CHANGES TO MARIJUANA LAW GAINING MOMENTUM

PEABODY - When state Sen. Frederick Berry voted Tuesday, he first
marked the ballot lines for all his favorite Democrats and then
considered the nonbinding referendum question at the bottom.

"Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to introduce
and vote in favor of legislation making possession of marijuana a
civil violation, like a traffic ticket ..."

Berry voted "Yes," essentially instructing himself to work to change
the state's drug laws. More than 13,600 other citizens in this city
voted the same way.

But Berry is the Senate minority leader, one of the most powerful
positions at the Statehouse. While he's not a big proponent of
referendum questions like this one, he's been thinking for years that
the state's marijuana laws need revision. And judging by his chats
with other lawmakers, he is not alone.

"I think it is a total waste of money when people found with a small
amount of marijuana are tying up the court system," Berry said.

Berry is also concerned that judges do not have the freedom to make
sentencing decisions on a case-by-case basis. Judges are restricted by
minimum-sentencing guidelines included in the state's drug laws, most
of which were set up in the 1980s.

"In the final analysis, we ought to give judges a little more
freedom," he said.

Berry has no plans to file legislation to change the marijuana laws,
he said, but he knows Sen. Cynthia Stone Creem of Newton does. And
there seems to be growing support among state officials to take action.

"I think a lot of senators would like to revisit this," Berry said. "I
would probably prefer to see some sort of commission set up to look at
the whole problem of drugs and sentencing."

That does not mean that by the end of the next legislative session it
will be as permissible to smoke a joint as it is to drive 45 mph in a
35 mph zone. But the times, as they say, may be changing. Since the
2000 election, 28 municipalities in Essex County have endorsed some
sort of change in the drug laws, according to the pro-pot lobby group
NORML.

In Tuesday's election, Salem, Beverly, Danvers, Peabody, Topsfield,
Marblehead and Swampscott all endorsed a change in the penalty for
marijuana possession, typically by about a 2-to-1 margin.

"Slowly but surely, progress is being made," said Steven Epstein, the
Georgetown attorney leading the local pro-pot push.

"We have hopes that within the next legislative session -- while we
may not pass the legislation because the governor may veto it and it
may not move in the House -- we think as a money-making proposition,
this could pass the Senate," he said. "Or at least get a vote."

Epstein said the fines associated with making marijuana possession a
civil offense could help local communities because at last half of the
money would go to the city or town where the offense occurred. The
other reason to change the laws, he said, is for the children.

"One of the things we are looking for is to keep handcuffs off our
children and keep criminal records off their backs," he said.

As to why there appears to be increasing agreement locally that the
laws must change, Epstein said it's because the drug is no longer as
taboo as it was, say, 20 years ago.

"We all know people who have used it," he said, "and we all know that,
for the most part, they are all pretty good people. Some of them are
even politicians."