Pubdate: Fri, 24 Oct 2008
Source: Halifax-Plympton Reporter (MA)
Copyright: 2008 GateHouse Media, Inc.
Contact: mnadler@cnc.com
Website: http://www.wickedlocal.com/halifax
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/4913
Author: Matthew Nadler
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/oxycontin.htm (Oxycontin/Oxycodone)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/youth.htm (Youth)

REPRESENTATIVES, POLICE CHIEF OPPOSE LOOSENING MARIJUANA LAWS

The decriminalization of marijuana possession is the aim of one of the
three statewide ballot measures voters will find on Election Day.

If passed, Question 2 would replace the criminal penalties for possession
of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.
This would be enforced by issuing citations and would exclude information
regarding this civil offense from the state's Criminal Record Information
System (CORI).

Offenders 18 or older would be subject a civil penalty of $100, while
those under 18 would pay a $100 fine if they successfully complete a drug
awareness program within one year of the offense. Those who don't could be
required to pay a higher penalty - as much as $1,000.

Neither of Halifax or Plympton's representatives on Beacon Hill favors the
measure.

"It the sends wrong message to kids. We're telling kids we don't take it
seriously, I think that it's inappropriate," said Rep. Daniel Webster,
R-Pembroke. Rep. Tom Calter, D-Kingston, said "We know that marijuana is a
gateway drug. I don't think it's in our best interest to change a law
which would make it easier for our youth to meet drug dealers who deal in
more harmful commodities."

Local police aren't any more impressed with the proposal. According to
Plympton Police Chief Matthew Clancy, there is already a provision in the
law allowing for small possession cases to be transferred to civil court.
Often the cases are not even charged, he said, and are only included if
more serious crimes have been committed. "The jails aren't full of people
charged with possession," he added.

Whitney A. Taylor of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy holds an
entirely different view. One of the committee's biggest arguments against
the current law is when individuals are placed under arrest, their names
are entered into CORI. "It lists what the individual was arrested for, but
not the outcome, and that information is available to the public," Taylor
said. "We don't support or condone marijuana use. This is just a smart
criminal justice reform. The sky is not falling in, and more people will
not be breaking the law."

Conversely, the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, which
opposes Question 2, said in a recent press release that "passage of
Question 2 will strip away the privacy offenders currently have in their
CORI records and make their record of civil fines for marijuana possession
open to public inspection."

The press release further stated that if a case is criminal, the CORI laws
bar most public disclosure; but if the matter is civil, the CORI laws do
not apply and the offender's civil fine for marijuana possession becomes a
public record, "available to anyone who wants it. Under current
Massachusetts law, most employers can only receive 'publicly accessible
CORI.'"

Taylor notes that penalties for other marijuana-related crimes, such as
sales or DUIs, remain untouched.

Furthermore, Taylor said, taxpayers would save $30 million a year in
arrest costs. "Do the citations and confiscate the marijuana, but keep the
cops on the streets to fight more violent and serious crimes," she said.
"That money should be kept in police coffers."

The Massachusetts District Attorneys Association further noted that
"Marijuana charges represent an infinitesimal percentage of police work,
and Question 2 does not reduce the time police will spend processing these
cases." Clancy concurred with that assessment. "It's not a crime that's
overcharged by any means," he said.

Taylor claims that passage of Question 2 would not increase marijuana use.
"Eleven other states have similar laws and have shown no increase in
marijuana use," she said.

The committee's platform is, "Let the punishment fit the crime."

Last month, Attorney General Martha Coakley's office threw out a claim by
the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy that the state's district
attorneys had been intentionally spreading false information about the
effects of decriminalization, the State House News Service reported at the
time.

Question proponents claimed the Massachusetts District Attorneys
Association had falsely asserted that the measure would "normalize"
marijuana use, reverse a decline in the use of marijuana amongyouth, lead
to an increase in drug-related crime, and increase DUIs.

State House News Service had earlier reported, following a Sept. 17 press
conference, that "opponents of Question 2 incorporated everything from
alcohol use to OxyContin to gangster rap in their argument against the
proposal, a stark contrast from the proponents who described the measure
as a benign effort to refocus police on violent crime and to save costs on
unnecessary arrests."

Opponents of Question 2 also include Gov. Deval Patrick, Mayor Thomas
Menino, the Black Ministerial Alliance, The Massachusetts Sheriffs
Association, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Supporters of marijuana decriminalization, on the other hand, note that
laws governing the sale, trafficking, and purchase of marijuana would be
left unchanged, as would any laws related to impaired driving.

Taylor said, "If everyone would stop and listen - and consider what
Question 2 would do - they would realize that personal possession of one
ounce or less remains illegal, but would not carry a criminal penalty."

The 11 Massachusetts district attorneys unanimously oppose Question 2. The
press release issued recently by the Massachusetts District Attorneys
Association states that Question 2 "represents an extreme departure from
current Massachusetts law and will drastically change the way drugs affect
our daily lives. Question 2 will allow drug dealers and users to possess
and carry up to an ounce of marijuana subject only to a civil penalty of
$100 - less than the fine for a speeding ticket. State and national data
indicate that, after many years of effort, drug use among teens is finally
going down. Why should we pass a ballot question that signals to our
children that marijuana use is ok?"

With respect to the issue of denying student financial aid if caught in
possession of marijuana, the press release states, "Under current federal
law, the only way an offender can be denied a student loan is if he is
convicted of a drug offense while he is in school and already receiving
federal aid, and then he loses it for one year. He can lessen that
one-year period if he completes drug rehabilitation. If he is convicted
again, under the same conditions, he loses his loan eligibility for two
years."