Pubdate: Fri, 16 Jan 2009
Source: Harvard Crimson, The (MA Edu)
Copyright: 2009, The Harvard Crimson, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.thecrimson.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/794
Author: Justine R. Lescroart
Note: Justine R. Lescroart '09, a Crimson editorial writer, is a 
Romance languages and literatures concentrator in Quincy House.
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)

HALF-BAKED REASONS FOR OPPOSING POT LAW

When citizens of Massachusetts voted yes in November to Question 2, 
the "Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative," many of them thought that 
they were voting to legalize marijuana.

Because marijuana is illegal under federal, not state law, this would 
be impossible--states can only choose how they punish use of the 
drug, not whether or not it is illegal. The new law, which was 
inserted into The General Laws of Massachusetts, chapter 94C, section 
32L, actually reads, "possession of one ounce or less of marihuana 
shall only be a civil [rather than criminal] offense, subjecting an 
offender who is eighteen years of age or older to a civil penalty of 
one hundred dollars and forfeiture of the marihuana, but not to any 
other form of criminal or civil punishment or disqualification." In 
Massachusetts that is, small-scale possession became the legal 
equivalent of a bad traffic ticket. Law enforcement officers, 
however, worry that citizens' first impression may prove all too 
close to correct--that the "marijuana ticket" will prove impossible 
to enforce and is thus a de facto legalization of weed. In the short 
run, officers should try to enforce the law as best they can, despite 
the enforcement challenges that it presents; it is, after all, law. 
In the long run, however, citizens and officers alike should consider 
the real reasons that officers hesitate to enforce the law, and what 
can be done to better the situation.

It is essential to uphold the integrity of the law to the degree that 
law enforcement officers can. In a January 3rd article in the Boston 
Globe, "Police Balk at Ticketing Marijuana Offenders," chiefs of 
police in the towns Clinton and Auburn stated that because of the 
flaws in the law's wording, their forces would not even attempt to 
enforce it. Their line of reasoning here is faulty.

Police are not hired to legislate, but to enforce legislation. One 
concern voiced by Wayne Sampson, executive director of the 
Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association--that state law prohibits 
officers from demanding identification when dealing with civil 
infractions--is simply not true. Other worries, including those such 
as who will print the physical tickets, that current citation books 
lack a check-off box for marijuana possession, or that officers will 
be unable to identify "an ounce," are simply laughable.

Law enforcers in Massachusetts are trained to deal with 
life-and-death scenarios; they should have enough initiative and 
creativity to improvise physical tickets in the short-run and to 
Wikipedia "ounce," as anyone can do with an internet connection. 
Despite enforcement issues, some users are sure to be compliant, 
which means that the law will be at least partially enforced. 
Officers must do their best to enforce this democratically-enacted 
legislation, even if a few marijuana offenders will slip through the 
law's loopholes.

It is worth noting, however, that some police officers' reluctance to 
enforce the law as it now reads may be because citizens of 
Massachusetts on whole (police included) overwhelmingly believe that 
marijuana use should not be considered a crime.

While it is understandable that the Massachusetts Sheriff's Union and 
the Massachusetts' Chiefs of Police Association opposed Question 2 
(due of the enforcement challenges that it presents), these very 
organizations could make their own--and citizens'--lives much easier 
by supporting movements such as the National Organization for the 
Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), which seek to remove marijuana from 
the federal Controlled Substances Act Schedule I list. This list, 
which claims to include and does include drugs (1) with a high 
potential for addiction, (2) no medical use and (3) a lack of 
accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision. 
Schedule I is not the right place for marijuana--a drug no more 
addictive than cigarettes, that very arguably has medical uses (such 
as an anti-nausea medication) and is not unsafe under medical supervision.

Question 2 raises several important issues for Law Enforcement 
Officers in Massachusetts. For now, officers should do the best that 
they can to enforce the existing laws. Eventually, however, officers' 
organizations should realize that all would benefit from removing 
marijuana from the controlled substances act and letting states 
determine the actual legality of smoking pot. Law enforcement 
organizations would help citizens and themselves by getting behind 
the movement to legalize marijuana.

Justine R. Lescroart '09, a Crimson editorial writer, is a Romance 
languages and literatures concentrator in Quincy House.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom