MARIJUANA: STATE SHOULD FOLLOW PROHIBITION-ERA PRECEDENT

Today is the 100th anniversary of Massachusetts' first law
interfering with free commerce in cannabis.

It was the first such state law in the nation. The 1911 law required
a prescription from a physician. Massachusetts' medical users would
benefit from returning to the law of 1911.

That is what should have happened in 1992 following then-Gov. Weld's
approval of "An Act Providing for the Use of Marijuana in Therapeutic
Research." Unfortunately, unlike more recent laws adopted in 15
states and the District of Columbia, our law requires a federally
approved source. Federal refusal to approve a supply makes it a cruel joke.

Since the voters decriminalized an ounce or less over two years ago,
the fears of the "reefer mad" have not materialized. In what I do not
believe was a coincidence, the state Supreme Judicial Court chose
Patriots Day, April 19, 2011, to release its monumental ruling
limiting the power of police to detain and search people based upon
the odor of burnt marijuana. The decision makes it clear that
operating a motor vehicle while impaired following consumption,
remains a crime.

Left unanswered are other aspects of the law such as under what
circumstances it would be appropriate to cite a person for possession
based upon the odor of burnt marijuana; whether sharing small amounts
with others is a crime; and the power of police who smell unburnt
marijuana to seize persons and search. These issues and others will
reach the court in coming years, even if Massachusetts takes the next
step toward constitutional cannabis control and taxation.

There is precedent for doing so. In 1930, voters repealed
Massachusetts' prohibition on alcoholic beverages, replacing it with
no law, leaving it to the feds to enforce the federal prohibition.
When it comes to cannabis and adults, we should follow that precedent.

Steven S. Epstein, Esq.

Georgetown

(Editor's note: Steven Epstein is a founder and an officer of the
Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition.)