Pompo

THE CONS: Two sides of one leaf; hashing out the pros and cons of Ballot Question 2
10/24/08|The Winchester Star| by District Attorney Gerry Leone and Rev. Jeffrey Brown/Special to the Star

For the first time in years we have some good news on drugs: Marijuana use among Massachusetts teens has declined significantly since 2001.

It’s good news because kids who smoke marijuana are more likely to do poorly in school and engage in violence. It’s good news because drivers who’ve smoked pot are 10 times more likely to be injured, or injure others, in car crashes. It’s good news because marijuana is more carcinogenic than tobacco and young people who smoke pot are much more likely to then use other illegal drugs.

Unfortunately, there is a radical effort underway to undo this progress. Question 2 on November’s ballot will decriminalize marijuana use and turn possession of an ounce or less of marijuana into a fine similar to a traffic violation. For kids under 21, the penalties will be reduced well below penalties for alcohol possession.

In the weeks ahead, out-of-state proponents of Question 2 will spend a lot of money to support their false claims and misplaced agenda. But at its core, this is an issue of simple common sense — and common sense will lead you to vote against this dangerous proposal.

Common sense tells us that if we decriminalize marijuana, removing the significant deterrent effects and increasing its accessibility, then we will see an increase in its use.

A vote for Question 2 will begin a slippery slope resulting in several negative consequences. It will result in increased addiction, to marijuana and other drugs, as we know that pot is a powerful gateway drug. It will result in increased related crimes, and additional taxpayer costs to combat them, as we know that drugs are the root of much of the violence that erodes our communities. And it will result in increased instances of impaired driving, and the tragic deaths that result from it.

This measure also will result in other unaddressed problems. For instance, there are no regulatory reviews in place to assure that these newly decriminalized drugs are safe, and we know that marijuana is now exponentially more potent than a decade ago. More disturbingly, it does not address the fact that if young people want to buy pot, they will still need to buy it from illegal drug dealers. We cannot think of many more dangerous, combustible situations than that.

In short, if this initiative passes, it is a virtual certainty to lead to more drug abuse by our young people, more lives lost, and more crime in our communities. There is no benefit of this measure that outweighs these great costs.

The proponents of Question 2 have two central arguments. First, that existing laws unfairly punish those caught with an ounce or less of marijuana. That is simply untrue. In fact, current law mandates that first time marijuana users receive no more than probation and have their record wiped clean if there are no further violations. Jail is not an option. Want further proof? In Suffolk and Middlesex Counties last year, there were exactly zero defendants sentenced to jail for first-time marijuana use alone.

Their second claim is that enforcement of marijuana laws leads to expansive police costs. That is also false. A survey of our busiest courts revealed that marijuana prosecutions account for only a tiny fraction of cases, and many of those also involved other violent crimes that so frequently accompany drug abuse. To claim that officers are out trolling the streets for marijuana users, at great cost to taxpayers, is simply not reality.

And despite their best efforts to paint an ounce of marijuana as innocuous, the fact is that one ounce of marijuana is worth about $600 and represents about 60 individual sales.

In communities throughout Massachusetts, law enforcement and neighborhood and faith-based organizations work together to improve public safety. Question 2 is a misguided approach that threatens to derail much of that important work.

We cannot afford to take a step back in our efforts to combat drug addiction and reduce violence in our communities. We cannot afford to empower drug dealers and allow more tragic deaths due to impaired driving. And we absolutely cannot afford to send mixed messages to our kids about the seriousness and dangers of drug abuse.

For the benefit of our children and our communities, we urge you to vote no on Question 2.

Editor’s Note: Gerry Leone is the District Attorney of Middlesex County, and Rev. Jeffrey Brown is co-founder of Boston Ten Point Coalition.

Buzzby

More accurately, marijuana smoke contains more potentially carcinogenic chemicals than tobacco smoke. This means absolutely nothing in light of the fact that study after study has shown that marijuana does not promote cancer and may, in fact, inhibit the growth of tumors.

