Advertisement
www.boston.com/news/local...both_sides/
Marijuana vote has allies on both sides
By John Laidler
Globe Correspondent / September 25, 2008
Georgetown lawyer Steven Epstein supports the November state ballot question on decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, seeing use of the drug as a matter of personal liberty.
"We formed the government to protect the individual in the exercise of their rights, amongst which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," Epstein said, adding that people should be free to exercise those rights as long as they do not harm others.
But Chelsea Police Chief Brian Kyes strongly opposes the ballot proposal, viewing it as a step backward in the fight against drug abuse.
"It definitely sends the wrong message to kids," he said.
"By decriminalizing this offense right now and making it basically the equivalent of a traffic violation, you are sending the message that it's OK, that it's not so bad."
As the decriminalization measure, Ballot Question 2, begins to stir debate around the state, voices on both sides are being sounded in this region.
The measure would replace the state's criminal penalties for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana with civil penalties enforced through citations.
Offenders would be subject to forfeiture of the drug and a $100 fine - for those under 18, the $100 fine would be contingent on their completing within a year a drug awareness program with a community service component. Otherwise, the fine could increase to as high as $1,000.
The offense would not be listed on the individual's Criminal Record Information System (CORI) record.
"People should vote yes on Question Two because it's a simple, commonplace reform based on successful laws from 11 other states," said Whitney A. Taylor, campaign manager for the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, the ballot group advocating a "yes" vote.
"We waste $30 million a year in police resources enforcing the current marijuana possession laws."
Taylor said her committee neither promotes nor condones marijuana use. Endorsers of the question range from the American Civil Liberties Union to lawyers, professors, police officers, and marijuana legal reform groups.
"Marijuana remains illegal under Question 2," she said, arguing that the measure actually provides for more certain consequences for offenders under age 18.
While first-time offenders are rarely sentenced to jail, Taylor said inclusion of their arrest on their CORI report can "create huge barriers to getting a job, finding housing, and getting school loans."
Epstein, who as a lawyer has represented many clients charged with marijuana possession, said offenders are "labeled criminals for doing something that over half of us have done at least once in our lifetimes," a label that "follows you around" because of the CORI listing. He also said that enforcement of the existing law is arbitrary.
A founder and spokesman for Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, Epstein noted that advisory questions calling for decriminalizing marijuana have passed in all 31 legislative districts where they have been on the ballot.
But Middlesex District Attorney Gerard Leone said the ballot measure "derails all the good and hard work we've done on behalf of kids and communities. . . . All the question does is provide another mind-altering substance on the menu of options for our kids to use. . . . It's a virtual certainty that if Question 2 passes, there will be an increase in marijuana use and it will happen amongst our kids."
Leone and his fellow district attorneys are members of the Coalition for Safe Streets, a group opposing the question that also includes police chiefs, local officials, and clergy members.
"We know it's a gateway drug, and we know kids who use marijuana use it in combination with alcohol or other drugs, and step up to other, more potent drugs," Leone said.
"We also know the strain of marijuana on the streets is now nine or 10 times more potent than it was a decade ago."
Essex lawyer Jonathan W. Blodgett agreed that Question 2 "absolutely sends the wrong message, particularly to young people."
"The question people have to ask is, who benefits from decriminalization. Do we really want kids smoking marijuana? . . . We are all promoting healthy choices in our lives today. This is just a major step back," said Blodgett.
"If this passes, we will see more car accidents and more industrial accidents because people will have absolutely no incentive not to smoke marijuana."
Blodgett also said the measure will not reduce police and court costs, noting that in most cases, marijuana possession charges are brought together with more serious offenses.
Also opposed to the ballot question is Amy Harris, clinical director of Chelsea ASAP, an outpatient substance abuse clinic in Chelsea, and coordinator of the Chelsea Mobilization for Change, a coalition that works on substance abuse prevention.
Harris said decriminalization would lead to greater availability of marijuana in the form of "blunts, the cigar-sized marijuana cigarettes now prevalent among young people.
She said such heavy consumption of the drug puts youth at risk for cancer and psychological damage. Decriminalization would also have the effect of "sanctioning the drug so youths can emulate what the adults are doing," she said.
But Ann Allen, a medical technician from Salem, supports Question 2, calling the proposal "long overdue."
"It's just very logical," she said, noting that it would eliminate the CORI records that now burden offenders, and save money for taxpayers.
Allen said she was introduced to the cause of easing marijuana laws when a friend with cancer - who has since died - had to risk legal sanctions to obtain marijuana to relieve chemotherapy symptoms.
"She felt uncomfortable doing it illegally, like every other person I know that has smoked marijuana as a responsible adult," she said.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
Marijuana vote has allies on both sides
By John Laidler
Globe Correspondent / September 25, 2008
Georgetown lawyer Steven Epstein supports the November state ballot question on decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana, seeing use of the drug as a matter of personal liberty.
"We formed the government to protect the individual in the exercise of their rights, amongst which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," Epstein said, adding that people should be free to exercise those rights as long as they do not harm others.
But Chelsea Police Chief Brian Kyes strongly opposes the ballot proposal, viewing it as a step backward in the fight against drug abuse.
"It definitely sends the wrong message to kids," he said.
"By decriminalizing this offense right now and making it basically the equivalent of a traffic violation, you are sending the message that it's OK, that it's not so bad."
As the decriminalization measure, Ballot Question 2, begins to stir debate around the state, voices on both sides are being sounded in this region.
The measure would replace the state's criminal penalties for possession of an ounce or less of marijuana with civil penalties enforced through citations.
Offenders would be subject to forfeiture of the drug and a $100 fine - for those under 18, the $100 fine would be contingent on their completing within a year a drug awareness program with a community service component. Otherwise, the fine could increase to as high as $1,000.
The offense would not be listed on the individual's Criminal Record Information System (CORI) record.
"People should vote yes on Question Two because it's a simple, commonplace reform based on successful laws from 11 other states," said Whitney A. Taylor, campaign manager for the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, the ballot group advocating a "yes" vote.
"We waste $30 million a year in police resources enforcing the current marijuana possession laws."
Taylor said her committee neither promotes nor condones marijuana use. Endorsers of the question range from the American Civil Liberties Union to lawyers, professors, police officers, and marijuana legal reform groups.
"Marijuana remains illegal under Question 2," she said, arguing that the measure actually provides for more certain consequences for offenders under age 18.
While first-time offenders are rarely sentenced to jail, Taylor said inclusion of their arrest on their CORI report can "create huge barriers to getting a job, finding housing, and getting school loans."
Epstein, who as a lawyer has represented many clients charged with marijuana possession, said offenders are "labeled criminals for doing something that over half of us have done at least once in our lifetimes," a label that "follows you around" because of the CORI listing. He also said that enforcement of the existing law is arbitrary.
A founder and spokesman for Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, Epstein noted that advisory questions calling for decriminalizing marijuana have passed in all 31 legislative districts where they have been on the ballot.
But Middlesex District Attorney Gerard Leone said the ballot measure "derails all the good and hard work we've done on behalf of kids and communities. . . . All the question does is provide another mind-altering substance on the menu of options for our kids to use. . . . It's a virtual certainty that if Question 2 passes, there will be an increase in marijuana use and it will happen amongst our kids."
Leone and his fellow district attorneys are members of the Coalition for Safe Streets, a group opposing the question that also includes police chiefs, local officials, and clergy members.
"We know it's a gateway drug, and we know kids who use marijuana use it in combination with alcohol or other drugs, and step up to other, more potent drugs," Leone said.
"We also know the strain of marijuana on the streets is now nine or 10 times more potent than it was a decade ago."
Essex lawyer Jonathan W. Blodgett agreed that Question 2 "absolutely sends the wrong message, particularly to young people."
"The question people have to ask is, who benefits from decriminalization. Do we really want kids smoking marijuana? . . . We are all promoting healthy choices in our lives today. This is just a major step back," said Blodgett.
"If this passes, we will see more car accidents and more industrial accidents because people will have absolutely no incentive not to smoke marijuana."
Blodgett also said the measure will not reduce police and court costs, noting that in most cases, marijuana possession charges are brought together with more serious offenses.
Also opposed to the ballot question is Amy Harris, clinical director of Chelsea ASAP, an outpatient substance abuse clinic in Chelsea, and coordinator of the Chelsea Mobilization for Change, a coalition that works on substance abuse prevention.
Harris said decriminalization would lead to greater availability of marijuana in the form of "blunts, the cigar-sized marijuana cigarettes now prevalent among young people.
She said such heavy consumption of the drug puts youth at risk for cancer and psychological damage. Decriminalization would also have the effect of "sanctioning the drug so youths can emulate what the adults are doing," she said.
But Ann Allen, a medical technician from Salem, supports Question 2, calling the proposal "long overdue."
"It's just very logical," she said, noting that it would eliminate the CORI records that now burden offenders, and save money for taxpayers.
Allen said she was introduced to the cause of easing marijuana laws when a friend with cancer - who has since died - had to risk legal sanctions to obtain marijuana to relieve chemotherapy symptoms.
"She felt uncomfortable doing it illegally, like every other person I know that has smoked marijuana as a responsible adult," she said.
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
posted by:
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
vote for sanity
Tue, October 28, 2008 - 10:19 PMwww.massrightsblog.org/2008/1...-2.html
Vote YES on Question 2
The ACLU of Massachusetts urges a YES vote on Question 2 on the November 4 ballot.
By approving this sensible proposal, we can administer a healthy dose of reform to our state’s ailing and antiquated drug laws.
