Pompo

Making a simple law about marijuana too complicated
12/26/08|The Enterprise| Editorial

The voters of Massachusetts spoke clearly Nov. 4 on the topic of marijuana: They want simple possession treated as a civil infraction, more like a parking ticket than a serious crime, with a maximum fine of $100. Other laws involving marijuana stay in place, and those under 18 caught with less than an ounce of pot are required to attend a drug-education course as well as pay the fine.

The only ones unclear about what Question 2 intends are law enforcement officials who act like a civil violation is some radical idea no one ever heard of. District attorneys and police chiefs have been acting like it was all a big misunderstanding. Question 2 proponents "sold the public a pig in a poke, and the public bought it," Cape and Islands DA Michael O'Keefe said last week.

The district attorneys, who opposed the ballot initiative, have asked the Legislature to postpone implementation, which takes effect Jan. 2. They cite a long list of problems, all of which sound easily surmountable. Who'll print up the tickets? Who will design the drug education course? What if a young violator doesn't show up for the course and doesn't pay the $1,000 fine?

Some of the questions are just silly. Berkshire County DA David Capeless asked if chiefs can discipline officers who light up a joint on their way out the door. Of course: with a $100 fine and whatever punishment department policies establish.

Police have raised the issue of extra training, which presumably entails how to use a scale to tell if the seized marijuana weighs over an ounce. They have raised the issue of whether this means the state's two crime labs won't do tests on seized marijuana less than an ounce. To the layperson, this sounds easy enough: If the police have reason to believe the marijuana seized has been treated with another illegal product, have it tested. After all, it's evidence that a more serious crime may have been committed.

But there's no need to test every sample of regular marijuana. Besides, if they are testing every bag of pot seized, whether suspicious or not, that may be one reason the crime labs are constantly backed up - and the first sign that Question 2 can save the taxpayers money.

This reefer madness is spreading. The Framingham Board of Health is worried because its ban on smoking in bars and restaurants only applies to tobacco. What's to stop someone from firing up a joint in a restaurant? Well, how about the prospect of getting kicked out of the restaurant and fined $100?

School officials have raised objections as well, wondering if the new law prevents them from suspending students caught with marijuana. But there's no mention of schools in Question 2, which amends the criminal statute, not the school handbook.

The public's response to the educators, police and prosecutors should be simple: You're the professionals; work it out.

That's what's happening. Last week, the chief justice of the state district courts, issued an 8-page memorandum addressing the questions raised by the new law. The state Department of Public Safety will issue a set of guidelines thiss week.

That should settle most matters, and if Massachusetts officials have more questions, they should consult with officials of a dozen other states where marijuana has been a civil offense for a long time. Beyond that, we've got a large system of courts designed for the expressed purpose of interpreting laws.

Take the next adult caught with a thimble-full of pot to court if necessary. But don't take this issue back to a Legislature which has ducked all questions of drug policy for decades. The campaign is over and the voters have spoken.

Buzzby

In Ohio, since 1975, possession of up to 100 grams (3.5 ounces) of marijuana has been a minor misdemeanor, punishable by a $100. Looking out my window, civilization in Ohio has not come to an end.

We had the same kind of nonsensical fear-mongering here four years ago when a concealed-carry law was being put together. Despite the fact that 45 other states had similar laws in place, the anti-gun weinies were telling us that there would be "blood running in the streets". The law passed and, of course, it made absolutely no difference in Ohio society other than the fact that people are a little safer because criminals are a little more wary than they used to be.

__________________

TheQuestionMark

Glad to have you on our side Buzzby

__________________
"I love you Mary Jane"
-Spiderman

SoThrowd

lol this is so funny. This is supposed to make it easier for law enforcement, but they just want to fuckin whine. It is saving an arrest, trip to jail, jail time, and a court date. But they want to complain about printing tickets and weighing out the bud? This just makes me laugh.

__________________
God did not create weed so we could smoke it and harm our bodies, He created it so he could see us happy when times are tough.
So Vaporize It!!!!!!!!

I only go on this website to only fantasize about getting high.

Andrew87

Overall, this is a good article, but they missed the point on this part:

The reason the police and DA's brought this issue up is because a defendant could simply argue that the substance they possessed was not marijuana, and without a laboratory test to confirm that it was, the state would have to dismiss the charge.

It's not a matter of whether or not the marijuana is laced, it's a matter of confirming that the substance actually is marijuana in the first place.

I suppose a reasonable policy could be to send it to the lab only in cases when defendant's dispute what it is, but I'm unfamiliar of any logistics issues that may be involved.

Other than that I agree, though - the opponents of decriminalization are just being sore losers, at this point.

__________________
The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. -- Albert Camus

SoThrowd

Well I am not sure if every cop has this, but there is small test kits that a cop can take a small amount and put it in a tube and mix it with a liquid that has a reaction to thc to confirm it is indeed marijuana. They have the same for other drugs also. This could save cops the trip to the lab and get right to the chase.

Andrew87

The field tests are not completely reliable, and certainly aren't enough to convict someone.

Think about it - if it were really as easy as utilizing a $2 instant field test in all drug cases there would be no backlog with the state crime lab and this would be a moot point.

BillieBudd

Sore losers is correct...they lost untold hours of paid overtime, they lost one more reason to haul your ass to jail if your looks, apparel or political bumper sticker were offensive to the sensibility of the officers and they are starting to lose the respect they deserve by acting like spoiled 2 year olds who have just been told "No" by Mom.

Andrew87

Hold on a minute, I definitely didn't say or imply that.

The police can't "haul your ass to jail" based on your looks or bumper stickers, and they don't get much overtime from marijuana-related stuff.

It's easy enough to show the error in what they are doing without resorting to sensationalism.

TwoGreenOneRed

Are you saying people don't get harassed by law enforcement due to their appearances (looking like "a pothead"), or having something like a bumper sticker/t-shirt etc. that might express views that are not necessarily mainstream? I think the guy who said this was just saying that the police are being sore losers because it is a little bit less power they have to harass and control people.