POT AND THE BALLOT BOX

The great pot debate, in this case as to whether or not the state's
penalty for minor pot possession should be reduced from a misdemeanor
to a civil infraction, is unlikely to be settled at the ballot box
this November even if the issue makes it there in the form of a
referendum question. The Legislature has already shown that for good
(reducing the state income tax) or ill (initiating public funding of
campaigns), it will ignore referendum questions if it sees fit. If
change is to come, it will be with the impetus of lawmakers.

The Boston-based Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy wants
Massachusetts to join the 12 other states that have reduced penalties
for marijuana. New York is the nearest, and there is no evidence that
reefer madness has overcome the Empire State. The proposal is not as
radical as, for example, legalizing marijuana, which no state can do
anyway because it would violate federal laws regulating the drug.

The argument that marijuana is a gateway drug to cocaine or heroine
is not backed by incontrovertible evidence. If it were, first
offenders would not have their cases dismissed with probation, as is
regularly the case. Berkshire County and Massachusetts law
enforcement officers have a realistic perspective on marijuana use,
and a ballot question, a blunt instrument when subtlety is required,
is not the way to change drug laws.

The state's mandatory sentencing law for drug sales within a school
zone, the source for the controversial Great Barrington drug arrests
in 2003, is a bad law, however, because it removes sentencing
discretion from judges and mandates tough sentences for minor
offenses. We once again urge the Legislature to repeal it. We also
urge the Legislature to legalize the use of marijuana for certain
illnesses, such as cancer and AIDS. These actions would outweigh any
ballot tampering with drug laws.