HALF-BAKED REASONS FOR OPPOSING POT LAW

When citizens of Massachusetts voted yes in November to Question 2,
the "Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative," many of them thought that
they were voting to legalize marijuana.

Because marijuana is illegal under federal, not state law, this would
be impossible--states can only choose how they punish use of the
drug, not whether or not it is illegal. The new law, which was
inserted into The General Laws of Massachusetts, chapter 94C, section
32L, actually reads, "possession of one ounce or less of marihuana
shall only be a civil [rather than criminal] offense, subjecting an
offender who is eighteen years of age or older to a civil penalty of
one hundred dollars and forfeiture of the marihuana, but not to any
other form of criminal or civil punishment or disqualification." In
Massachusetts that is, small-scale possession became the legal
equivalent of a bad traffic ticket. Law enforcement officers,
however, worry that citizens' first impression may prove all too
close to correct--that the "marijuana ticket" will prove impossible
to enforce and is thus a de facto legalization of weed. In the short
run, officers should try to enforce the law as best they can, despite
the enforcement challenges that it presents; it is, after all, law.
In the long run, however, citizens and officers alike should consider
the real reasons that officers hesitate to enforce the law, and what
can be done to better the situation.

It is essential to uphold the integrity of the law to the degree that
law enforcement officers can. In a January 3rd article in the Boston
Globe, "Police Balk at Ticketing Marijuana Offenders," chiefs of
police in the towns Clinton and Auburn stated that because of the
flaws in the law's wording, their forces would not even attempt to
enforce it. Their line of reasoning here is faulty.

Police are not hired to legislate, but to enforce legislation. One
concern voiced by Wayne Sampson, executive director of the
Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association--that state law prohibits
officers from demanding identification when dealing with civil
infractions--is simply not true. Other worries, including those such
as who will print the physical tickets, that current citation books
lack a check-off box for marijuana possession, or that officers will
be unable to identify "an ounce," are simply laughable.

Law enforcers in Massachusetts are trained to deal with
life-and-death scenarios; they should have enough initiative and
creativity to improvise physical tickets in the short-run and to
Wikipedia "ounce," as anyone can do with an internet connection.
Despite enforcement issues, some users are sure to be compliant,
which means that the law will be at least partially enforced.
Officers must do their best to enforce this democratically-enacted
legislation, even if a few marijuana offenders will slip through the
law's loopholes.

It is worth noting, however, that some police officers' reluctance to
enforce the law as it now reads may be because citizens of
Massachusetts on whole (police included) overwhelmingly believe that
marijuana use should not be considered a crime.

While it is understandable that the Massachusetts Sheriff's Union and
the Massachusetts' Chiefs of Police Association opposed Question 2
(due of the enforcement challenges that it presents), these very
organizations could make their own--and citizens'--lives much easier
by supporting movements such as the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), which seek to remove marijuana from
the federal Controlled Substances Act Schedule I list. This list,
which claims to include and does include drugs (1) with a high
potential for addiction, (2) no medical use and (3) a lack of
accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision.
Schedule I is not the right place for marijuana--a drug no more
addictive than cigarettes, that very arguably has medical uses (such
as an anti-nausea medication) and is not unsafe under medical supervision.

Question 2 raises several important issues for Law Enforcement
Officers in Massachusetts. For now, officers should do the best that
they can to enforce the existing laws. Eventually, however, officers'
organizations should realize that all would benefit from removing
marijuana from the controlled substances act and letting states
determine the actual legality of smoking pot. Law enforcement
organizations would help citizens and themselves by getting behind
the movement to legalize marijuana.

Justine R. Lescroart '09, a Crimson editorial writer, is a Romance
languages and literatures concentrator in Quincy House.