People engage in a whole constellation of risk-taking behaviors. This in no way implies that one of those behaviors magically causes any of the others. If they think that because A precedes B that A causes B, they should look to beer and cigarettes as the "Gateway Drugs".

We all know how useful "common sense" is when presented with evidence to the contrary. Legalizing medical marijuana and loosening marijuana laws in general has not created a surge in recreational marijuana use in states where such laws have been in effect.

We do? And here I thought that the gateway drug theory had been debunked six ways from Sunday!

What I know is that drug prohibition and the inevitable black markets it creates are the root of almost all drug-related crime and violence.

It will continue to be just as illegal to drive under the influence as it was before the law was passed. Do these morons really believe that people will rush out and become potheads because this law gets passed? It hasn't happened that way in any of the 12 existing decriminalized states.

We do? It's been a long time since I took math, but I don't think a moderate increase in average potency qualifies as "exponential".

Let's see... That would require selling 60 short (.47g) half-grams for $10 each. Do they pull these figures out of their asses?

__________________

Pompo

Why yes, I do believe they do. There's many occasions where they are pulling them out of other peoples asses as well

__________________
---------------------
---------------------

frolic

I believe the anti ligalization side is losing because they use the same old lies. The lies every school child has heard since 1965. They have only become more pathetic in their using them.

__________________
"Where the hell is my comb?"
Einstein

Mikeebud

lol, Engage violence? What kind of pot do these people smoke.

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

IGemini

I wonder how many of those same people also had alcohol in their system.

The most backward statement in the whole article. Yes, there are no regulation reviews for something illegal...that's like saying they're going to oversee laundering just to make sure they don't take too much money.

And what "newly decriminalized drugs" are they referring to? Did the roofie become a more widely accepted dating aid?

Smoking a cigarette next to a petroleum barrel?

I'd prefer they be legal drug dealers, too. Getting pot from a pharmacist sounds like a good idea to me.

How is probation a more significant penalty than just a fine for a first-time offense as a deterrent for a "tiny fraction of marijuana persecutions?"

Would be right if it was a simple dime bag conversion, but last I checked, we didn't have 60 grams in an ounce...

jpbc99

There is more to this law than what most of us can do or want. If your a younging now, and you get busted. It forces you to get involved in a treatment program. Also. There are police who will arrest whomever they cathc with pot. Here is how. DUI. So you had a joint on you and got the ticket. All it now takes is "I thought he was under the influence..." And bang some drug test will add to that. We all know it takes a long time to get out of your system. Gotta be careful there.

This law is in general good and has wide but silent support. Most of the ads on TV are fighting question one. I have yet to see any on TV against it.

Here is the problem. Forget the surge in teen drug use. Through school programs and treatment programs, we can reduce that. How do we stop drug runners capitolizing on this? I saw no part of the new law meant to curb drug trafficing. At least send some of the ticket funds to the cause...?

Another big thing is "what message does this send to our youth...?". Its a good question. I got two better ones. What message does lowering the drinking age to 18 do...and what message does taking police details off the streets send? The real message is that if your not old enough...instead of arrest its manditory that you get involved in a pot program. If you wanna go on a crime spree, just wait until deval has his way...it will only be flag men soon. That is truely a shame.

I could go on and on. But I wont. I think its a good start. Id like to see laws that now increase penalties for other drugs...specially dealing.

Oh yea one last thing...
"since 2001 there has been a decrease in teen drug use..." That is a heavily scued stat...why...because [prescription pain killers] are not counted...and their use is up ten fold since oc came out in late 90s. You can go on any highschool now and get oxycontin or percs. None of that stuff was around when I was in hs. It was still pot acid shrooms and the occasional ketamine. XTC and OC came out past my time...thank god cause I would have been stupid enough to do it.

elgrande

I tried to find one true statement in this diatribe, but failed. I'm so glad that other posters have the patience to counter every claim, but my patience has worn thin. It's high time that so-called fact checkers in the press do their so-called job.