BOSTONED?

Boston Voters Will Get Chance To Instruct Reps To Decriminalize

The Dig's coverage of Nevada's marijuana decriminalization ballot
initiative over the past few weeks may have instilled in you a distinct
sense that life is unfair.

After all, it seems that the Nevadans have access to all the fun vices:
gambling, prostitution, and now, potentially, marijuana. But there is good
news for the pot-friendly demographic of our readership: on November 5, the
following non-binding referendum question will appear in eight Boston
districts: "Shall the state representative from this district be instructed
to vote in favor of legislation that would make possession of less than one
ounce of marijuana a civil violation, subject to a maximum fine of $100 and
not subject to any criminal penalties?" Other parts of Massachusetts will
be answering questions regarding medical marijuana use and hemp farming.

As you can probably see from the wording of this question, voter response
will not directly determine whether or not decriminalization is in
Massachusetts' future.

Such is the nature of a non-binding referendum, which functions more as an
opinion poll than it does as a legislative determinant. But the
decriminalization question is more than just fluff on the ballot and may
not be ignored by state house representatives simply because it is
non-binding. Eighteenth Suffolk District (Allston/Brighton) candidate Dave
Friedman (D) recognizes that any legislator "has to pay close attention to
what the voters say" and says of this particular ballot question that,
while the margin of the vote is a strong consideration, "there would have
to be a very, very good reason not to follow [voter] instruction."

Advocates of decriminalization appeal to the larger, less left-leaning
population by pointing out that law enforcement officials would be better
able to focus on violent crimes and terrorism if they weren't so busy
making minor possession arrests.

In this time of gung-ho patriotism and concern for "homeland security,"
this is probably the most promising angle to look at such a controversial
issue; even in relatively liberal Massachusetts, few legislators, if any,
will support decriminalization just so people can unwind with some chronic
at the end of the day. Friedman, for example, explains that while he does
not support decriminalization per se, he sees it as a step in the right
direction in reforming drug laws and policies that simply aren't working in
the legal system as a whole.

And with the arguably misguided drug war what it is, one might expect many
other politicians to welcome an opportunity to do things differently.

But not all legislators are prepared to consider easing up on drug law in
their districts.

Asked whether he would follow voter instruction if his district showed
support for decriminalization, incumbent 13th Suffolk District (Eastern
Dorchester) Representative Marty Walsh (D) said that he would be "very
surprised" if that was the result of the vote. Showing great faith in the
willingness of Dorchester's residents to shake hands with the long arm of
the law, Walsh explains, "Marijuana is illegal regardless of whether it's
one ounce or two pounds." While the argument that decriminalization would
allow for police intervention in more serious crimes may seem particularly
relevant in Dorchester, Walsh believes that if we decriminalize small
quantities of marijuana, "We're opening a box we don't want to look into.
It's too dangerous." He goes on to explain, DARE-style, that "marijuana use
is the beginning step to a lifetime of taking drugs." While this may seem
like worn out rhetoric, it raises the question, however circuitously, of
which districts would really benefit from decriminalization and why.

No matter what your position on drug laws, it's hard to deny that this
ballot question is an important one, both practically and symbolically.
Make our forefathers proud and vote on it. There's no excuse not to.