WILL THE REAL DRUG REFORM CANDIDATE PLEASE STAND?

The two big-party candidates for Senate do little to distinguish
themselves on drug policy.

For Massachusetts voters who are invested in the reform of existing
drug policies-and the success of Question 2 on the November 2008
ballot would suggest that's a significant chunk of the
electorate-next week's special Senate election presents a quandary.

In one corner, representing the Republicans, we have state Sen. Scott
Brown, who in 2009 filed a bill that would undercut Question 2, which
decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, making it a
civil offense punishable by a $100 fine. Within days after that law
(which was approved by 65 percent of voters) took effect, Brown
introduced his bill, which would increase the fine to $1,000 if the
pot was found in a car, and would also result in a 90-day license suspension.

Brown's bill was protested by marijuana reform activists, who point
out that one of Brown's stated intents-to keep people from driving
stoned-was already addressed under existing OUI laws.

In the other corner, meanwhile, is Democratic Attorney General Martha
Coakley, who joined the Massachusetts District Attorneys' Association
in opposing Question 2. Then, when proponents of the ballot question
filed a complaint with the AG's office alleging that the DAs'
campaign violated election laws (for instance, by using public funds
for the campaign) and relied on falsehoods (for example, claiming the
law would mean "any person may carry and use marijuana at any time"),
Coakley rejected the complaint.

After Question 2 was approved, Coakley drafted sample legislation for
municipalities to use to draft their own local ordinances increasing
the fine-a move that was allowed by law, but that flies in the face
of the intent of voters on Question 2.

"Ms. Coakley opposed [Question 2] and has worked to undermine it
since passage," Terry Franklin, a longtime proponent for drug-policy
reform, told the Advocate last fall, as Coakley was heading into the
Democratic primary in advance of next week's special election.

Coakley's campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Advocate.

In the December Democratic primary, many voters who back the reform
cause threw their support to U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano, whose track
record on the issue is strong: Capuano supported Question 2, and is
co-sponsor of a federal marijuana reform bill filed last summer by
Rep. Barney Frank that would decriminalize possession of 100 grams of
pot or less.

"I think it's ridiculous we spend as much money and time as we do on
minor infractions," Capuano told the Advocate shortly before the
primary. He described the argument that marijuana is a "gateway" to
harder drugs as "ridiculous," adding, "I also don't like the idea of
ruining some young people's lives because they decided to smoke a joint."

Capuano is also a supporter of medical marijuana legislation-as, it
should be noted, is Coakley, who last summer voiced her support of
medical marijuana, "only with a prescription."

But Coakley's position on medical use of marijuana is not enough for
voters like Franklin. With Coakley defeating Capuano (and fellow
candidates Alan Khazei and Stephen Pagliuca) in the December primary,
reformers find their options limited, at least when it comes to the
two major parties.

"At least on this one issue, drug policy reform, the two parties are
offering us two negatives," Franklin told the Advocate recently.

"In this month's election, I would have a hard time deciding which of
the two evils [Coakley and Brown] was the lesser," added Franklin,
who in an online discussion group for drug policy reformers described
both candidates as "Prohibitionist fanatics" who "continue to
undermine our hard-won Question 2."

That's why Franklin is urging voters to look in a third corner, the
one occupied by Joe Kennedy ("not the nephew, the other Joe Kennedy,"
as Franklin describes him), a libertarian who's running as an
Independent and a self-described "Tea Party Candidate."

Kennedy, who believes marijuana policy should be handled by the
states, not the federal government, supports several reform bills,
including Frank's medical marijuana and decriminalization bills.

"With so many people complaining about the two-party system, it is
surprising that more don't vote for the alternatives offered by
hard-working non-or third-party activists," Franklin said. "I'm going
with the alternative."

Dick Evans, a Northampton attorney who's been active in drug reform
efforts for decades, expressed frustration at how far behind the
voters politicians lag on the issue. "What baffles me about the
Senate race is that all the Dem and Rep candidates pretended not to
have noticed that the [decriminalization] initiative passed, only a
year ago, by a margin of 65 to 35. Is that not a sufficient group of
voters to appeal to?" Evans told the Advocate.

"Sure, [marijuana's] always been the third rail of politics-touch it
and you're dead-but, jeez, 65?

"What's going on, I fear, is simply that politicians are spineless on
this issue, so they hide behind a cloak of cluelessness. And it is a
real cloak," Evans continued. "For their entire adult lives, they
have bought into prohibitionist doctrine, which blinds them to the
most obvious truths, including the fact that, like it or not,
[marijuana] is ineradicable.

"Any day now, a candidate will come along who will have not only the
courage but the political instinct to reach out to those 65 percent
of voters and earn their support," he predicted.