Pubdate: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 Source: Metrowest Daily News (MA) Copyright: 2008 MetroWest Daily News Contact: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/619 Author: William G. Brooks, III Note: William G. Brooks III if the deputy chief of police in Wellesey and the director of the Norfolk County Police Anti-Crime task force for the past 21 years. Referenced: Question 2 http://sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/initiative Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Marijuana) Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion) HOW WEED WAS DECRIMINALIZED The Nov. 4 vote to decriminalize marijuana possession says as much about ballot referendums as it does about drugs. According to material posted on the Web site of the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy (OCPF) raised over $1.2 million in support of Question 2. Over $1 million of that, or just over 83 percent, came from outside Massachusetts. The opponents of Question 2, the Coalition for Safe Streets, a group organized largely by the district attorneys, raised just over $60,000, or about 5 percent of what the proponents raised. Why the disparity? Again, the OCPF Web site tells the story. Most of the proponents' donations came from George Soros, a New York City entrepreneur who personally donated $400,000, along with several out-of-state pro-marijuana groups whose stated mission is to decriminalize marijuana nationally. One particularly disturbing aspect of the proponents' campaign was a series of 30-second television ads which featured two retired police officers. In each case, photos of the former officers wearing police uniforms were shown as the men touted the value of civil penalties. One ad promised that the new law would free up officers to go after violent criminals and that a 'yes' vote would "make our communities safer." Both claims are erroneous and, by the way, the OCPF Web site indicates that the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy paid the officer $4,000 for this 30-second ad. So now we are left with a law that makes no sense. Civil penalties will not save the state $30 million dollars each year in criminal justice costs like the proponents promised. In fact, it will cost the state money to develop and administer a drug awareness program mandated by Question 2, and to pay the salaries of the program's instructors. And the new law does not decriminalize only small amounts of pot - it decriminalizes up to an ounce of marijuana or hashish. Non-drug users probably don't realize that an ounce of marijuana generates about 50 joints and sells for about $500. The proponents led the public to believe that people's lives had been ruined because convicted marijuana users were left with a drug conviction on their record. But under the old law, a person caught for the first time with marijuana was placed on probation for six months, then the case was dismissed and the record sealed. CORI files accessible to the public contain only information on convictions, so these records were not revealed. What most people don't understand is that the CORI law is actually designed to protect criminal records. Ironically, the new law moves marijuana out of the arena of criminal records and into the civil. There are no protections pertaining to the disclosure of civil records by criminal justice agencies. Under the old law, if a newspaper were to ask a police department for a list of all the people charged with marijuana possession the previous year, the police department would have been legally prohibited from disclosing it. Once Question 2 goes into effect, a police department will be required to disclose such information because it will become a public record under Massachusetts law. And contrary to the myths promoted by the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, marijuana arrests don't prevent students from getting college loans for life and marijuana smokers don't serve jail time in Massachusetts. When the new law takes effect, the police will still be able to arrest minors caught with alcohol, but not if they're carrying $500 worth of marijuana. A person under 21 who is convicted of transporting alcohol will still lose his license for 90 days, but a minor who transports marijuana or hashish will not lose it. Getting caught with an open beer in a vehicle carries a $500 fine, but getting caught with marijuana or hash will carry a fine of only $100. High school teachers are already telling us that students are talking about how much easier it will be to smoke weed. The system that brought about this change in our drug laws is flawed and the public was hoodwinked. Now law enforcement is left to deal with this mess. - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake