LAWMEN DECRY NEW MASS. LAW THAT DECRIMINALIZES SMALL AMOUNTS OF MARIJUANA

BOSTON - Law enforcement officials say there are many loopholes,
unintended consequences and other problems in the new law that
decriminalizes the possession of small amounts of marijuana.

The law replaces criminal penalties for possessing an ounce or less of
marijuana with a civil fine of $100, about the same as getting a
traffic ticket. Sixty-five percent of Massachusetts' voters approved
the ballot law on Nov. 4, and it takes effect on Jan. 2.

Law enforcement officials still have many doubts about the law. Among
the concerns are that some people will not be required to identify
themselves if stopped for marijuana, that police officers cannot be
disciplined for possessing an ounce of less of marijuana, and that
state laboratories which test narcotics for criminal cases will no
longer test small amounts of marijuana seized in a civil matter.

In addition, guidelines issued by the state for the law's enforcement
say possession of an ounce or less of THC - the primary psychoactive
ingredient in marijuana, hashish or hash oil - may now be
decriminalized as well.

"The law is very confusing," said Holyoke Police Chief Anthony R.
Scott this week. "The law presents a lot of problems for law
enforcement."

Street dealers now will probably carry less than an ounce to elude
arrest, he predicted. Under the new law, he said, police will no
longer be able to arrest people for possessing an ounce or less and
use them for information to go after dealers.

Berkshire District Attorney David F. Capeless, who is president of the
Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, said the sponsors of the
law hoodwinked the public.

"It's a disaster, and it was unfortunately a hoax perpetrated on the
public," he said.

One loophole in the new law is that police have no authority to ask an
offender for identification, said Capeless. There is a specific law
which says residents must carry identification if they are driving,
but there is no similar provision in the marijuana law, he said.

Jack A. Cole, the executive director of a group called Law Enforcement
Against Prohibition and a former 26-year member of the New Jersey
State Police, said the new law should not be difficult to enforce.
Police know how to issue citations, he said.

"There shouldn't be any trouble at all with implementation," Cole
said. "It's a very simple thing to do."

Terrel W. Harris of the state Executive Office of Public Safety and
Security said his agency is moving forward to put the law into effect.
Guidelines for law enforcement and others were to be in the hands of
all police agencies this week.

All law enforcement officers with civil enforcement powers - including
campus officers - have the authority to issue the new $100 tickets,
under the guidelines.

According to the ballot law, people under 18 must complete a
drug-awareness program, including 10 hours of community service,
within one year of being cited for possessing an ounce of less of marijuana.

If the offender fails to complete the program, the fine could jump to
$1,000 and parents could be liable.

The Committee for a Sensible Marijuana Policy spent about $1.5 million
to win approval of Question 2. George Soros, a liberal hedge-fund
manager, donated $400,000 toward the effort.

Supporters argued that approval of the law would mean that people who
possess small amounts of marijuana would no longer be weighed down
with criminal records.

Gov. Deval L. Patrick, the district attorneys' group, chiefs of
police, and county sheriffs all opposed the question. Opponents said
it would increase teenage drug use, be difficult to enforce, and boost
use of a drug that creates many health problems.

Judge Lynda M. Connolly, chief justice of the state's District Court
Department, issued an eight-page memorandum to court officials on Dec.
23, spelling out the effects of the law. The memorandum said that
municipalities may need to adopt ordinances and bylaws to ban the
public use of marijuana. Such bylaws had been unnecessary previously
because possession of any amount of marijuana was illegal.

Under the law, violators aged 18 and above must pay the $100 civil
penalty to a city or town clerk. Or, offenders can appeal the citation
to a clerk magistrate for a civil hearing, Connolly wrote.

Offenders must also forfeit any marijuana, she wrote.

The state Executive Office of Public Safety and Security has
determined that a civil violation for possession of an ounce or less
of marijuana after Jan. 2 cannot be used to disqualify an applicant
for a license to carry a firearm, Connolly wrote.

Whitney A. Taylor, campaign manager for the Committee for Sensible
Marijuana Policy, said many of the concerns of prosecutors and police
are red herrings. Possession of small amounts of marijuana have been
decriminalized in 11 other states, she noted.

"We have a system I'm very confident can handle this," she said of the
new law.

John M. Collins, general counsel for the Massachusetts Chiefs of
Police Association in Grafton, said people voted with their hearts and
were unaware of some "bizarre consequences" of the law.

One such unintended consequence, he said, is that the state cannot
discipline public employees, including police officers, for use or
possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. The law specifically says
that public entities cannot impose any form of penalty for such
possession, Collins said.

The new law could also cost the state a lot of money, he said. The law
created a diversion program for people under 18, but did not fund it,
Collins added.

Two state laboratories that test illegal drugs are unlikely to
continue testing for small amounts of marijuana once it is
decriminalized, he said.

"They are not going to test it any more," Collins said.

Officials have said the laboratories are already backed
up.