Last week, a group of local police chiefs, district attorneys and sheriffs gathered outside West Springfield High to warn of the dire consequences they insist will result if Massachusetts voters decide next month to amend the state marijuana laws.
"Ballot Question 2 is a green light to drug dealers to target young children, especially high school students, to buy and use drugs," Hampden County DA Bill Bennett said ominously.
Well, not quite. Question 2 would have no effect on the penalties for drug dealers; rather, it would lessen penalties for the personal possession of small amounts of pot. Under the proposal, possession of one ounce or less would be a civil infraction, carrying a $100 fine. Minors would also have to complete a drug program and perform community service, and their parents would be notified.
Under current law, possession is a criminal infraction that could lead to jail, probation or a fine, the suspension of your driver's license, the loss of your right to possess firearms and the loss of student loans. While first offenses without mitigating circumstances are typically continued without a finding and dropped after one year if the defendant has no more legal trouble, critics note that prosecutors can pursue tougher penalties under certain circumstances, such as if the arrest happened within a school zone. Two recent national studies have also revealed deep racial disparities in how drug laws are enforced.
Earlier ballot questions suggest the public is ready for change. Since 2000, voters in 28 districts have approved non-binding questions that asked whether possession of a small amount of pot should be a civil violation. Buoyed by those results, reformers organized a petition drive to get a binding question on the ballot. In a recent poll by Suffolk University and Boston's WHDH, 71 percent of respondents supported Question 2.
Backers come to the issue from a range of perspectives. Some think existing penalties are too severe, and that minor pot possession doesn't warrant a criminal record that could haunt a person for life. Others point to the failure of the costly government "war on drugs," and argue that the $30 million spent every year in Massachusetts to arrest and process suspects for minor possession—not to mention the additional costs of prosecution—could be better spent. Reformers count among their ranks such figures as George Shultz, Secretary of State during the Reagan administration, and the late conservative columnist William F. Buckley, as well as numerous current and former judges and law enforcement leaders.
But as the election approaches, the opposition is springing into action. While the official committee formed to oppose Question 2 bears the populist-sounding name Coalition for Safe Streets, its campaign fundraising reports shows the roughly $30,000 it's raised to date has come from DAs and sheriffs, including Hampden Sheriff Mike Ashe, Hampshire Sheriff Robert Garvey and Northwestern DA Elizabeth Scheibel. (While Ashe's is recorded as a personal donation, the others donated from their own campaign funds.) Its largest expenditure, $21,000, has gone to hire Boston's O'Neil and Associates, the most prominent political PR firm in the state.
The Mass. District Attorneys' Association—whose members, it's important to note, derive their paychecks from the prosecution of crimes—has also issued stern condemnations of the question.
The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, the backers of Question 2, say the DAs are using scare tactics, and worse, to sour voters on the reform. "Our opponents don't mind lying about the issue," says Whitney Taylor, CSMP's manager. "The main point they're putting out there is Question 2 will legalize marijuana, which is not the case." She also notes that opponents' claims that Question 2 would increase pot use and other crimes are not borne out by experience in the 11 other states that already have similar laws in place. (The bulk of CSMP's money comes from George Soros, a Manhattan-based billionaire who uses his fortune to support various causes, including drug reform—a fact that DAs are hoping will turn off voters.)
The DAs, Taylor says, "are using their taxpayer-paid positions as elected officials to campaign against something that thousands and thousands of Bay Staters not only support, but signed petitions to get & on the ballot."
Contacted for a response to CSMP's contentions, the Coalition for Safe Streets' PR person sent a press release calling the group a "pro-drug interest" whose goal is "to eliminate drug laws in Massachusetts"—a blatant misrepresentation of Question 2, but one that might sway nervous voters."
