MASS WEIGHS PROS AND CONS OF LEGAL MARIJUANA

Two Massachusetts legislators have introduced a bill that would make
the sale of marijuana by licensed distributors legal in the state.

House Bill 2929 and Senate Bill 1801, introduced in the statehouse
March 23, was sponsored by Amherst Rep. Ellen Story, Northampton
state Sen. Stan Rosenberg and petitioned for by Northampton attorney
Richard Evans. The bills seek to tax and regulate the cannabis
industry, stating that "previous efforts have not succeeded in
eliminating or curtailing marijuana use and abuse."

The bills would also create a regulatory board, the Cannabis Control
Authority, to supervise the distribution and sale of marijuana in
Massachusetts.

Under the new bill, officials would place marijuana into one of
three tax classes, depending on quality. The Control Authority would
be charged with testing the quality of the marijuana to determine
its tax bracket, collecting excise taxes on the sale of marijuana,
issuing licenses to farmers, importers and commercial distributers.

Also, the rule would apply to retailers who could potentially sell
the marijuana in a store. The law would create tax stamps to issue
to these purveyors to verify that the marijuana had been legally
obtained. Driving under the influence of marijuana and public
consumption would remain a crime.

Marijuana under the new bill would be moved from its origin point to
consumers in several stages.

A farmer would hold a cultivation license, which would cost $500
annually, and could sell marijuana to a processor, who could
"possess, process, package, box and crate cannabis," into one ounce
sealed bags, selling those to someone with a trade license, which
would cost $3,000 a year. From there, the processor could sell the
marijuana in any form to someone with a retail license, who would
essentially be operating a marijuana storefront, selling marijuana
to any person over 21 years-old who is not clearly intoxicated.

No one convicted of a felony, except a marijuana-related felony,
within the last 10 years would be able to hold a license.

Rep. Story and Sen. Rosenberg cautioned that the bill was likely to
be met with incredulousness from lawmakers, but said they hope the
bill will open the door to dialogue on the potential benefits of
marijuana legalization.

Rosenberg said he hopes the bill will stimulate discussion on the
issue of legalizing, though he said he doubts the bill will pass for
the present.

"It will take a while to get the legislature and the public's
attention on the subject," he said. "It is not likely to move very
far in this legislative term."

Rep. Story said that she would like to see the bill pass and that
she feels it could at some point in the future, but that the present
political climate in Boston indicates otherwise.

"If there ever was a time that this bill should pass because of the
tax revenues this would bring in, this is the time," she said.
However, she noted "the legislature will not vote for it because it
does not want to be seen as soft on drugs."

Story said lawmakers would probably like to take some time to
observe the effects of the recent decriminalization plan.

"People who might even be in favor of this say 'we just
decriminalized it, let's wait and see what that does, and then we
can consider whether we can just make it altogether legal,' but
right now the mood in the legislature is not to do that, legislators
are still very nervous about the legalization of currently illegal
drugs," said Story.

Though she feels the bill will not pass at this time, she said she
is hopeful that this legislation will generate open discussion about
legalization and its potential for revenue. She also feels that
opinions on all morality issues change over time, as
new generations view once shunned behaviors more tolerantly.

"The older generation, for the most part, were the ones who had such
trouble with same sex marriage, and the younger generation will come
along and find it astonishing that that was ever a controversial
issue," she said, "so the same thing may happen with marijuana."

Evans said he took the initiative to introduce this legislation
because "no one else was going to do it, somebody has to."

Like the two legislators sponsoring the bill, Evans said he hopes it
will create serious discussion about legalization.

"I'm trying to prompt constructive discussion," he said.

Evans said he feels current marijuana legislation is anachronistic
and represents government being out of touch with its citizens,
adding that marijuana prohibition is no longer financially viable in
an economic downturn.

"It's a legacy of past generations," he said of current laws, "we
don't need the prohibition laws, we certainly can't afford the
luxury of the prohibition laws, we're foolish to deny ourselves the
tax revenue we could be generating; it's a question of sensible government."

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law (NORML)
Director and University of Massachusetts alumnus Allen St. Pierre
said the legalization plan would put Massachusetts at the forefront
of marijuana reform and would help save taxpayer money and extend
civil rights in ways other than merely ceasing the arrest and
prosecution of users and dealers.

"It would cease the arrest of approximately 10,000 people a year on
cannabis charges," he said. "But worse than that, it would stop the
databases the government keeps of the DNA of marijuana users," he explained.

"In most states, if you're caught smoking marijuana you have your
DNA swabbed and put in databases, which are expensive to keep, and
hand our government our genetic code."

St. Pierre, an Amherst native, said that prohibition has not worked
to end the abuse of marijuana and that research suggests an
effective way to curtail marijuana use would be to treat it in much
the same way tobacco has been dealt with recently.

"We have to use public education that is credible," he said,
explaining that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America's
anti-marijuana campaign, the largest ever advertising campaign, has
not been seen as credible by young people, its target audience.

By making smoking appear less desirable and by using hard statistics
showing its dangers authorities have proved that it is an addictive,
deadly substance, said St. Pierre.

Further, by raising taxes on it, legislators have been able to
create an introductory price which makes tobacco difficult to access
for first time smokers, who are presumed to be younger and therefore
have less income. If the same plan were to be implemented
for marijuana, St. Pierre said, authorities would have a workable
recipe for reducing the instances of marijuana use but still not
clogging the criminal justice system or persecuting users.

St. Pierre also explained that demography will play a role in
shaping marijuana policy as the discussion on how to regulate
marijuana continues.

"The baby boom generation, like them or not, their mores and values
- - which decidedly intersect with marijuana - are essentially leading
this nation, and the generation behind them, the 40-year-olds, you
can call them, are behind marijuana more, and the people behind
them, the 20-year-olds, are even more behind it," he said.

"When this gets vetted around the Commonwealth, places like Lowell,
parts of Cape Cod and the islands, Cambridge, good parts of the
whole Boston area and the suburbs, places in Western Mass. like
Williamstown, Amherst - anywhere there's a college - their
politicians will be more inclined to support it than the bigger
industrial cities like Worcester and Springfield that are more
heavily swayed by the archdiocese and the Catholic church," said St. Pierre.

"But there will be a medical marijuana bill on the ballot in 2010 or
2012 and that will likely pass by the same margin as the
decriminalization bill, so Massachusetts is going to be in play on
the issue of marijuana," he added.

"Prohibition might have lasted had a major economic crisis not have
confronted America," he said. "And that is what is on the table now
that is making this issue palpable."