Pubdate: Mon, 10 Nov 2008
Source: Eagle-Tribune, The (MA)
Copyright: 2008 The Eagle-Tribune
Contact:  http://www.eagletribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/129

VOTERS OF TWO MINDS ON SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Last Tuesday's yes vote on marijuana decriminalization was 
resounding, yet puzzling considering recent history.

Just two years ago Bay State voters rejected a measure that would 
have simply allowed the sale of wine in supermarkets. Tuesday they 
approved a measure that makes the penalty for the possession of up to 
an ounce of marijuana the equivalent of a speeding violation.

The measure also presents some interesting questions about just how 
it will be enforced.

The intent, according to backers, was to change the law so that those 
caught with a small amount of the drug intended for their personal 
use would not be tarred with a criminal record for the rest of their 
lives. That wasn't happening anyway, at least not to first-time 
offenders; but the fact that marijuana possession was a crime served 
as a significant deterrent to drug use. Given its broad public 
support, the new measure deserves a chance to work. It has been tried 
in a dozen other states with varying results. Yet those in law 
enforcement are already grappling with questions as to how the new 
civil penalties will be administered.

Will police be expected to carry scales in order to determine exactly 
how much pot someone has on his or her person? If it's less than an 
ounce they confiscate it and issue you a ticket. More than that, and 
it's a crime. And how do they make sure the fine is paid? Under 
current law, police have no right to demand a person produce 
identification unless the person is behind the wheel of a motor 
vehicle. And unlike with a speeding ticket for which failure to pay 
can result in loss of one's driver's license, pursuit of marijuana 
violation scofflaws will involve long and costly court proceedings. 
And then there's the question of whether possession of a joint - no 
longer a crime - constitutes grounds for a search that uncovers other 
activity still regarded as criminal.

No one, including those who put Question 2 forward, can know where 
all this will lead. But we find it curious that the same voters who 
in 2006 were convinced the sale of wine in supermarkets would lead to 
rampant alcohol abuse, this year had no qualms about lessening the 
penalties for marijuana consumption.