In Massachusetts, the "war on drugs" has made our prisons overflow, wasted millions of dollars, redirected law enforcement resources away from serious crime, and given career-destroying criminal records to even the most occasional and nonviolent marijuana users. Taking the possession of small amounts of marijuana out of the realm of state criminal law enforcement would greatly reduce the human and financial costs of continuing the "war on drugs."
The new law would create a civil penalty and a system of fines for individuals who are charged with possession of up to an ounce of marijuana. That's an improvement over current law, which treats marijuana possession as a criminal offense. Offenders can face up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $500. Civil penalties would be enforced by issuing citations, the marijuana would be forfeited, and a civil penalty of $100 could be imposed. Eleven other states have similar laws, most in place for decades.
Taking the possession of small amounts of marijuana out of the Massachusetts criminal law enforcement realm would greatly reduce the human and financial costs of continuing the “war on drugs” when the drug is a small amount of marijuana. Maintaining current criminal law enforcement policies also has significant civil liberties costs -- losses to our freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, to property rights, and to the principles of fairness, equality, and nondiscriminatory treatment.
Massachusetts taxpayers lay out almost $30 million each year just to arrest, “book” and manage preliminary court functions for offenders charged with possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, according to a study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron. The decriminalization law proposed by Question 2 would save Massachusetts those millions.
And we could save much more valuable human resources, especially our young people. So many individuals in Massachusetts have had their productive lives and opportunities stunted and damaged when they have been branded with “criminal offender record information” (CORI). They’re branded with CORI at the time of arrest; branding doesn’t await formal conviction. Logged into a state database, an individual’s CORI remains there indefinitely, available to employers, landlords, licensing agencies, credit agencies and lenders, and others. The CORI “system” confines its data subjects in a records prison. That’s a hugely disproportionate punishment for possession of a small amount of marijuana.
The ACLU of Massachusetts has long supported drug policy reforms, including the decriminalization law embodied in Question 2. It’s not only sensible -- it’s also practical and protective of our civil liberties.
Please vote YES on Question 2 in the November 4 election, and help us spread the word.
www.drugpolicy.org/news/102...juana.cfm
At a time when public pennies need to be pinched, voters in municipalities around the country will be reviewing their law enforcement practices surrounding marijuana arrests. Proven success in cities like Seattle, Washington; Missoula, Montana; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Columbia, Missouri; cities across California and many others have laid the groundwork for upcoming initiatives. Setting adult marijuana arrests as the lowest law enforcement priority saves scarce public resources and frees up time for police and prosecutors to focus on protecting the public against serious and violent crime. Still more communities are considering initiatives to support patients’ access to medical marijuana, and the Drug Policy Alliance Network is supporting the hard work of folks in Maine to collect signatures for a ballot initiative next year which would improve the state’s already existing medical marijuana law.
Hawaii
Project Peaceful Sky is leading the campaign in Hawaii County that will give voters the chance to say yes to Ballot Question 1, the Lowest Law Enforcement Priority of Cannabis Ordinance. Peaceful Sky board director Adam Lehmann spoke of the significant support for the initiative among residents of the big island, noting, “people are really tired of seeing money misappropriated away from education and healthcare to fund a military-style war on a plant.”
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Sensible Fayetteville, a coalition of groups that includes the Alliance for Reform of Drug Policy in Arkansas, is leading a similar initiative in this state’s third-most populous city. Voters in Fayetteville will have the chance to make adult marijuana possession the lowest law enforcement priority at the ballot box in November. Two years ago, a similar initiative was passed in Eureka Springs, Arkansas. DPA's grants program was able help fund this year’s final effort in Fayetteville to gather signatures, ensuring that this initiative would qualify for the ballot.
Massachusetts
Voters in the state of Massachusetts will decide whether to decriminalize the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana on the November ballot’s Question 2. The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy is sponsoring this initiative which has polled strongly, with support in mid-August reaching 72 percent. Question 2 would replace criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana with a $100 fine, with proceeds benefiting the city in which the offense took place.
Medical marijuana
Several locales are considering voter initiatives that would increase access to medical marijuana. Proposal 1 in Michigan, sponsored by the Michigan Coalition for Compassionate Care (MCCC), chaired by former state representative Dianne Byrum, would protect seriously ill Michigan residents suffering from illnesses like cancer, HIV/AIDS, and multiple sclerosis from the threat of arrest and jail for simply trying to alleviate their pain. The law would allow these patients to use, possess, and grow their own marijuana for medical purposes, with their doctors’ approval, while maintaining prohibitions on public use of marijuana and driving under the influence of marijuana. The National Organization for Positive Medicine in Ferndale, Michigan, is sponsoring a separate local initiative which would allow for their organization to distribute medical marijuana. Berkeley, California is also considering a measure to broaden and regularize medical marijuana access, sponsored by Berkeley Patients Group and at least two city council members.
