Pubdate: Thu, 9 Oct 2008
Source: Georgetown Record (MA)
Copyright: 2008 GateHouse Media, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.wickedlocal.com/georgetown/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3519
Author: Sarah Menesale
Cited: Question 2 http://sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/

DA BLODGETT SPEAKS OUT AGAINST QUESTION 2

Georgetown - Mary Jane, pot, weed, ganga -- call it what you want, 
but Massachusetts voters will decide on a burning issue in the Nov. 4 
election that's caused quite a stir between advocates and opponents 
of current marijuana laws in the commonwealth.

Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett talked about his opposition 
to Question 2 -- which would decriminalize possession of small 
amounts of marijuana -- at a meeting Friday morning with Community 
Newspaper Company reporters and editors in Beverly. His opinions 
differ sharply with those of Georgetown's Steve Epstein, a well-known 
local advocate of reducing the penalties for marijuana possession.

"Ballot Question 2 would undoubtedly have a negative effect on 
children. It will facilitate young people smoking grass," Blodgett said.

Blodgett focused on what decriminalization would mean and the dangers 
of marijuana during the informal question-and-answer session.

"There's no question this is a baby step [for supporters]. Their 
ultimate goal is the legalization of drugs," he said of Question 2, 
which he said is being back by Hungarian-born American financial guru 
and political activist George Soros.

If Question 2 passes it is binding legislation and will go into 
effect eight weeks after the election.

Question 2 on the Nov. 4 statewide ballot asks voters to approve or 
deny a proposed law that would, "replace the criminal penalties for 
possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of 
civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would 
exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's 
criminal record information system."

Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the 
marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Their parents would also be 
notified of the offense and the option to complete a drug awareness 
program. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same 
forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one 
year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.

The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of 
marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of 
tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of 
marijuana or THC in one's body.

A YES vote would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one 
ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties. A NO 
vote would make no change in state criminal laws concerning 
possession of marijuana. The money received from the new civil 
penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.

"I would have a better debate with you if the fine was $2,000. It 
would be a more serious discussion. Don't tell me a $100 fine isn't 
going to be a joke for people who can afford to buy an ounce," 
Blodgett said, noting that an ounce of marijuana typically sells for 
$300 to $600.

He added, "I don't want the guy next to me drunk on I-95. And I don't 
want the guy next to me on 95 stoned."

Looking for Legalization

Georgetown's Steve Epstein disagrees that a move toward legalization 
would be bad policy.

Epstein, an attorney and Georgetown resident since 1987, is one of 
the founders of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, which 
was started in 1989.

  "I think it should be [fully] legalized. I make no bones about it," 
said Epstein this week. He says that's where he differs from the 
Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which is backing Question 2. 
That group is currently not lobbying for further decriminalization 
beyond what is called for in the ballot initiative, but Epstein 
thinks Question 2 should just be a first step.

Epstein has worked for years to turn simple marijuana possession by 
adults into a civil, rather than a criminal, offense. He also 
supports legal marijuana use for medical purposes, saying in past 
interviews, "If marijuana dealers were licensed and taxed, they'd 
have an incentive to keep marijuana out of the schools."

Ten other states have legalized marijuana use for medicinal purposes.

Blodgett argued that those states' illegal marijuana use is higher, 
saying Alaska is pushing to go back to criminalizing the possession 
of marijuana.

Marijuana use is going to happen, Epstein reasons, saying, "The cat 
is out of the bag."

"All you can do is teach your children and that moderation is key," he said.

Epstein calls current marijuana possession enforcement arbitrary 
because the law grants the arbitrary power to the police to arrest, 
summons or verbally warn the offender.

"That's one of the key things to me -- the arbitrariness of 
enforcement. It depends on who or where," he said this week.

Blodgett argued that no one in Essex, Suffolk or Middlesex counties 
is arrested just for possession of small amounts of marijuana, a 
Class D substance. They are instead summoned to court.

Blodgett said juveniles who are caught with small amounts of 
marijuana are placed in a juvenile diversion program that consists of 
an online course, sessions with a counselor and possibly community service.

An adult typically gets six months unsupervised probation and then 
the matter is closed in court, Blodgett said. They would only lose a 
day off of work to show up to court.

"The criminal justice department is the single biggest referral of 
services," he said, arguing if Question 2 passes people who would 
otherwise be in the system and receiving health services would no 
longer have access when they start getting addicted.

Proponents of Question 2 say the bill would help those caught with 
marijuana from being denied jobs and volunteer opportunities because 
the charge would no longer show up on a CORI check.

It now says you've been charged with a crime and it's been dismissed.

"If that's the issue, we're talking CORI reform. The governor has 
proposed changes. It's an active discussion," Blodgett said.

'Not an Open Door'

Epstein argued that more than 10 percent of people over the age of 18 
use marijuana each month.

"All too often race, age and financial status are implicated not only 
in whether or not charges are brought, but also with the outcome of 
those charges," he wrote in a guest column to the Georgetown Record in 2005.

A conviction may result in incarceration in jail, loss of license, 
loss of a permit to carry, and more, Epstein reasons.

"Prohibition fails to keep marijuana away from children more 
effectively than regulation of alcohol and tobacco keeps alcohol away 
from children. It appears the wiser course for Congress and the state 
legislature to tax and regulate this agricultural commodity while 
prohibiting it to children as we do tobacco and alcohol," Epstein 
wrote in a 2005 guest column.

He argued controlling the industry and charging fines similar to a 
parking ticket for possession of small amounts of marijuana could be 
a revenue maker for states.

"It's not an open door for dealers. If someone is caught with a lot 
of small packages, or a lot of cash, it's indent to distribute and 
they can be arrested," he said.

It would still be a crime to grow marijuana, possess marijuana with 
the intent to distribute and to operate a motor vehicle while under 
the influence of marijuana.

"No one should drive while impaired," Epstein said, but cites a study 
that found smoking pot leaves the body impaired on a similar level as 
taking Nyquil.

Blodgett stated that levels of THC in marijuana have risen to 30 
percent, calling the marijuana found on the streets today, "Not your 
father's Oldsmobile."

The stronger varieties tend to come from Canada across the border and 
can be laced with stronger drugs.

Blodgett asked why proponents of the bill would want to be part of 
the "dumbing down of America," asking who would benefit from this legislation.

"This is a drug dealers' protection act. This will seduce more kids 
to smoke and buy marijuana," he said.

The district attorney's office spends as much time on prevention as 
they do in persecution of drug-related crimes, Blodgett explained.

"We're in the schools. We're helping kids make good decisions," he said.

He argued decriminalizing any amount of marijuana, no matter the 
size, is a bad health policy.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake