In case anyone missed it … three county DAs are on record opposing Question 2, which would decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. This is in spite of the fact that — as young folks are wont to do — young Dan Conley inhaled while a young pup, as did Gerry Leone, and perhaps Michael O'Keefe, although he's a bit more cagey about describing whether he's ever been experienced.
Can we plausibly speculate that if law enforcement had been aware of the behavior of these young pups at the time they were acting like young pups, that they might not now have the positions of influence and power that they now enjoy over other such young pups? Do middle-aged law enforcement officers with nice careers have the right to lecture to their younger selves to stay off the hooch, or else?
Might they have been prosecuted? Might they have served jail time? Might they have lost their scholarships? Might they have had CORI records?
And might it all have been a colossal waste of money, time, expertise career promise and life potential?
Should law enforcement be used to “send a message” regarding public health, as AG Coakley says? Is it possible that getting caught possessing marijuana is a greater danger than actually smoking it?
More from Amy. Vote yes on 2; say no to Reefer Madness.
The tough thing about being a parent is that one does occasionally have to set boundaries and impose punishments for the same things that one did as a kid. As you reach 50, you have to get used to that idea.
<
p>I don’t think that being born with perfect judgment and never having made youthful mistakes should be a requirement for law enforcement officers.
<
p>Even the wisest and most upright among adults broke a variety of laws as kids — not just drug use but driving dangerously and rough-housing. That doesn’t mean we can’t be part of and defend a system that discourages those behaviors with reasonable penalties.
<
p>The question is: Are the penalties reasonable?
<
p>Here’s my personal statement regarding question two.
<
p>Question Two on the November ballot purports to enact a “Sensible State Marijuana Policy.” So packaged, the proposal is likely to pass.
<
p>But the truth is that the anti-marijuana hysteria of the 1930s gave way to a sensible policy long ago. Question Two is poorly conceived and would do more harm than good.
<
p>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.
<
p>In practice, many busy courts don’t even bother with the probation and dismiss marijuana charges outright on the day they are brought.
<
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.
<
p>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>So, 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.
<
p>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>It would decriminalize possession of a full ounce of marijuana, several dozen joints, and even possession of a full ounce of THC, the active ingredient of marijuana which equates to several pounds of marijuana.
<
p>Dealers selling joints could keep their on-hand supply under one ounce and pose as users if searched.
<
p>Further, the proposal restricts penalties for use of marijuana as detected by drug testing.
<
p>The fine print states: ‘As used herein, “possession of one ounce or less of marihuana” includes possession of one ounce or less of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol and having cannabinoids or cannibinoid metabolites in the urine, blood, saliva, sweat, hair, fingernails, toe nails or other tissue or fluid of the human body.’
<
p>The act prohibits any form of punishment for “possession one ounce or less of marihuana” other than the civil fines provided in the act itself. It holds harmless “existing” personnel policies, but would operate to prevent new policies involving drug testing of public safety and transportation workers for marijuana.
<
p>Finally, the act gives short shrift to the problem of ticket enforcement. Most other civil fines are built into the framework of owning a motor vehicle; licensing and registration requirements enforce collection. But there is no real reason to expect kids ticketed for marijuana use to provide accurate identification information that could be the basis of enforcement, which, even with good information would be cumbersome. The proposal would leave very little in place to discourage marijuana use.
<
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>Every year, we incarcerate thousands of young men for the crime of dealing heroin or cocaine. These dangerous drugs should remain illegal, but there is room to lighten up on our sentencing. We’re locking people up for too long. This over-punishment is expensive for the taxpayers.
<
p>At the same time, we offer drug users relatively little in the way of high quality treatment. The system is badly underfunded and sadly unaccountable for results. Drug users need help to get well and often have no where good to turn.
<
p>There’s a lot to improve in our drug policies. But decriminalization of marijuana substantially happened long ago. And Question Two is poorly conceived and would do real damage.
<
p>
to break a parental rule and get a time out for something that parents once did. It’s another to get a criminal record from it and ruin someone’s life and potential, for something that’s no worse for the body than drinking or smoking a pack of cigarettes. As someone who’s never smoked pot in his life, I have no problem with those who do and, knowing the science behind it, definitely don’t think should be illegal.
<
p>And it IS hypocritical for someone to put someone behind bars for smoking pot, when they themselves smoked it and didn’t get caught or smoked it and had better lawyers. If it were physically addictive or particularly dangerous, I’d feel differently, but it’s just not.
<
p>
<
p>I don’t see where the distraction is. Isn’t the opposite actually true – locking people up and criminalizing pot use distracts us and wastes precious resources in the battle against the heavy drugs that destroy lives, neighborhoods and families? It’s much better to solve this relatively easy problem so we can focus on the real problems than the other way around. The other problems you mentioned are serious problems, but I don’t see how or why passing Question 2 would preclude the legislature from dealing with those other problems.
<
p>In any event, I appreciate your effort to engage with this community and urge you to continue to do so.
Thanks for the welcome.
<
p>Here are a couple of responses:
<
p>1) The reason that this question is a distraction is that, if it passes, there will be a big push to clean it up with some corrective legislation. That will be the action next year on drug policy. I’m sure the legislature will honor the intent of the voters on this — to a great extent, it already has. But there will be a push to adjust the problems in the law.
<
p>So, instead of focusing on sentencing policy changes that might actually reduce the burden of incarceration, we will waste time on something that really lets no one out of jail.
<
p>2) It apparently bears repeating that it just isn’t true that people are going to jail for possession of marijuana. I don’t think that even the BU economist supporting Question 2 claims this. If I understand him, he suggests that it will save money on arrests — I believe this is also not true — but he isn’t claiming savings on actual incarceration.
<
p>General laws Chapter 94C, Section 34 specifically provides that a possessor be placed on probation and then that the charges should be automatically dismissed and the records sealed. See the second to last paragraph of the section at http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws…
<
p>I did a study of 1000 commitments to Massachusetts state prison for drug offenses in the mid-90s. Only 3 of them involved marijuana and all of those three involved dealing quantities over 50 pounds. See the study at http://www.prisonpolicy.org/sc…
<
p>At the lower-level houses of corrections, there are some people who, on paper, are there for possession, but experience in the courts indicates that almost all of them are people who were initially charged with distribution and made some form of plea bargain that led to the reduction of dealing charges to possession charges.
<
p>There are very, very few, if any, custodial arrests for the sole purpose of punishing marijuana possession. Unless someone is actually smoking in public or is involved in some form of objectively suspicious activity, a police officer has no right to search a person and detect the crime of possession.
<
p>I like the concept of reality based commentary and it’s my intention to offer exactly that. I’d respectfully urge people to focus carefully on what the current practice in the courts truly is with respect to marijuana possession.
<
p>I think that we progressives occasionally suffer from a little bit of hysteria about the drug laws which bookends the conservative hysteria about drugs. I came into the study of drug policy in 1993 thinking that maybe a broad legalization was the right answer, but my views became more moderate as I got closer to the facts.
<
p>Thanks again for the kind welcome.
<
p>
My reaction to some points in the article.
<
p>“They argue that the initiative would send the wrong message and lead to a host of social problems.”
<
p>Putting aside research that disputes this, the message that needs to be sent is to our legislators and enforcement agencies that our current thinking on possession needs to change. That’s the message I want sent.
<
p>“They said that if the question passes, dealers could evade arrest when carrying as many as 60 joints – which they say equals about an ounce.”
<
p>All that means is that you need to prove intent to distribute by means other than the amount in possession. This shouldn’t be a problem, and if it is, the bar is too low to ‘prove’ intent to distribute.
<
p>“They also said most people arrested for marijuana possession have their records cleared within six months.”
<
p>I’d like to see them prove this. I’d rather not take their word for it.
<
p>“‘It’s very rare we arrest someone for marijuana possession alone,’ said Chelsea Police Chief Brian Kyes, another vocal opponent of the initiative, who also said he has never smoked pot. ‘Right now, the law is very lenient for marijuana possession. There aren’t people going to jail solely for possession of marijuana – and the current statute requires that after six months the conviction is continued without a finding and that the records be sealed.'”
<
p>Maybe we should combine the budget for prisons with the budget for law enforcement. Let the law enforcement agencies fell first hand the financial pull of our ever expanding prison population. Then we’ll see how lenient they think we’re already being.
There is not one person today in a MA prison because of a lone marajuana conviction. Many prisoners have been jailed for more serious felonies and a marajuna possession was also on the list of multiple charges, but no prisoner is in jail because of sole marajuana conviction…
that is a myth.
<
p>
So you’re saying that even though current law allows for jail time for what most people agree is the minor offense of marijuana possession, the fact that law enforcement isn’t taking advantage of this law means it’s all OK? There are several things wrong with this kind of thinking:
<
p>1) An unjust law on the books, especially if it’s selectively enforced, is a tool for abuse of power among law enforcement.
<
p>So they’ll let you go if they know you’re basically a good kid, but they’ll enforce it if they’re sure you’re guilty of other offenses? Classic situation for abuse of power. The law is supposed to be blinder than that.
<
p>2) Having unenforced or sporadically enforced laws on the books undermines the power and respect of law enforcement in the public eye.
<
p>It’s better to have a stupid law off the books than to let it sit there unenforced. That’s what question 2 seems to me to be doing. Our legal system will get more respect for their efforts to control drug abuse if they can stop wasting their time on pot, which is less harmful than alcohol.
<
p>Just because they’re not putting anyone in jail solely because of pot possession doesn’t mean it’s not a damaging law to have on the books. Question 2 seems to me to constitute a small but necessary first step towards making our drug laws sane.
i.e., if you “look like a good kid.”
Some reactions to your reactions, just for the sake of argument.
<
p>the message that needs to be sent is to our legislators and enforcement agencies that our current thinking on possession needs to change. That’s the message I want sent.
<
p>IMHO it’s risky business to support an initiative that you think sends a particular message, even if the initiative is itself flawed. That, after all, is why a lot of people are voting “yes” on Question 1 – not because they think repealing the income tax is actually a good idea, but because they want to “send a message.”
<
p>All that means is that you need to prove intent to distribute by means other than the amount in possession. This shouldn’t be a problem
<
p>Maybe. If it is a problem, though, it’s a HUGE one.
<
p>I remain uncertain about question 2.
“sending a message”
<
p>especially when so few are actually fully enforced?
… about the message. Problem is that the gut political reflex is to be ‘tough on crime’. Crime is one of those policy areas where the politics of the issue is miles apart from any empirical research. In contrast to the budgetary issue, the leg is under constant pressure to fund things and cut taxes. As such, I’m not worried that a particular viewpoint will get undercut. The usual tax pledge is certainly worrisome, but the budgetary realities in state government (where debt isn’t as much of an option) provide a reality check each time spending is considered.
<
p>As to the second point. Even if it’s a huge problem,… it should be a huge problem that is addressed by procedure and police work, not a huge problem that is addressed by over-weighing the relative gravity of possession. The latter is a distortion of values.
Because pot is so much more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes? Whence the state’s great interest in denying people the ability to smoke pot if that’s something they want to do in their recreation time, anyway? What’s the justification? What about the much-touted “constitutional right to privacy” that protects other individual choices?
Who is the government to tell me what I can or can’t put in my body?
One commenter questioned the truth of those who say that cases are routinely dismissed. It’s actually specifically spelled out in the law that that should be the outcome:
<
p>The second to last paragraph of Mass. General Laws, Chapter 94C, Section 34 specifically provides as follows:
<
p>”Notwithstanding any other penalty provision of this section, any person who is convicted for the first time under this section for the possession of marihuana or a controlled substance in Class E and who has not previously been convicted of any offense pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, or any provision of prior law relating to narcotic drugs or harmful drugs as defined in said prior law shall be placed on probation unless such person does not consent thereto, or unless the court files a written memorandum stating the reasons for not so doing. Upon successful completion of said probation, the case shall be dismissed and records shall be sealed.”
<
p>In busy courts, they generally don’t bother with the probation and dismiss the cases outright on day one.
<
p>/w.
From the defense I’m reading, it sounds like the DAs are grandiloquently averring the following:
<
p>”We don’t think marijuana is a big deal. The law is set up so that getting caught with MJ is something that won’t dog you for that long — as a matter of fact, it’s one of the gentlest criminal statutes we go going. But we daren’t legalize it, because then it would be legal. And it would send the wrong message to decriminalize what I assure you barely counts as a crime right now.”
<
p>It’s not adding up for me, here. As I said before, and has essentially been said upthread, the silent contention seems to be that the law must stay on the books solely to punish the “wrong kind of people” — the “wrong kind” being whomever the DA decides is wrong.
Will, I appreciate you engaging here very much, particularly in such an area where there might otherwise be an echo chamber here.
<
p>Can you tell me the effect of getting arrested for marijuana possession on student scholarships, under current law?
<
p>And I should say that I agree with sabutai’s above critique of the DAs’ arguments. The only relevant question is whether marijuana possession is in and of itself worthy of a criminal arrest. I haven’t seen an affirmative case for that that I actually respected. All else is dancing around the point.
The standard disposition in marijuana cases is a dismissal (either immediately or after probation). The law specifically requires a dismissal. G.L. c. 94C, s.34, second to last paragraph.
<
p>When a case is dismissed, it is not a conviction. This is a technical area, but my understanding is that the scholarship eligibility is affected only by an actual conviction. See federal student aid reference page.
<
p>This is the case for most of the collateral consequences that people worry about with drug cases: They attach to a conviction and the required routine dismissal protects from them. There are exceptions — immigration consequences is a treacherous area.
Granted, alcohol and tobacco are both pretty bad. And they are legal. So, is marijuana so much worse? It’s hard to say it is — alcohol in excess is a terrible thing for mind, body and spirit.
<
p>If you frame the question that way, you get one answer to your question: Further lighten an already light regime.
<
p>The other way to frame it is: We have enough problems with alcohol and tobacco. Do we really need another major legal intoxicant and another powerful industry lobby?
<
p>I frame it that way and get the other answer. No — things are liberal enough already.
<
p>The other thing is: This proposal really does go too far by limiting drug testing policies. In that respect, it makes marijuana easier to abuse than alcohol. Sobriety really is important in public safety and transportation jobs.
<
p>
Thanks again for responding, Will.
<
p>Well, again, you really haven’t made an affirmative case that marijuana should be outlawed at all, or that it’s comparable in any way to alcohol or tobacco, much less heroin, or transcendental meditation, or oven cleaner. That’s the heart of the question: How harmful is it? to what is it comparable? I’m genuinely willing to be convinced one way or another. But that and only that should be the basis of our drug policy.
<
p>I also find nothing in the Sec. of State’s summary of the proposal that has anything to do with drug testing. What am I missing?
I’ll demur on your invitation to make the case against for or against particular substances or meditative practices from personal experience or from research. That literature is broad and readily available.
<
p>Re drug testing, read the full text of the proposed law and study the text defining possession to include having metabolites in one’s body. Combined with the language strictly limiting penalties for possession, the intent to restrict penalties for use detected by drug testing is very clear, although the words drug testing do not appear. I quote the relevant language up thread in my first comment on your post.
<
p>Best regards.
<
p>/w.