POT LAW LEAVES RULE VERY FUZZY

Police Chiefs Forecast Implementation Mess

Using a strict interpretation of the new state marijuana law, it's OK
for a police officer to light up a joint in a cruiser -- but the same
officer could be fired for smoking a cigarette in that cruiser.

Officers hired in Massachusetts after 1990 are not allowed to use
tobacco products. The new marijuana law, approved by state ballot
referendum in the November election, not only decriminalizes
marijuana, it makes it illegal for prospective employers -- including
police and school departments -- to discriminate against those who
possess less than an ounce of the substance because, as of today, it
is a civil offense not subject to hiring rules. The new law carries a
$100 fine which can be appealed in court like a parking or minor
traffic violation citation.

"An officer in uniform, in a cruiser, can smoke a joint under this
law," said John M. Collins, legal counsel to the Massachusetts Chiefs
of Police Association. "Now, I know that's silly and it won't happen,
but that's the way this legislation is written."

Mr. Collins acknowledged that driving under the influence of marijuana
is still a criminal offense, but it is impossible, he said, to
determine how much someone has consumed.

Unlike alcohol, urine and blood testing does not quantitate how much
THC, the active component in marijuana, is present in someone's body.
The new law also decriminalizes possessing less than an ounce of
hashish or hash oil, both of which have more concentrated amounts of
THC.

"It's just not going to be enforceable," Mr. Collins
said.

Several other aspects of the law, which went into effect at 12:01 a.m.
today, have local police chiefs baffled.

"The people have spoken, but they did not know the consequences of
this," said Mark R. Laverdure, Clinton's police chief. "There is going
to be a lot of confusion."

"There are a lot of unknowns," agreed Leominster Chief Peter F. Roddy.
"It's going to take a while to straighten this out. There are a lot of
unintended consequences with this law."

Auburn Police Chief Andrew J. Sluckis Jr. said yesterday he's not
confused by the law -- he just thinks it's the worst law ever enacted
in Massachusetts.

"It's a complete train wreck on our hands, and I'm not sure how
anyone's going to put that train back on track."

Chief Sluckis said there is no provision in the law requiring alleged
violators to provide their name and address to police. Unlike a motor
vehicle violation, he said, where officers can arrest someone for not
providing their name or giving a fake name, there is no recourse under
a civil violation. Those questioned for civil violations are not
required to provide identification.

"Say I get a call that someone is smoking marijuana in front of the
Auburn Mall. We go over there, and the guy says he's Bob Johnson from
Cambridge. 'What's your address in Cambridge?' 'I forget.' That's it.
Legally, he does not have to give his name or address," the chief said.

Therefore, Chief Sluckis said, until the law is made enforceable, he
is telling his officers to confiscate marijuana of less than an ounce,
and send the alleged offenders on their way. He thinks the law is
going to lead to more marijuana-related car accidents and more public
use of the drug.

Mr. Collins said that while the state Executive Office of Public
Safety and Security offered some guidelines this week, there are many
gray areas. Besides screening employees, applicants for firearms
licenses who have received a civil fine cannot be denied on that basis.

Sudbury Police Chief Peter F. Fadgen said he is concerned about
prospective pistol permit applicants who use marijuana. As it stands,
there are ways to check if someone abuses alcohol -- through hospitals
and treatment programs, and if the applicant is known to police. If
someone gets a $100 civil fine under the new law, it cannot be used to
deny a permit.

"It's impossible for me to use these citations as disqualification for
a permit or a job," he said.

To further complicate matters, Chief Fadgen said, federal laws
disqualify firearms license applicants if they have been convicted of
possessing the same amount of marijuana now considered a civil offense
here.

Chief Fadgen also questioned the amount of marijuana allowed under the
civil fine.

"An ounce is about 60 joints. That's too large an amount. This law was
ill-conceived, and not thought out at all. All of these issues were
not addressed -- and we're stuck with it now."

Chief Roddy, in Leominster, noted that while the law intended to take
the stigma off those who use small amounts of marijuana and not cause
problems with school or future employment, there is practically nobody
in jail for possession of less than an ounce.

Chief Roddy said he has concerns about hiring municipal employees,
including teachers and bus drivers, because screening for marijuana
use won't really mean anything now.

"It's all tossed up in the air, and it's going to take a while to
straighten out," he said.

Chief Sluckis said the Legislature could have chosen to not enact the
referendum, as it has done on others, including the income tax
rollback approved by voters in 2000.

Gregory I. Massing, general counsel for the state public safety
office, said seven pages of guidelines, which are nonbinding, were
issued by the office on Monday to help law enforcement officials.

A section specifically dealing with marijuana use by municipal
employees, including police officers, advises police departments to
consult with lawyers "before taking employment action against an
employee with respect to the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana."

The guidelines say there is "potential for differing interpretations"
of employment-related issues.

"This hinders us in the hiring of police -- that alone should have
been enough to stop the implementation of it," Chief Fadgen said.
"These are things that were known in advance. Now, we're going to be
dealing with the aftermath."

Mr. Massing said his office has a different view, meaning police
departments have the right to prohibit the use of controlled
substances by officers both on and off the job, such as with the use
of tobacco.

The guidelines say a civil citation under the new law does not
disqualify someone from getting a firearms license, but a conviction
under the old law does.

Another problem is printing tickets for the marijuana
offense.

Tickets used for motor vehicle violations cannot be used, Mr. Collins
said. So, cities and towns must print their own tickets, in books
similar to those for citations issued by building inspectors and
boards of health. Many communities -- including Auburn, Clinton and
Sudbury -- do not have such citation books. Larger cities, such as
Boston, do have them available.

Mr. Massing said that in the interim, blank tickets can be downloaded
from the state's Web site, and printed for local use.

Chief Sluckis said he has no intention of spending money on violation
books that are "completely meaningless."

Fines will be collected by local city and town clerks. Mr. Massing
said there is a glitch in the procedure if a court appeal is made. It
is unclear who would be responsible for issuing a fine made in an
appeal hearing, but it is being worked on.

Mr. Collins said police departments are "100 percent ready, but they
didn't have much choice."

"They don't have all the answers, but they know that."