Arguably the most controversial issue on the Massachusetts ballot this fall is Question 2, which, if passed, will decriminalize the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana. While at first glance, this ballot issue raises an alarm, especially for those who are strongly opposed to marijuana legalization/decriminalization, upon further examination it is a logical approach to what many consider a common problem.
It must be understood that decriminalization in no way equates to legalization. Passing Question 2 would mean that anyone caught with marijuana would have to hand it over to the police and pay a $100 fine, with minors additionally required to do 10 hours of community service and drug education -- stipulations that in no way seem to indicate legalization. This law only seeks to amend the penalties for possession (and possession of a very small amount, at that), while leaving intact the punishments for growing and selling.
In other words, drug dealers and producers would not benefit. And while many, including Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone, might decry decriminalization, arguing that it fundamentally undermines previous efforts to curb drug use among teenagers, it would have a slew of benefits for Somerville and communities like it across the state.
For example, the state will be able to cut down on the $29.5 million it spends on booking individuals and incarcerating them for marijuana possession (expenditures that penalize the state by draining money from communities as much as they penalize the offenders). More importantly, many good people who are currently ineligible for child adoption, student or home loans and teaching jobs would not have to experience the overly severe repercussions for what, for many, can be counted as a somewhat innocuous mistake.
Basically, it seems disproportionately harsh that someone who was caught with marijuana decades ago can still be barred from adoption and other privileges and that prospective employers are still be able to know about the offense.
Also, Question 2 would allow law enforcement officers to focus their time and energy on matters of greater importance than an ounce or less of marijuana. The law additionally provides that all the money collected for marijuana citations will go directly to communities where the offenses take place. They can then use those funds to prioritize other, more substantial projects.
Still, there is inevitably the persistent roar of those who would like to say that decriminalization is tantamount to condoning and that any concessions represent a step backwards.
In some respects, they are right. The state should not seek to encourage drug use, not only because it is harmful (although anybody looking around the Tufts campus would be hard-pressed to find someone who has been TEMSed because of marijuana), but also because, in many cases, buying drugs supports other criminal activities both within the United States and internationally. But this law does not seek to encourage marijuana use. It does, however, ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
