Pubdate: Wed, 28 Nov 2007
Source: Boston Phoenix (MA)
Copyright: 2007 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group.
Contact:  http://www.bostonphoenix.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/54
Cited: Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition http://MassCann.org
Cited: Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy 
http://sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/about.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

MARIJUANA REFORM

A Less-Than-Perfect but Much-Needed Initiative.

There is no sense to be found in the prosecution of individuals for 
possession of small amounts of marijuana. It clogs up our 
overburdened criminal-justice system, while achieving absolutely 
nothing. It also unnecessarily infringes on the civil liberties of 
those having a harmless toke, and provides a too-easy avenue for 
law-enforcement personnel to affix a criminal history to an 
undeserving citizen -- often a young person who merely looks like 
trouble to a cop.

A proposed initiative, working its way toward the 2008 state ballot, 
would change this, by decriminalizing small-scale marijuana 
possession. Possession of an ounce or less, then, would be treated as 
a civil infraction, punishable by a fine of $100.

Decriminalization is a much more tepid step than outright 
legalization, and the public supports it. Citizens in municipalities 
across the state have petitioned for local ballot questions on the 
issue, and in every case have voted for change, according to the 
Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition.

Unfortunately, the well-intentioned ballot initiative, as written, is 
flawed. As psychiatrist Lester Grinspoon wrote a week ago in the 
Boston Globe, it would make an offense of internal possession -- that 
is, having marijuana metabolites in one's system, indicating previous use.

It is too late to rewrite the proposal and still get it onto the 2008 
ballot. But the language can be fixed by the legislature before it 
takes effect.

The Phoenix urges decriminalization supporters to continue their 
efforts, and the public to vote in favor of the initiative, despite 
its flaws, next year. An overwhelming show of support for the idea, 
if not the exact measure, is the only way to give our state 
legislators the balls to finally act on decriminalization.

For years, Beacon Hill has declined to do so, mostly out of cowardice.

Some of our leaders have heartfelt, if misguided, reservations about 
marijuana reform. Dorchester state representative Martin Walsh, for 
example, who sits on the Mental Health and Substance Abuse Committee, 
argues passionately that a sharp line must be drawn with pot, to 
prevent use of the harder drugs that ravage so many of his 
constituents and their families. But marijuana is not a true 
"gateway" drug, and the money spent by the state arresting, 
prosecuting, and incarcerating for pot offenses -- more than $100 
million a year, by one estimate -- could be better used for 
prevention and treatment of much more serious substance use.

In fact, the 11 states that have already decriminalized marijuana 
have seen no increase in pot use, let alone in the use of other 
drugs, according to the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy.

Other lawmakers, taking their cue from Governor Deval Patrick, would 
prefer to address marijuana as part of comprehensive sentencing 
reform. That effort is anticipated sometime next year, or perhaps in 2009.

That's not what's really holding up the legislation, however. Nor is 
the small number of objectors, such as Walsh. What really stops it, 
in every legislative session, are the many legislators who fear being 
labeled as soft on drugs.

Their cowardice will only become more pronounced when broad 
sentencing reform does eventually come before them. If history is any 
predictor, we can expect that some will use this opportunity to 
replace any sensible, sane policy measures -- including marijuana 
decriminalization -- with ill-conceived, draconian, "tough-on-crime" measures.

That's why this ballot initiative needs not only to be placed on the 
ballot, but needs to pass by a large margin -- so that we can 
convince legislators there is no political price to pay for rational 
drug policy.

- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek