Pubdate: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 Source: Metrowest Daily News (MA) Copyright: 2009 MetroWest Daily News Contact: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/619 Author: Steven S. Epstein Note: Steven S. Epstein, an attorney in Georgetown, is one of the founders of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition. GIVE DECRIMINALIZATION A CHANCE TO WORK Like the British after Yorktown, the "reefer mad's" world turned upside down after the people voted for Question 2. Sufferers are seizing every opportunity to appear on the airwaves or in print claiming proponents duped 63 percent of all voters statewide, urging local authorities to follow the lead of "Reefer Mad" Martha Coakley and to adopt bylaws or ordinances re-criminalizing public consumption, and asking the Legislature to tamper with the new law. Prior to passage of Question 2, opponents made it quite clear that police discovered most possession offenses under circumstances where the police would know the name of the offender. Police have ways of getting people to identify themselves, even though everyone has the right to remain silent when questioned. Nothing has changed. The law has not been in effect long enough to determine if there is a significant scofflaw problem. The problem is not Question 2, but the absurd construction of the law by the District Court Chief Justice's Office that determined that a criminal complaint application for those who fail to pay or request a hearing is not available under the new law. I submit that just as with a leash law violation, violators who fail to pay or request a hearing risk the police department's seeking a criminal complaint against them. The $100 fine and forfeiture of the still contraband cannabis is disincentive enough to those who may consume exposed to the public or in public buildings. More important to a government of laws and not men is the incentive the fine should provide for consistent enforcement of the new law, though the fines are a poor substitute for the revenue constitutionally firm, wholesome and reasonable regulation would raise. Certainly, those officers who had conscientious objections to enforcing the old law and would look the other way, or just seize the contraband and release the offender and those who arrested or summonsed those they encountered, should have no problem consistently issuing the citations. The Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, appointed by Question 2 opponent Governor Patrick, advises public school systems that they may continue to expel students for possession at school. Expulsion is an extremely severe decision for any system to make, but systems infected with the most virulent strain of "reefer madness" - "zero tolerance" do impose it. Is it a "penalty, sanction or disqualification" prohibited by Question 2? I think so. I hope school administrators take into consideration the principle of mercy, as this is one area where the stakes are sufficiently great that litigation may result. The Legislature and municipalities need to be patient before taking steps to close "loopholes" claimed to exist in the new law. Let's see how our cannabis prohibition, now more like our alcohol prohibition was as the "noble experiment" never prohibited personal possession and use, works. Let us also remember that experiment ended during trying economic times. While we wait to see what change President Obama brings to Washington and the change Question 2 brought to Massachusetts, the change we really need is for our representatives to awaken to the constitutional error of cannabis prohibition and the need to treat cannabis cultivation like corn farming, and its distribution and use as a psychoactive substance like alcoholic beverages. This would recreate a hemp industry destroyed by prohibition. An industry that dominated American agriculture in the age of sail and which every other industrialized nation in the world permits for its fiber, inner stock called "hurd" and nutritious seed and its oil. This would restore cannabis drugs to the pharmacopoeia, so that doctors could prescribe low cost herbal-based medicine. A source that a federal administrative law judge concluded more than 20 years ago provided the "safest therapeutically active substance known." Doctors today can only prescribe an expensive synthetic form. It would also advance research into cannabis-derived medicines. Most importantly, this would advance individual liberty, while providing at least the same amount of revenue for the maintenance of the state in excise taxes as collected from the alcoholic beverage industry, and income taxes from those deriving their livelihood from the cannabis/hemp industry. Steven S. Epstein - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin