Pubdate: Tue, 28 Oct 2008
Source: Salem News (MA)
Copyright: 2008 Eagle Tribune Publishing Company
Contact: http://www.salemnews.com/contactus/local_story_015132129.html
Website: http://www.salemnews.com/
Author: Steve  Epstein
Note: Criminal defense attorney Steve Epstein resides in Georgetown 
and is a founder of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition.
Cited: Question 2 http://sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?161 (Marijuana - Regulation)

PLENTY OF GOOD REASONS TO VOTE YES ON QUESTION 2

The election of 2008 holds promise of a sea change in Massachusetts 
politics with a close vote on Question 1 and a powerfully strong vote 
on Question 2.

My research since 1974 into the natural history of cannabis, the 
scientific name for marijuana, has revealed myriad uses besides its 
relatively benign effects on perception.

Its seeds are nutritious. The fibers of its outer stalk are among the 
strongest found in nature. Early in the 20th century, scientists 
found its cellulose-rich inner stalk ideal for making paper and 
thousands of other products that today come from coal, natural gas, 
petroleum and trees.

The primary ingredient of most medicines from the mid-18th century to 
the early 20th, it was effectively outlawed with the passage of the 
federal Marijuana Tax Act after a racist campaign in which it was 
given the exotic name "marijuana." By 1930s standards, the 
$100-per-ounce tax, an amount that may now be appropriate, was 
ridiculously confiscatory. In order to aid the war effort during 
World War II, the federal government suspended the tax so that 
farmers would grow it again. The government even produced a short 
film titled, "Hemp for Victory," to encourage its cultivation.

Almost every week now brings news from scientists of potentially 
beneficial uses of chemicals it produces in treating many medical 
conditions. The news also arrives of studies that reach the same 
conclusion the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission reached in 1894: Cannabis 
should be regulated and taxed, but not prohibited.

Earlier this month, the Beckley Foundation published such a report, 
concluding the potential health risks associated with cannabis 
including the more potent strains now available, are less than those 
associated with alcohol and do not justify the criminalization of the 
plant or its users.

The truth about cannabis and my study of law lead me to conclude that 
the state and federal constitutions do not permit prohibition. They 
compel regulation and taxation of marijuana as we do tobacco, beer, 
wine, and hard cider (none of which may be provided to children) as 
the only policy consistent with securing to the individual the 
blessings of liberty promised by these great charters.

Question 2 moves state policy toward constitutionality by replacing 
the criminal penalties for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana 
- -- which opponents say are infrequently imposed to the maximum anyway 
- -- with forfeiture of the marijuana and a civil penalty of $100.

It encourages enforcement by providing that fines are collected and 
kept by the municipality in which the offender is captured. It ends 
use and possession of marijuana as grounds for any other penalty, 
sanction, or disqualification for those merely captured in 
possession, which is a tiny percentage of the more than 10 percent of 
residents over 18 in Massachusetts who consume each month and 
consider their conduct normal.

Most importantly, it revokes the power, currently exercised 
arbitrarily, of the police to hold for bail persons possessing an 
ounce or less of marijuana without evidence of possessing it for distribution.

As for the children it virtually codifies the current practice of 
diversion, which Essex County District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett 
claims his office follows. It ensures parental notice and requires 
offenders under 18 to perform community service and take a course on 
substance abuse.

As the parent of three, I have great empathy for the parents who call 
me when their child is captured. My experience and my wife's 
experience as a licensed drug and alcohol counselor who "treats" 
children diverted to her by the DA's office, confirms that few of 
these children are on the road to ruin. For those under 17, who may 
be on that road, Question 2 leaves intact the provisions of M.G.L. c. 
119, s. 21-51F (Protection and Care of Children). Under this law, the 
court orders children who persistently refuse to obey to receive 
services needed to become responsible citizens.

Finally, Question 2 leaves intact existing law concerning operating a 
motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana.

Ultimately, when it comes to the children, we must teach them that 
using marijuana or alcoholic beverages, like driving a car, voting or 
running for political office, are activities they must wait to engage 
in until reaching the appropriate age. We must also teach them to use 
alcoholic beverages and marijuana in moderation and not at work, or 
before or while operating a motor vehicle. We must also exercise 
moderation when punishing them for not waiting.

Please vote yes on Question 2 and bring our law into conformity with 
practice, as described by opponents, and with the law in 11 other 
states, none of which have a higher percentage of users than Massachusetts.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake