STATE SAFETY CHIEF SEES 'EFFECTIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF MARIJUANA LAW

Boston - Once admittedly flummoxed at the prospect of implementing a
new voter law decriminalizing the possession of an ounce or less of
marijuana, state officials on Monday offered a first glimpse into
their strategy.

The strategy includes encouraging cities and towns to pass new
penalties for using marijuana in public and reaffirming public
schools' right to expel or suspend students who smoke pot on school
grounds.

In a wide-ranging legal opinion issued Monday, four days before the
law takes effect, the Executive Office of Public Safety had one
overarching message: things won't change much procedurally.

With the exception of the major thrust of the new law - reducing the
penalty for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana from an
arrestable offense to a $100 civil fine - police searches, firearms
issuances, public school punishments and court proceedings will be
largely unchanged.

"We want to be able to assure people, through our legal analysis, that
there can be an effective implementation of this new law," said
Secretary of Public Safety Kevin Burke, in a phone interview.

Under the guidelines, disseminated by the state Executive Office of
Public Safety, officials note the law's expanded definition of
possession, which includes "metabolized products of marijuana or THC"
- - marijuana's active ingredient - "in one's bloodstream."

Public safety officials also recommend that municipalities supplement
the $100 fine with additional civil and criminal penalties of their
own for the use of marijuana in public.

A sample bylaw offered by Attorney General Martha Coakley would
include a $300 civil penalty and the possibility of criminal
indictment for the use of marijuana "upon any street, sidewalk, public
way, footway, passageway, stairs, bridge, park, playground, beach,
recreation area, boat landing, public building, schoolhouse, school
grounds, cemetery, parking lot, or any area owned by or under the
control of the town."

Voters passed the law last month over the objections of Gov. Deval
Patrick, district attorneys and Coakley, who likened it to "the de
factor legalization of marijuana."

In its opinion, the Patrick administration's public safety office
concludes that law enforcement may still search people suspected of
marijuana possession when probable cause exists and may stop and
detain suspects, as well.

Officials conclude that it is "unlikely" that police would be able to
arrest those in possession of less than an ounce of marijuana -
backers of Question 2 sought to eliminate such arrests - but said "an
argument can be made" to continue such arrests.

"However, proponents of Question 2 would likely argue that by
decriminalizing possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, Question
2 revoked officers' power to arrest for this civil offense," according
to the guidelines.

Other guidelines say recipients of civil fines for marijuana
possession would not be categorically prohibited from owning firearms,
and police officers in possession of an ounce or less on the job would
still be subject to collectively bargained agreements regarding
substance possession or abuse.

In the guidelines themselves, state public safety officials
acknowledge they are testing uncharted legal terrain. Burke agreed,
but said his office has "every confidence" that their interpretation
is valid.

In a memo to school superintendents sent last week, Education
Commissioner Mitchell Chester said Question 2 "does not affect the
existing authority of school officials ... to impose discipline" on
students who possess marijuana on school grounds.

But Chester acknowledged the uncertainty of state officials as they
tread on uncharted legal terrain.

"Since no court has yet addressed the proper interpretation of
Question 2 or applied it to the public school context, this advisory
reflects best judgment based on the language of Question 2 and
existing case law regarding public school discipline issues," he wrote
in the memo.

Question 2 requires that offenders under 18 years old participate in a
drug abuse awareness program designed by the Department of Youth
Services. The EOPS guidelines note that Question 2 authorized no
funding for such programs, nor has the Legislature appropriated any.

"DYS and the Executive Office of Health and Human Services are in the
process of designing a drug awareness program to comply with Question
2 to the best of their ability," according to the guidelines.
"Information concerning these plans will be available in the coming
weeks."