IN DEFENSE OF MARTHA

As a Main Street lawyer, I rise in defense of Martha Coakley, who is
not to blame for her inglorious defeat. Instead, blame belongs to Mike
Capuano, the progressive and likeable congressman from Somerville who
lost to her in the Democratic primary. But for a gross political
miscalculation, he might well have been the Democratic nominee, with
dramatically different results for Massachusetts and the nation.

Consider:

. In November of 2008, slightly over a year ago, Massachusetts voters
elected Barrack Obama by 62%, and passed an initiative to
decriminalize marijuana by 65%. (Yes, 65%!

. Martha Coakley, long-resistant to marijuana reform, led a phalanx
of prosecutors and law enforcement officials in opposition to the
initiative. After the landslide victory for decriminalization, she
resolutely stood her ground and encouraged cities and towns to pass
new anti-pot ordinances, usually at the behest of local police,
confident that her judgment was superior to that of the voters.

. As a congressman, Rep. Capuano co-sponsored a federal marijuana
decriminalization bill, but hardly mentioned it in the campaign. Not
once did he question Martha's support for prohibition. Not once did he
challenge her to explain why otherwise law-abiding people ought to be
arrested and have their lives ruined for a small amount of pot. He
totally failed to mention (or perhaps notice) that he and 65% of the
voters opposed Martha on this issue.

Why didn't Mike Capuano reach out to the voters who already agreed
with him? Why didn't he press Martha on an issue where she was already
proven to be on the losing side? Why did he ignore the huge body of
voters who shared his support for decriminalization? In short, why
didn't he seize the low-hanging fruit?

Whatever the explanation, you can't blame Martha. She did the safe and
prudent thing by remaining silent, which enabled her to take the
primary election comfortably without ever having to explain her
defense of prohibition laws that only cops seem to like.

As for why Mike didn't challenge her, I'd suggest, to put it politely,
that he's clueless about the huge disconnect between what voters think
about the marijuana prohibition laws and what they tell pollsters and
focus group leaders, and write letters to their congressmen about,
which is to say, nothing. Except in the privacy of a voting booth,
good people have the good sense to remain silent about the marijuana
laws, lest their boss take notice, or their scholarship be canceled,
or agricultural financing be put in jeopardy, or they risk custody of
their children in a divorce case. People are rationally and
justifiably fearful about having their name on a mailing list, or
signing a petition, or candidly answering any questions from strangers
about marijuana. (I know. They stop me on the sidewalk and applaud my
work for repeal, but politely decline an invitation to join the effort.)

Capuano naively misconstrued the public's silence as rooted in
satisfaction, not fear. As for the good people, their priorities are
in perfect order. Jobs and children come first.

One of these days a leader will come along with the political instinct
to acknowledge the naked truths that marijuana is ubiquitous, and that
it is ineradicable. Recognizing that prohibition is a luxury we can no
longer afford, and that legalization isn't just for stoners, he or she
will lead the exploration, design and enactment of new policies aimed
not only at better protecting the public health and safety, raising
copious amounts of new revenue, creating new industries and thousands
of new jobs in agricultural hemp, but most importantly fostering a
sense of responsibility in people who choose to use marijuana.

Martha Coakley's dedication to marijuana prohibition is unwavering.
Don't knock her for only being Martha. It's not her fault that Mike
was being Martha too.