WAITING TO INHALE

"I've smoked marijuana," Steve Epstein nonchalantly announced during
an interview this past summer. "I enjoy marijuana."

Really Steve? We never would have guessed.

Considering his ever-increasing reputation as one of the state's most
outspoken marijuana advocates, conversations with Epstein leave little
doubt that
he likes to spark up on a regular basis. In fact, after noticing the rolling
papers that peek out of his front shirt pocket and the odorous smokiness that
emanates from his pores - seemingly indicating that he's at least been
smokingsomething recently - there's a question that's hard to banish from
your mind
while talking to Epstein:

"Geez, do you think he's high right now?"

Smoking pot may be Epstein's thing, but make no mistake, his mind
couldn't be clearer or more passionate when it comes to his thoughts
on reforming the state's current marijuana laws - a cause which he has
personally overseen for more than two decades as a leader with the
Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition (Mass Cann) and the organizer
of Boston's annual pro-pot festival, "The Freedom Rally."

Otherwise, how else could you explain the amount of support he's
helped drum up in recent years from Massachusetts voters, the
majority of whom appear to agree with Epstein that the time has come
to reconsider marijuana possession as a criminal offense.

Not only does Epstein maintain marijuana is a far less dangerous
drug than most people would have you believe, he also says
decriminalizing it would create a major economic boost in
Massachusetts (see adjacent story). So far, the voters seem to agree.

In 2000, Epstein and the folks at Mass Cann used their persuasive
efforts in the 2nd Middlesex Senate district and the 4th Essex, 6th
Middlesex and 4th Barnstable Representative districts, where voters
supported a non-binding ballot question asking their representatives
to introduce legislation that would decriminalize marijuana
possession, instead making it a civil violation - much like getting a
traffic ticket.

A similar ballot question passed in 2002 in more than 20
representative districts - including the 1st, 2nd and 18th Essex
districts, where the question passed with more than 60 percent of the
vote.

This year, Epstein and Co. are at it again, despite the fact that
legislators didn't step up to the plate on either previous occasion
that their constituents asked them to rethink the state's marijuana
laws. This time, voters in the 2nd Essex, 3rd Essex and 3rd Middlesex
Senate districts - which include communities like Beverly, Danvers,
Peabody, Salem, Marblehead, Lynn, Nahant, Saugus and Swampscott -
will have their chance to chime in with another non-binding question
that will appear on this November's ballots.

With recent history on his side, Epstein is understandably confident
that the ballot question will pass yet again. He is less confident,
however, about the prospect of any politicians on the North Shore -
or anywhere else in the state for that matter - stepping forward and
actually supporting his cause.

It becomes especially harder to envision with legislators like Brad
Hill, an Ipswich Republican who was a vocal opponent of the idea of
decriminalizing marijuana when the issue surfaced in his district in
2000, standing in the way.

Hill did file an obligatory bill on Epstein's behalf after the 2000
vote, but he recalls the legislation quietly dying in committee and
doesn't see new life being breathed into the marijuana cause anytime
in the near future.

"Right now, I wouldn't see it passing anytime soon," says Hill.
"Does that mean in four years it won't pass or in 10 years it won't
pass? I can't answer that question. I do know that there hasn't been a
huge turnover in legislators in the past two or four years and right
now, the appetite to pass legislation decriminalizing marijuana just
isn't at the top of people's priorities."

Still, with each time his ballot questions pass, and the will of the
people shows a desire to reform the state's marijuana laws, Epstein
says sooner or later the politicians are just going to have to listen.

"We hope it will be in January of next year that they're finally
going to listen," says Epstein. "And we have no reason not to believe
that we'll get 60 percent of the 'yes' votes again.

"Politicians keep thinking that (supporting marijuana reform) is
going to hurt them and we keep showing them that there's no way it's
going to hurt them," Epstein adds. "But we continue to be optimistic
that eventually the politicians will wake up. We feel we're much closer."

Not to mention higher.

Stirring the Pot

If you ask Gary Insuik, the worst thing that ever happened to
marijuana was when it became labeled as a drug.

Is it a mind-altering substance? You bet it is, says Insuik. But
certainly no worse than anything that comes in a six-pack - and we're
not talking about Coca-Cola.

"Why isn't alcohol linked to the name 'drugs?'" wonders Insuik, a
Salem resident and member of Mass Cann. "I think the stigma of
(marijuana) being called a drug is what keeps it illegal. If alcohol
is legal, I can see absolutely no reason marijuana shouldn't be. It's
a far less powerful substance."

