Pubdate: Thu, 14 Jan 2010
Source: Valley Advocate (Easthampton, MA)
Copyright: 2010 New Mass Media
Contact:  http://www.valleyadvocate.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1520
Author: Maureen Turner

WILL THE REAL DRUG REFORM CANDIDATE PLEASE STAND?

The two big-party candidates for Senate do little to distinguish 
themselves on drug policy.

For Massachusetts voters who are invested in the reform of existing 
drug policies-and the success of Question 2 on the November 2008 
ballot would suggest that's a significant chunk of the 
electorate-next week's special Senate election presents a quandary.

In one corner, representing the Republicans, we have state Sen. Scott 
Brown, who in 2009 filed a bill that would undercut Question 2, which 
decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana, making it a 
civil offense punishable by a $100 fine. Within days after that law 
(which was approved by 65 percent of voters) took effect, Brown 
introduced his bill, which would increase the fine to $1,000 if the 
pot was found in a car, and would also result in a 90-day license suspension.

Brown's bill was protested by marijuana reform activists, who point 
out that one of Brown's stated intents-to keep people from driving 
stoned-was already addressed under existing OUI laws.

In the other corner, meanwhile, is Democratic Attorney General Martha 
Coakley, who joined the Massachusetts District Attorneys' Association 
in opposing Question 2. Then, when proponents of the ballot question 
filed a complaint with the AG's office alleging that the DAs' 
campaign violated election laws (for instance, by using public funds 
for the campaign) and relied on falsehoods (for example, claiming the 
law would mean "any person may carry and use marijuana at any time"), 
Coakley rejected the complaint.

After Question 2 was approved, Coakley drafted sample legislation for 
municipalities to use to draft their own local ordinances increasing 
the fine-a move that was allowed by law, but that flies in the face 
of the intent of voters on Question 2.

"Ms. Coakley opposed [Question 2] and has worked to undermine it 
since passage," Terry Franklin, a longtime proponent for drug-policy 
reform, told the Advocate last fall, as Coakley was heading into the 
Democratic primary in advance of next week's special election.

Coakley's campaign did not respond to a request for comment from the Advocate.

*

In the December Democratic primary, many voters who back the reform 
cause threw their support to U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano, whose track 
record on the issue is strong: Capuano supported Question 2, and is 
co-sponsor of a federal marijuana reform bill filed last summer by 
Rep. Barney Frank that would decriminalize possession of 100 grams of 
pot or less.

"I think it's ridiculous we spend as much money and time as we do on 
minor infractions," Capuano told the Advocate shortly before the 
primary. He described the argument that marijuana is a "gateway" to 
harder drugs as "ridiculous," adding, "I also don't like the idea of 
ruining some young people's lives because they decided to smoke a joint."

Capuano is also a supporter of medical marijuana legislation-as, it 
should be noted, is Coakley, who last summer voiced her support of 
medical marijuana, "only with a prescription."

But Coakley's position on medical use of marijuana is not enough for 
voters like Franklin. With Coakley defeating Capuano (and fellow 
candidates Alan Khazei and Stephen Pagliuca) in the December primary, 
reformers find their options limited, at least when it comes to the 
two major parties.

"At least on this one issue, drug policy reform, the two parties are 
offering us two negatives," Franklin told the Advocate recently.

"In this month's election, I would have a hard time deciding which of 
the two evils [Coakley and Brown] was the lesser," added Franklin, 
who in an online discussion group for drug policy reformers described 
both candidates as "Prohibitionist fanatics" who "continue to 
undermine our hard-won Question 2."

That's why Franklin is urging voters to look in a third corner, the 
one occupied by Joe Kennedy ("not the nephew, the other Joe Kennedy," 
as Franklin describes him), a libertarian who's running as an 
Independent and a self-described "Tea Party Candidate."

Kennedy, who believes marijuana policy should be handled by the 
states, not the federal government, supports several reform bills, 
including Frank's medical marijuana and decriminalization bills.

"With so many people complaining about the two-party system, it is 
surprising that more don't vote for the alternatives offered by 
hard-working non-or third-party activists," Franklin said. "I'm going 
with the alternative."

Dick Evans, a Northampton attorney who's been active in drug reform 
efforts for decades, expressed frustration at how far behind the 
voters politicians lag on the issue. "What baffles me about the 
Senate race is that all the Dem and Rep candidates pretended not to 
have noticed that the [decriminalization] initiative passed, only a 
year ago, by a margin of 65 to 35. Is that not a sufficient group of 
voters to appeal to?" Evans told the Advocate.

"Sure, [marijuana's] always been the third rail of politics-touch it 
and you're dead-but, jeez, 65?

"What's going on, I fear, is simply that politicians are spineless on 
this issue, so they hide behind a cloak of cluelessness. And it is a 
real cloak," Evans continued. "For their entire adult lives, they 
have bought into prohibitionist doctrine, which blinds them to the 
most obvious truths, including the fact that, like it or not, 
[marijuana] is ineradicable.

"Any day now, a candidate will come along who will have not only the 
courage but the political instinct to reach out to those 65 percent 
of voters and earn their support," he predicted.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Keith Brilhart