Pompo

DA speaks out against marijuana decriminalization
10/8/08|The Daily News Tribune| by Sarah Menesale - GateHouse News Service

Mary Jane, pot, weed, ganga — call it what you want, but Massachusetts voters will decide on a burning issue in the Nov. 4 election that’s caused quite a stir between advocates and opponents of current marijuana laws in the commonwealth.

Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett talked about his opposition to Question 2 — which would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana — at a meeting Friday morning with reporters and editors in Beverly. His opinions differ sharply with those of Georgetown’s Steve Epstein, a well-known local advocate of reducing the penalties for marijuana possession.

“Ballot Question 2 would undoubtedly have a negative effect on children. It will facilitate young people smoking grass,” Blodgett said.

Blodgett focused on what decriminalization would mean and the dangers of marijuana during the informal question-and-answer session.

“There’s no question this is a baby step [for supporters]. Their ultimate goal is the legalization of drugs,” he said of Question 2, which he said is being backed by Hungarian-born American financial guru and political activist George Soros.

If Question 2 passes, it is binding legislation and will go into effect eight weeks after the election.

Question 2 on the Nov. 4 statewide ballot asks voters to approve or deny a proposed law that would, “replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state’s criminal record information system.”

Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Their parents would also be notified of the offense and the option to complete a drug awareness program. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.

The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol (“THC”), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one’s body.

A YES vote would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties. A NO vote would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana. The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.

“I would have a better debate with you if the fine was $2,000. It would be a more serious discussion. Don’t tell me a $100 fine isn’t going to be a joke for people who can afford to buy an ounce,” Blodgett said, noting that an ounce of marijuana typically sells for $300 to $600.

He added, “I don’t want the guy next to me drunk on I-95. And I don’t want the guy next to me on 95 stoned.”

Looking for legalization
Georgetown’s Steve Epstein disagrees that a move toward legalization would be bad policy.

Epstein, an attorney and Georgetown resident since 1987, is one of the founders of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, which was started in 1989.

“I think it should be [fully] legalized. I make no bones about it,” said Epstein this week. He says that’s where he differs from the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which is backing Question 2. That group is currently not lobbying for further decriminalization beyond what is called for in the ballot initiative, but Epstein thinks Question 2 should just be a first step.

Epstein has worked for years to turn simple marijuana possession by adults into a civil, rather than a criminal, offense. He also supports legal marijuana use for medical purposes, saying in past interviews, “If marijuana dealers were licensed and taxed, they’d have an incentive to keep marijuana out of the schools.”

Ten other states have legalized marijuana use for medicinal purposes.

Blodgett argued that those states’ illegal marijuana use is higher, saying Alaska is pushing to go back to criminalizing the possession of marijuana.

Marijuana use is going to happen, Epstein reasons, saying, “The cat is out of the bag.”

“All you can do is teach your children and that moderation is key,” he said.

Epstein calls current marijuana possession enforcement arbitrary because the law grants the arbitrary power to the police to arrest, summons or verbally warn the offender.

“That’s one of the key things to me — the arbitrariness of enforcement. It depends on who or where,” he said this week.

Blodgett argued that no one in Essex, Suffolk or Middlesex counties is arrested just for possession of small amounts of marijuana, a Class D substance. They are instead summoned to court.

Blodgett said juveniles who are caught with small amounts of marijuana are placed in a juvenile diversion program that consists of an online course, sessions with a counselor and possibly community service.

An adult typically gets six months unsupervised probation and then the matter is closed in court, Blodgett said. They would only lose a day off of work to show up to court.

“The criminal justice department is the single biggest referral of services,” he said, arguing if Question 2 passes people who would otherwise be in the system and receiving health services would no longer have access when they start getting addicted.

Proponents of Question 2 say the bill would help those caught with marijuana from being denied jobs and volunteer opportunities because the charge would no longer show up on a CORI check.

It now says you’ve been charged with a crime and it’s been dismissed.

“If that’s the issue, we’re talking CORI reform. The governor has proposed changes. It’s an active discussion,” Blodgett said.

‘Not an open door’
Epstein argued that more than 10 percent of people over the age of 18 use marijuana each month.

A conviction may result in incarceration in jail, loss of license, loss of a permit to carry, and more, Epstein reasons.

“Prohibition fails to keep marijuana away from children more effectively than regulation of alcohol and tobacco keeps alcohol away from children. It appears the wiser course for Congress and the state legislature to tax and regulate this agricultural commodity while prohibiting it to children as we do tobacco and alcohol,” Epstein wrote in a 2005 guest column.

He argued controlling the industry and charging fines similar to a parking ticket for possession of small amounts of marijuana could be a revenue maker for states.

“It’s not an open door for dealers. If someone is caught with a lot of small packages, or a lot of cash, it’s indent to distribute and they can be arrested,” he said.

It would still be a crime to grow marijuana, possess marijuana with the intent to distribute and to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence of marijuana.

“No one should drive while impaired,” Epstein said, but cites a study that found smoking pot leaves the body impaired on a similar level as taking Nyquil.

Blodgett stated that levels of THC in marijuana have risen to 30 percent, calling the marijuana found on the streets today, “Not your father’s Oldsmobile.”

The stronger varieties tend to come from Canada across the border and can be laced with stronger drugs.

Blodgett asked why proponents of the bill would want to be part of the “dumbing down of America,” asking who would benefit from this legislation.

“This is a drug dealers’ protection act. This will seduce more kids to smoke and buy marijuana,” he said.

The district attorney’s office spends as much time on prevention as they do in persecution of drug-related crimes, Blodgett explained.

“We’re in the schools. We’re helping kids make good decisions,” he said.

He argued decriminalizing any amount of marijuana, no matter the size, is a bad health policy.

SoThrowd

This guy is retarded

o_t00high_o

Yes, because EVERY SINGLE STRAIN OF WEED out there now is that DANKITY DANK DANK that cost an arm and a leg.
Ohhh no, there is no such thing as a 90 O, or a 120 O, or even a 150 O.

What a fucking idiot.

LowRider

Yeah cause we can all afford that and we all know it flows so readily available.

Mikeebud

Exactly, Why do they let dumb fuckin people Talk when they don't have a clue as to what there talking about, That's like me giving you a run down on calculus.

Find the fuckin idiot who will pay for a 600 oz, and you bring him to me.

__________________
Religion is just a theroy, Like the goverment that's your friend.

o_t00high_o

That guy's son maybe?

Robdidit

I was not aware that Alaska was pushing back to criminalization, the smoke a lot more weed than we do.

Neko150

I pay $300 for a top dank oz, nothing more...

o_t00high_o

Yes, I know there are O'z out there for $300, but the norm is definitely not 3 to 6 hundred dollars.
As Mike said, find me a guy who will willingly and continually pay 600 bucks for an O, and please bring him my way.

toothfairy420

I think this is backwards...

Maybe that's the $600 Oz. that they were talking about...I don't know any dealer that would lace their weed with extra drugs and sell it for the same price...