Why Drugs Should Be Legalized - Articles - Zimbio

Local DAs, police chiefs come out against decriminalizing marijuana

Tue, 8 Oct 2008 20:52:00 GMT

posted by michaelannb
Sen. Joe Biden said something interesting in his debate the other night-- that whether he agreed with people or not, he had learned never to question their motives.

I wish I could be like that, but....when I see the local district attorneys, sheriffs and police chiefs gathered in opposition to decriminalizing an ounce or less of marijuana, the focus of Massachusett's Question Two, I have to ask myself....how important to their job security is it that no cracks appear in the wall of drug prohibition?

Arguments against Question Two, which would turn a possession of small amounts of marijuana from a criminal offense into a civil one, only make sense if you ignore history, common sense and the facts.

The U.S. already has an excellent example of what happens when a substance that should be a matter of personal choice is criminalized. The thirteen years of alcohol prohibition in the U.S. during the early part of the twentieth century created a huge black market and allowed organized crime to become the American institution that it is today.. Prohibition led to the corruption of many law enforcement officials. Stronger alcohol was developed so that a little went further. The U.S. government lost $500 million a year in tax revenue.

Worst of all, prohibition turned millions of ordinary citizens into lawbreakers.

At today's press conference, Berkshire County District Attorney David F. Capeless, said that a first offense by someone 17 or older would lead to an automatic six month continuance, and that the case would be dismissed if someone stayed out of trouble for six months.

What he didn't say is that one single arrest for possession of marijuana leads to a criminal record that will affect housing, employment, benefits and military service.

Hampden County District Attorney Bill Bennett said that Question Two is " is a green light to drug dealers to target young children, especially high school students, to buy and use drugs." Mr. Bennett seems not to know how wothe minds of high schoolers work very well. And if this is so, shouldn't we recriminalize alcohol? How about cigarettes? How many lawbreakers do you think we'd have in Massachusetts if we did?

I have family members and friends who intend to vote against Question Two. They take a "Just say no" approach-- if you don't want to get arrested, don't break the law. They've never smoked, never will, and aren't missing a thing except, fortunately for them, the tar that smokers drag into their lungs. Far be it from me to say that non-smokers are missing out on anything. Marijuana. is not a necessity of life . It is simply one of life's pleasures.

When prohibition was finally repealed in 1933, organized crime took a huge loss in profits. We won't see that in Massachusetts if Question Two passes because decriminalization is not the same as legalization. By keeping marijuana illegal we lose potential tax revenue and lose out on the opportunity for regulation. At this point in time however, I would be satisfied just to see marijuana smokers be able to live without fear of arrest.

PS. Not all law enforcement officials think drug prohibition is a good idea; I wrote about it here. If you want to see what ABC's John Stossel thinks, go here.

PPS: Twelve states have already decriminalized marijuana and if there were any great upsurge in drug use or violent crime in those states, the DAs would have made sure we know about it. More than 71,000 Massachusetts residents were arrested for simple possession of marijuana from 1995-2002. Consider the personal cost as well as the financial cost and vote Yes on Question Two.Atom

<$BlogFeedsVertical$>

Save $30 million - decriminalize marijuana!

Sun, 20 Oct 2008 11:54:00 GMT

posted by michaelannb
A Boston Globe article this morning about Dictrict Attorneys' opposition to decriminalizing an ounce or less marijuana happens to mention that three of the DAs admit to having smoked themselves! If they had been caught, none of them would be lawyers and district attorneys today.

The state could save $30 million a year by not running those arrested for simple possession through the criminal justice system, according to a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University.

Studies of other states that have decriminalized marijuana have not shown an increase in marijuana use. Believe me, if there was any study that shows decriminalizing marijuana has bad consequences, the DAs would be talking about it big time.

Let's be smart and vote YES on Question Two.Atom

<$BlogFeedsVertical$>

Will you publicly support decriminalizing marijuana?

Thu, 3 Oct 2008 20:59:00 GMT

posted by michaelannb
Arise is looking for individuals and organizations in Western Massachusetts who would be willing to support publicly this November's ballot Question Two, decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana. Any takers?

If only everyone who has smoked or currently smokes would come out and say so. I won't out them, but I've smoked with more well-known and well-respected residents of this city than you can shake a stick at.

Unfortunately, many people are in professions where they would be instantly fired if they admitted they have smoked or do smoke marijuana. But how about publicly agreeing that a civil fine is better than a criminal record for those in possession of less than an ounce of marijuana?

If you're willing to stand with us, you can call Arise at 413-734-4948.

From the Marijuana Policy Project:

Opponents of Massachusetts' marijuana decriminalization ballot initiative just can't stop lying.

Here are some the lies they're flooding the media with, in a cynical attempt to scare voters into defeating the measure on November 4:

Marijuana is more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco — because tobacco takes a long time to kill you and alcohol has health benefits. (Yes, you read that right.) That's according to Bristol County District Attorney Sam Sutter.

And here are four gems from the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association:

“By empowering drug dealers with decriminalization of marijuana, we would be empowering them to continue their violent ways: carrying and brandishing weapons; ripping off kids who get in over their heads; engaging in bloody turf wars; and indiscriminately assaulting or murdering when things don't go the way they want.”
“Marijuana arrests are strongly associated with violent crime — dangerous criminals who make the wrong choice time and time again.” (In reality, research shows unmistakably that marijuana — unlike alcohol — is almost never the cause of aggression or violence.)
“Very few arrests involving marijuana charges are for simple possession.” (In reality, according to FBI statistics, a full 89% of marijuana arrests are for simple possession.)
The initiative “will allow drug dealers to operate with impunity and make it easier for them to do business with your children.”

Atom

<$BlogFeedsVertical$>

Marijuana decrim: local DAs will follow the law-- for now

Wed, 6 Nov 2008 18:08:00 GMT

posted by michaelannb
Hampden County District Attorney announced yesterday that he was dropping all charges currently pending for possession of small amounts of marijuana and intended to act as if the law turning possession of marijuana into a civil offense was already in place.

Question Two passed overwhelmingly in Massachusetts on Election Day, and because of its strong community support-- 65% in favor-- Bennett said he would not work for the repeal of the law, which is set to go into effect December 4.

Bennett will also end a diversion program in his office which is heavily populated by those arrested for possession of marijuana.

Other district attorneys are not sure if they will attempt to have the law repealed, which would require action by the Massachusetts Legislature. Given the commonwealth's fiscal crisis, the estimated $30 million savings may be enough incentive for the Legislature to leave the issue alone.

Proponents of marijuana reform estimateAtom

<$BlogFeedsVertical$>

Massachusetts Voters Vote No on Question 1 and Yes on Question 2

Mon, 4 Nov 2008 22:18:00 GMT

posted by damienb1976
Massachusetts voters have voted no on Question 1 (61% to 39%) which would have eliminated the income tax, and yes on Question 2 (65% to 35%), which will decriminalize marijuana. By voting no on Question 1, the citizens of Massachusetts had an opportunity to shrink the size of their government and force fiscal discipline on their government. Unfortunately, they decided to continue big government by defeating Question 1. Fortunately, voters did approve Question 2, which will decriminalize marijuana. This is a win for indivdual rights and those who are opposed to stigmatizing citizens for personal decisions.

As I have mentioned before, I'm a Rhode Island resident. I was interested in these questions because legislators in Rhode Island tend to lack imagination. Now that Massachusetts has voted to continue paying their income tax, any mention of it happening in Rhode Island will be quickly stopped. Although, I fully expect someone to introduce a bill decriminalizing marijuana, which will pass easily. After all, Massachusetts voted yes!