Pubdate: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 Source: Beverly Citizen (MA) Copyright: 2004 Community Newspapers Inc. Contact: http://www2.townonline.com/beverly/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3553 Author: Joel Beck Cited: Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition http://www.masscann.org Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization) VOTERS TO CAST OPINION ON MARIJUANA USE One of the North Shore's worst-kept secrets was officially unearthed in September with Georgetown attorney Steve Epstein once again making his case for the decriminalization of marijuana in Massachusetts - 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." Considering his ever-increasing reputation as one of the state's most outspoken marijuana advocates, 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 the state's current marijuana laws. 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. 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 6th 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. "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. "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 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. 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. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake