Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Comments

  1. Possession of marijuana already carries a minimal penalty under Massachusetts law.  The law provides that a possessor be placed on probation and then that the charges should be dismissed and the records sealed.  In practice, many busy courts don’t even bother with the probation and dismiss marijuana charges outright on the day they are brought.

    <

    p>That’s only for a first offense, right?  What happens if ten or fifteen years after going through that, someone is arrested again?  Then there is a big difference between current law and what question two would do, right?  I think there are lots of people who don’t think of pot as something one just “tries” in college and then never tries again, people that like it want to do it their whole lives.  

    <

    p>People now in their 40s or 50s grew up grew around the peak of the drug epidemic in the 70s and 80s.  National data show that most of us tried marijuana and a majority tried at least one other drug.  Given that marijuana experience is so widespread among those doing the hiring today, a youthful marijuana charge is not a real career impediment, even in the exceptional case that the employer is able to discover the
    sealed record.

    <

    p>OK, what about a 45 year old lawyer or professor or computer engineer who is caught smoking on a friday night at party and has to go to court on Monday, will he lose his career?  Should he (or she)?

    • True, the law does not include a safe harbor for repeat offenders.  

      <

      p>In practice though, it’s rare for people ever to be incarcerated for possession alone, even for cocaine and heroin.  Most judges view drug use as a disease and/or self-destructive habit, not as a serious offense in itself.  

      <

      p>But the guaranteed safe harbor is only for first offense marijuana, so there is a theoretical liability that people do face if they continue to use over time and risk repeated arrest.  

      <

      p>That said, and to your second query, I can’t imagine most private people suffering lasting harm as a result of a marijuana arrest at any age.  The likely single court appearance leading to a dismissal or continuance-without-a-finding is currently less trouble than a moving motor vehicle violation.  If one were a politician or perhaps a criminal justice professional, it could be another story.

      <

      p>I think we have enough trouble with legal alcohol and tobacco — I don’t support adding marijuana as another major legal intoxicant. So, I’m OK with the existence of some deterrence.

      • Thanks for your comments Rep. Brownsberger, but I don’t follow your logic.

        <

        p>You’re saying almost no one faces jail time for small possession alone, and you seem to be happy with that. Question 2, if passed, would ensure no one would face jail for small possession alone. So Question 2 would effectively codify what you claim is already the status quo, a status quo of which you more or less approve.

        <

        p>You say you can’t “imagine most private people suffering lasting harm as a result of a marijuana arrest at any age,” which I take it you see as a good thing. Well, if it’s a good thing, why not convert it from something that you imagine to be true into something the law says is definitely true?

  2. and I think that you have a well-thought out position on Question 2.

    <

    p>Nevertheless, I am interested in your response to the argument that one reason a system of civil penalties should replace the current system is that marijuana is a significantly less harmful drug not only than cocaine and heroin, but alcohol and nicotine as well. The reason this is important is that I agree with you when you state that:

    <

    p>

    The proposal also distracts from serious efforts to address the real problems in our drug policy: Unduly long prison sentences for cocaine and heroin dealing and poor treatment quality.

    <

    p>If marijuana is indeed less harmful that other drugs (both legal and illegal), then why wouldn’t reform marijuana laws assist (rather than distract) from the “real problems” you cite? I would argue that part of the point of the proposal is to put marijuana in its “proper place” in the law by refusing to treat it more harshly than more dangerous drugs — and by so doing, concentrate efforts on what to do about the drugs that have a much more disruptive effect on society, like heroin.

    • I do think MJ is less harmful than heroin and cocaine.  I think it is in the same ball park as alcohol, not necessarily less harmful than alcohol.

      <

      p>The distraction I fear is that politically next year will be about fixing the problems with this law — the high quantity of THC decriminalized, the impact on drug testing — not about sentencing.  There’s only so much we can get done in a year.

      <

      p>But, it’s hard to predict with confidence how a legislative session will evolve.  If the quesiton passes, we’ll try to make the best of it to the end of advancing sound overall policies.  

        • We can agree on that.  It seems to me that Rep. Brownsberger agrees that the law needs to be changed regarding marijuana but doesn’t like the drafting in this initiative.

          <

          p>From my experience, I know many, many parents who lost their children for ever, adults who lost their housing, and drivers who killed themselves and others or people who died of alcohol poisoning.  I don’t know of MJ causing any of those results.  Does anyone out there reading?

          • I’m honestly not of the view the MJ law on possession needs to be changed.  In the other Q2 thread, my statement was:

            <

            p>”the change worked by the proposal, making possession a civil offense punishable by fine, appears minor and initially I didn’t have a strong feeling about the question.  I was planning to vote no because I believe that the proposal sends a pro-drug message that is not helpful in our efforts to reduce substance abuse.  I am also concerned that the proposal would expose more people to harmful second-hand smoke.

            <

            p>But a closer read shows that the proposal goes too far.”

            <

            p>And I go on to express the concerns about the drafting.

            <

            p>Re toxicity, it is quite true that alcohol carries higher risk of lethal overdose.  That is just one dimension of harmfulness.  They are both bad and I know people can differ inconclusively as to which is worse.

Archives