AN INCONVENIENT QUESTION

The state's new law decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana takes
effect today, and while it is not likely to turn Massachusetts into
Amsterdam overnight, there are several loopholes and loose ends about
the law - passed by the ballot Question 2 in November - that need
addressing.

The most pressing issue is how to enforce the core provision that
replaces criminal penalties for possession of less than an ounce of
marijuana with a $100 fine. Now that pot possession is a civil
offense, police lack the right to make an arrest or demand
identification, so they cannot be sure the citations they issue will
be paid. Worse, the new law requires the parents of minors be
notified, and the youngsters be steered to a drug-awareness program.
Most savvy teenagers know that starting today they need not produce
identification or tell an officer their age.

The solution for this is corrective language that would give police
the right to confirm identity if they had reason to believe a person
is in possession of the drug. Requiring ID can be intrusive, but
proponents of Question 2 should have thought of that when they wrote
the minors' provisions, which made the initiative more palatable to
many voters.

Some legislators are chary of seeming to overturn the will of the
people, given that 65 percent of the voters approved Question 2. We
agree. Similarly, the notion of local communities passing their own
ordinances criminalizing use of marijuana in public seems unduly
complicated.

But corrective legislation designed to make Question 2 work is
entirely appropriate. The state Legislature didn't ask for this fight,
but it is often left to representative democracy to correct what
government-by-ballot question has wrought.