ANSWERING QUESTIONS

Belmont voters will be asked to weigh in on three public policy questions
next Tuesday.

The questions deal with state and national issues. They each appear in a
handful of legislative districts.

None of the three ballot questions are binding on the Legislature. They are
merely to gauge public opinion and, in some cases, to encourage the town's
state representative, Anne Paulsen, or the town's most powerful politician,
Gov. Mitt Romney, to consider changing their positions on the issues.

Question 1 asks whether seriously ill patients, with their doctor's written
recommendation, should be allowed to possess and grow small amounts of
marijuana for their personal medical use.

Research has shown that marijuana can be an effective treatment for some of
the side effects of some serious illnesses, including cancer. Giving
physicians the option of prescribing this herbal treatment will have no
effect on the illicit, recreational use of marijuana. It will merely help
some desperately ill people, and transfer a little bit of unwarranted power
from the government to doctors and patients.

Paulsen supports this idea. Romney opposes it. The Citizen-Herald endorses it.

Question 2 is the so-called Baby Safe Havens policy. The state Legislature
passed the long-debated child-protection law last summer; it goes into
effect this Friday.

The new law allows women to abandon their newborn babies without facing
criminal prosecution, remaining anonymous and not obligated to give any
identifying information. A newborn who is seven days old or younger, who
has not been physically abused, can be left at a hospital, a police or fire
station, or with an emergency medical responder following a 911 call.

Advocates for the ballot question have said the referendum will help
promote some changes to the recently-enacted law. They also chose to place
the question on the Belmont ballot because Paulsen has been a vocal
opponent of the measure.

The Citizen-Herald takes no position on this question. Because the law has
already passed, the ballot question is basically moot.

But more importantly, we wish the state Legislature - and the supporters of
Baby Safe Havens - would do much more to help women who are so disturbed
about their pregnancies that they would even consider anonymously
abandoning their babies.

Question 3 concerns the USA PATRIOT Act. It instructs the state
representative from this district to support a resolution "asserting that
the campaign against terrorism should not be waged at the expense of
constitutionally protected civil rights and liberties of Massachusetts
residents"; and calls for legislation - at the state and federal levels -
to prevent violations of constitutional rights that are currently allowed
under the PATRIOT Act.

The U.S. Congress passed the PATRIOT Act soon after Sept. 11, 2001, but
since then, more and more citizens have become concerned about the law as
they have learned about some of its more extremist provisions. The act
gives the federal government the power to search your home, monitor your
Internet use, collect information about your reading habits from your local
library, examine your medical and psychiatric history, and look at your
phone calls, all without your knowledge.

Defenders of the act say only suspected terrorists are exposed to this
treatment. But in fact, law enforcement agencies have tagged many
law-abiding political and religious organizations with the label of
"potential terrorists," leaving members of these legal groups vulnerable to
unprecedented surveillance.

Nationally, more than 350 cities and counties as well as four states have
passed similar resolutions. Liberals as well as conservatives have spoken
out against the PATRIOT Act.

We encourage you to vote Yes on Question 3.