While people like Insuik and Epstein will enthusiastically debate
the potency of alcohol vs. pot with anyone who comes their way,
Insuik's point about marijuana immediately being lumped together with
harder drugs is instantly evident the minute you start to talk about
it with some North Shore politicians.

For example, when asked her thoughts on the continuing effort to
decriminalize marijuana in Massachusetts, Peabody state Rep. Joyce
Spiliotis admits she hasn't given much thought to the issue, but
quickly points out the growing problem with the drug OxyContin on the
North Shore.

Meanwhile, Ipswich's Hill - although he says he remains open to the
discussion about the possibility of decriminalizing marijuana -
continues to maintain that marijuana can lead to more lethal
substance abuse down the road.

"The only concern I ever had - and I can show you just as many
reports as (Epstein) can show me - is that it's a gateway drug," says
Hill. "That's my only concern in all of this."

Some candidates for public office are quick to weigh in on the
issue, saying they could never support an effort to lessen any
restriction on laws they believe exist to protect the health and
well-being of their constituents. When it comes to marijuana, the
message is a familiar one:

Drugs are bad.

"I absolutely do not want to make a partial legalization or a
decriminalization for marijuana simply because of the poor example it
gives to young people," says Bob Finneran, a Republican candidate for
state rep. in Epstein's own 2nd Essex District. "I don't want to
sacrifice our young people and I'd be shocked if the people in the
2nd Essex District voted otherwise."

But people in districts all across Massachusetts have indeed
recently voted otherwise. And Epstein acknowledges the number of
people who believe marijuana is a far less dangerous substance than
most other drugs has increased far beyond the usual collection of
hippies and potheads.

In order for marijuana to actually kill someone, Epstein says,
something truly drastic - or cartoonish - would have to take place.

"I think a bail of it would have to fall on top of you," says
Epstein. "You just can't consume enough marijuana for it to kill you.

"The question you have to ask is, is this something the government
should be involved in while supposedly creating an environment where
people are free to pursue their own concept of happiness?" continues
Epstein. "I can see prohibiting citizens from owning nuclear warheads,
but I can't see prohibiting citizens from growing a plant. It just
doesn't make sense."

Let it grow

It's not that Insuik has lost all hope in his longtime effort to
make marijuana laws less stringent. It's just that he kind of hoped
he'd be able to light up a joint on the subway by now.

OK, maybe Insuik never really envisioned a worldthat relaxed in its
views toward marijuana, but he certainly thought they'd be further
along in their cause than they are now. Complete legalization always
seemed like a stretch, but Insuik says there are days he believes Mass
Cann's work is all for naught.

"Every year that it doesn't get done, I figure it will just be
longer until it actually does get done," says Insuik. "We're so
close, but if we can't get it done now, then why? Do we have to wait
for a whole generation of lawmakers to die off? Hopefully we can get a
generation in there that has some thoughts of their own. You get a
little tired of this politics by party."

Other than some gains that have been made in making medicinal
marijuana available to ease the pain for chemotherapy and glaucoma
patients, Insuik laments the fact that they are no closer to
decriminalizing marijuana than at any previous point.

Part of that, Epstein says, comes from the fact that most people
can't differentiate between legalization and decriminalization.

For the number of times he's confronted people who are dead-set
against loosening the government's grip on marijuana laws in any
form, Epstein says he meets just as many people on the other end of
the spectrum - the people who think marijuana should be, as he calls
it, "legal as lettuce."

The real solution, he contends, lies somewhere in
between.

"What's difficult is getting someone who wants to see the marijuana
laws changed and convincing them that the only way we're going to get
there is through incremental steps," says Epstein. "The hardest part
is convincing those people that their neighbors don't think marijuana
prohibition is a good idea."

But again, if recent ballot question results are any indication, the
next-door neighbors aren't the ones preventing the decriminalization
of marijuana - unless of course your next door neighbor happens to be
a senator or a state rep.

But Epstein honestly believes that if you rounded up all the
politicians on Beacon Hill and swore to them their true feelings on
the issue would never be revealed to the general public, you would
discover a vast majority who privately believe marijuana laws are too
strict.

Whether that means the tide will soon turn on this issue remains to
be seen. But if a vote on the North Shore this November shows the
voters still want a change, the voices may become too loud for
legislators to ignore.

And that's not just blowing smoke.