GROWING HAZE OF CONFUSION AROUND STATE'S POT LAW

Given the myriad ways canines have been trained to use their powerful
sense of smell, it is not hard to imagine they could be taught to
differentiate between a large quantity of marijuana and less than an
ounce. Until that time, police may be wasting their time using
drug-sniffing dogs as the basis for pot arrests, such as the one on
Route 3 last month. It's the latest indication that while the state's
2008 marijuana law may have put the proper emphasis on casual pot
smoking, it has created a frustrating barrier between police and
their ability to pursue more serious drug crimes. In the Route 3
case, State Police smelled marijuana on the breath of the two
passengers in the back seat of a taxi that had been stopped in
Hingham for a broken license plate light.

When the officers then let a police dog sniff around, the animal
signaled that it smelled drugs in the trunk. When it was opened, a
suitcase containing 13.5 pounds of marijuana was found.

The passengers, from Watertown and Falmouth, were arrested, but
questions have arisen as to whether police had probable cause to
conduct the search. An April ruling by the state Supreme Judicial
Court prohibits police from searching a vehicle solely because they
smell marijuana. Voters in 2008 made possession of one ounce or less
of marijuana a civil infraction and not a crime. The court wrote that
police cannot discern by smell alone whether someone has more than
one ounce of marijuana.

Marijuana activists say the ruling should apply to drug dogs, too,
and legal experts are unsure how this will be resolved.

Massachusetts isn't the only place where loosened pot laws have
created a haze of confusion.

Thirteen states have already decriminalized possession of small
amounts of marijuana and similar proposals are before legislatures in
Connecticut and Rhode Island.

There may be valid arguments for the decriminalization of pot.
Prosecution of such cases require several court appearances by
police, prosecutors and public defenders and in many instances they
were dismissed. But it's becoming increasingly clear, as many in law
enforcement have long stated, that an attempt to treat one group more
leniently has come with unintended and troubling consequences.

It is an untenable position that needs to be addressed by the
Legislature and the court.