using public policy questions on the
ballot, their opinion of making the possession of less than one ounce
of marijuana a civil violation, subject to a fine of no more than $100.

Then State Sen. Charles Shannon, responding to the petition of over
60 percent of the voters in his district, sponsored legislation in
2001. The voters in the two representative districts also approved
such instructions.

In November 2002, voters in 19 representative districts joined in
petitioning for a more sensible marijuana policy and in 2004 the
voters in two Senate and four House districts petitioned. In 2006,
two more representative districts petitioned their representatives.
In every district, voters approved these petitions by more than 60 percent.

In January 2008, the law proposed by Question 2 was introduced into
the legislature by the signatures of 105,000 voters, more than 50
percent over the number required by the Commonwealth's Constitution.

On March 18, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary held the required
hearing on the law proposed by Question 2. The committee, having held
three hearings on the subject since 2001, was acquainted with the
magnitude of public support for reform and of ways to accomplish it.
The district attorneys did not publicly testify in opposition to Question 2.

The Constitution permitted the Judiciary Committee to recommend to
the whole legislature that it enact the law proposed by Question 2.
Alternatively, it could have proposed a different law be enacted or
placed on the ballot. The committee and the legislature did nothing.
The only conclusion is that politically, the members of the
legislature were more beholden to the district attorneys, whose
candidate committees often donate to legislators' candidate
committees, than they were to the already clearly expressed opinion
of their constituents.

Law enforcement officials' complaints following the election, about
concerns regarding how to enforce the new law, reveal they failed to
read it. Once they do, they will learn that they will enforce the new
law using the same procedures used for non-criminal disposition of
violations of any municipal ordinance or by-law as provided in G.L.
c. 40, s. 21D and that the fines collected go to the municipality in
which the offense occurs.

Their complaints about offenders not identifying themselves is
absurd, considering the DAs claimed during the campaign that most
offenders were captured for committing another crime or motor vehicle
violation. The few violators, who either do not identify themselves
or give false names, will be no more than an anthill in the grand scheme.

Law enforcement officials have also been whining about the difficulty
they may face in determining the weight of marijuana, once seized,
and whether it weighs an ounce or less. While most offenders will
have far less than an ounce, very inexpensive handheld scales are
available to solve this concern.

The DAs and police remain able to satisfy their "reefer madness" by
holding for bail those persons they have probable cause to believe
possessed marijuana with intent to distribute, even if the amount is
less than an ounce. Unless the law changes further, police enforcing
a civil offense for marijuana possession will still have the power to
search the person and vehicle for more marijuana and use evidence of
other crimes found in such a search against such persons.

What is truly criminal is that the current law provides those willing
to engage in the risk of cultivating and distributing a price support
that farmers of other commodities can only envy.

This is why efforts to further reform marijuana laws, by those who
know marijuana to be safer than alcoholic beverages and a safe and
effective medicine, will not cease until production and distribution
by adults and possession and use by adults is legal, regulated and taxed.

The purpose of the Constitution - being the securing of liberty and
justice for all - compel it.