USE FINES AS ANTI-DRUG TOOL

Simple possession of marijuana in Massachusetts can get you up to a
six-month jail sentence and a $500 fine.

That's what it says in the law books, any way. In practice, a first
offense is continued without a finding.

Subsequent offenses generally lead to a small fine, though jail can
result when a defendant's record includes other offenses. Indeed,
marijuana possession has acquired a de facto status akin to the
"secondary" seatbelt law, which is enforced only when motorists are
stopped for some other offense.

Marijuana possession is seldom the only charge a defendant faces --
in a typical scenario, he or she has been arrested or stopped for a
traffic offense and a bag is discovered.

Measured against the reality of enforcement practices, this week's
proposal from a House committee to decriminalize possession of an
ounce or less of marijuana would result in sterner punishment. It
calls for a $250 fine, and provides police with a mechanism that
would make enforcement virtually automatic. They would be freed from
investing expensive time in court to enforce a law that poll after
poll shows is unpopular with most of the public. The proposal, from
the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Committee, has room for
improvement. This bill should be amended to make sure the fines are
earmarked for drug rehabilitation and education purposes. That would
make it an effective tool in the war on drugs -- discouraging
marijuana use with a blow to the pocketbook, then employing the funds
to get others away from hard drugs.

The threshold for decriminalization should also be reduced to a
half-ounce to guard against small-scale dealing being passed off as
simple possession. If such provisions were added, we would
enthusiastically support the decriminalization bill. Unfortunately,
three of our local representatives seem inclined to ignore the
realities of marijuana enforcement. John Lepper, R-Attleboro,
discredits decriminalization as a "slap on the wrist," even though
the $250 fine would be more severe than the majority of penalties now given.

Betty Poirier, R-North Attleboro, and Philip Travis, D-Rehoboth, have
responded with the argument that the bill has liberal backing and
therefore can't be worthwhile. Instead of name-calling, the area's
law makers ought to be trying to improve this bill, requiring that
the funds be earmarked for drug rehabilitation and reducing the
threshold for decriminalization.

This would offer a chance to gain ground in a "war on drugs" that has
gone on for 40 years, at untold expense to taxpayers, without any
victory in sight. Local legislators should be encouraged to
reconsider their current positions and deal with this issue more realistically.