Pubdate: Fri, 20 Feb 2009
Source: Christian Science Monitor (US)
Copyright: 2009 The Christian Science Publishing Society
Contact: http://www.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=CFF0C5E4
Website: http://www.csmonitor.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/83
Author: Jeremy Kutner, Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor

ANXIETY IN MASSACHUSETTS OVER SOFTER MARIJUANA LAW

Some Towns and Cities Seek Stiffer Penalties for Public Use, After 
State Voters Approved Decriminalization.

Massachusetts voters made history by approving a sweeping marijuana 
decriminalization law on Election Day, but campaign debates are 
reigniting as communities start to enforce the new rule.

The large margin of victory for the ballot initiative - 65 percent of 
voters approved the law - is already inspiring similar legislative 
efforts in other New England states, prompting close attention 
nationwide to the effects of a less stringent marijuana law.

Massachusetts is not the first state to decriminalize marijuana 
possession - 12 others have done so. But it is the first since the 
1970s to eliminate criminal penalties for possession of small amounts 
of the drug, even for repeat offenders.

"There were changes in this direction between 1973 and 1978, but then 
that movement just stopped, and stopped dead," says Peter Reuter, a 
professor of public policy at the University of Maryland and the 
former director of the Drug Policy Research Center at the RAND Corp. 
"It revitalizes a reform movement that had put laws like this on the 
back burner."

The law makes possession of an ounce or less of pot a civil offense 
punishable by a $100 fine (with minors required to attend a drug 
awareness program). At issue are the specifics. Some opponents, 
including many law enforcement officials, say the law is poorly 
written and nearly unenforceable. These complaints are accelerating 
efforts in towns and cities across the state to enact ordinances 
governing "public consumption," which the law's defenders fear might 
edge toward recriminalization.

A Fine for Mr. Duck

One major concern of some police officials: While marijuana remains 
an illegal substance, full decriminalization, as is the case in 
Massachusetts, removes officers' powers of arrest, which means police 
can't compel offenders to identify themselves.

"If someone is sitting on the front steps of City Hall smoking a 
bone, you can't do much if they tell you they're Donald Duck," says 
Terence Reardon, chief of police in Revere, a city of 55,000.

Such complaints are overstated, say decriminalization advocates.

"People have tried to claim that [the identification issue] is a 
loose end, but in fact it's no different than every other civil 
citation in Massachusetts, like jaywalking or in some communities 
drinking in public," says Bruce Mirken, communications director for 
the Marijuana Policy Project, a national marijuana decriminalization 
advocacy group that helped coordinate the Massachusetts referendum 
campaign. "Miraculously, it's a problem with marijuana."

The new Massachusetts law specifically allows communities to draft 
their own public consumption ordinances, and dozens are considering 
doing so. The state attorney general's office prepared a model bylaw 
that would levy an additional $300 fine, the state maximum, on people 
caught using pot in public.

"We're not making a recommendation one way or the other about whether 
communities should do this, but if they do they should use this 
language," says Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for Attorney General 
Martha Coakley, who opposed the ballot initiative.

But for some communities, such suggestions don't go far enough.

"What we're attempting is to get a city ordinance ... that makes it 
an illegal and arrestable offense to smoke [marijuana] in public," 
says Capt. Randall Humphrey of the city of Lowell police department. 
"We're not sure if we will be able to do it, but that's our goal."

The plan has little chance of success, Captain Humphrey concedes. The 
Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association this month e-mailed 
guidelines to area police chiefs about how Attorney General Coakley 
is likely to rule on new town bylaws, which her office must approve. 
The policy update puts arrest provisions off the table.

"We don't believe a bylaw would be approved by the attorney general 
if it contained an arrest clause," says A. Wayne Sampson of the 
Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association.

"Without an arrest component to force identification, there's no 
point to a bylaw," says Police Chief Richard Stillman of Walpole, a 
town of about 24,000. He withdrew his plans for a town ordinance 
after learning of the policy update.

A Divisive Ordinance

Other towns and cities, though, are moving ahead with efforts to 
stiffen penalties. The city of Methuen last month became the first to 
act, raising fines in what the mayor says is an effort to address 
some "unintended consequences" of the referendum, which some people 
may interpret as encouraging marijuana use. Mayor William Manzi 
approves of higher fines, but he says he's been surprised by the 
"vehemence" of local anger at his efforts and bemoans the 
divisiveness the issue has stirred up.

"It's all been sort of balkanized at this point," Mr. Manzi says.

In Quincy, early discussions on tougher penalties brought out 
protestors, marijuana ablaze, to challenge police, says city 
councilor Kevin Coughlin.

"[Some officials] fear this is the first step toward legalization," 
he says. "We're going to end up with 351 cities and towns doing 351 
different things."

Bill Downing, president of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform 
Coalition, discounts such concerns. "The public will see that the sky 
does not fall," he says. Continuing with efforts to tack on 
additional marijuana-related penalties "shows a tremendous amount of 
disrespect to Massachusetts voters who voted to decriminalize," he adds.

The fight is unlikely to end soon. Mr. Downing's organization is 
listing upcoming town meetings about new public use laws, and at 
least three are scheduled for next week.

Some hope the Massachusetts legislature will address some of the 
outstanding enforcement issues. But state Rep. William Brownsberger 
(D), a longtime researcher of drug issues, doesn't see that as likely.

"Everyone is being cautious politically, and people don't want to be 
seen as disagreeing with the will of the people," says Representative 
Brownsberger. While marijuana use is a sensitive issue, he urges 
perspective. "This is just not our biggest problem, either way." 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake