Ballot Question 2: Mary Jane’s Last Dance?

Op-Heads: a virtual chat on the issues that matter

Get the Flash Player to see this media.

Click on the video above to watch BU Professors David Breen (left) and Thomas Nolan discuss Question 2, a Massachusetts ballot measure that would make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana a civil, rather than a criminal, offense.
Next week, Massachusetts voters will decide whether the commonwealth’s marijuana laws will go up in smoke.

Currently, offenders who possess an ounce or less of marijuana face criminal penalties of up to six months in jail, a $500 fine, and a criminal record. But if ballot Question 2 passes, possession of an ounce or less of marijuana would be a civil offense, punishable by a $100 fine, and no criminal record would exist. Offenders under age 18 would be required to complete a drug awareness program and perform community service. Subsequent marijuana violations would have more severe penalties.

Opponents argue that the revised law would essentially normalize the use of marijuana, encouraging its use among minors and making it easier for drug dealers to sell marijuana without being arrested. Supporters say that the measure would reduce a burden on the criminal justice system and save the state approximately $24.3 million per year, and that instances of minor marijuana possession would no longer jeopardize an offender’s ability to obtain a job, housing, and school loans.

BU Today asked Thomas Nolan, a Metropolitan College associate professor of criminal justice and a former Boston police lieutenant, and David Breen, a School of Law clinical associate professor of law and a former Massachusetts assistant attorney general — who brought an ounce of oregano to the discussion to illustrate the issue — to examine both sides of the debate.

Got an issue to debate? E-mail today@bu.edu with “Op-Heads” in the subject line.

Robin Berghaus can be reached at berghaus@bu.edu. Vicky Waltz can be reached at vwaltz@bu.edu.

Explore Related Topics:

  • Share this story
  • 13 Comments Add

Share

Ballot Question 2: Mary Jane’s Last Dance?

Share

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 13 comments on Ballot Question 2: Mary Jane’s Last Dance?

  1. Nearly every DAs office has diversion programs for juveniles; also, for people who suffer from substance abuse addiction, judges may commit such individuals to a treatment facility for 30 days if there is a likelihood of serious harm because of their alcohol or drug abuse. The pro-pot people are have paid off other cops – how much is Nolan getting to lie for them?

    Reply
    Link

  2. I am very happy to see that this initiative has made it to the ballot, and I sincerely hope it passes. It makes no sense to waste our limited law enforcement resources on people who possess such a small amount of marijuana. I would much rather see police spending their time investigating real crimes or even enforcing traffic laws. Assessing criminal penalties for people who only have marijuana in their possession for personal use just makes it more difficult for that person to be a contributing member of society. If someone has a criminal record for a victimless “crime” such as marijuana possession, it makes it harder for that person to find a legitimate job. This ballot initiative is ultimately the most sensible approach to marijuana policy I have seen and is consistent with laws that already exist in several other states. I am voting Yes on question 2.

    Reply
    Link

  3. Regardless of what side of the debate you stand on, minor possession of marijuana is not criminal behavior. If you believe it is so then you have either been overly sheltered your entire life or you see yourself as a modern-day saint.

    Criminal behavior carries an element which is both harmful to society as a whole, and it presents a threat to the (real) safety of those in society.

    If you have decided to play the hand that says that marijuana fits these criteria then you have to be honest and admit that alcohol and carcinogenics, such as cigarettes, fit them as well. Would you be willing to say that smoking cigarettes or drinking booze is criminal behavior. What constitutes criminal behavior, on the other hand, are the actions that MAY FOLLOW FROM the use of these “drugs”. And having said this, it could be argued that operating a motor vehicle, or listening to your MP3 player, could be a prerequisite for criminal behavior (i.e. operating your vehicle can lead you to commit a hit-and-run IF you loose your temper or drive recklessly, etc.).

    In other words, it is a folly to connect marijuana use to “criminals” and it is irresponsible and (economically)wasteful to criminalize samll-scale (i.e. under one ounce) possession of marijuana.

    Also, and very importantly, marijuana is not a “gateway” drug. This is not my opinion, it is an observed and physiological fact. It was part of an irresponsible campaignb inititiated decades ago to discredit and “dehumanize” supporters and users of marijuana. Have you ever heard of ‘Reefer Madness’? Enough said…

    I could go on at length on this issue, but I feel I’ve said what is required as regards this conversation taking place in the Commonwealth.

    Reply
    Link

  4. I’m glad to see this issue has actually made it to the ballot. The simple fact of the matter is that students are not eligible for federal financial aid if they have a drug conviction, an absolutely ridiculous concept in general (denying people the chance to go to school and better themselves and society only makes them more prone to turn to drugs and illegal activities/professions), but especially when you consider that you can get such a conviction for the posession of such a small amount of weed meant for ones own personal use.

    Also, for all those who think decriminalizing such smale scale possession is going to encourage the use of marajuana, keep in mind that as the law is now cops ARE hesitant to prosecute, whereas if the penalty is only a fine I can’t imagine many cops NOT issuing a citation. Though it’s not nearly as bad as a criminal record, people will still want to avoid getting fined (especially younger people who think of $100 as a lot of money), especially since the liklihood of being let off by the cops will have decreased so tremendously. In other words, the punishment will be less, but the probability it’s enforced will be exponentially higher.

    Opponents of the issue will be pleased to find it encourages more widespread punishment of pot smokers while supporters will rejoice to see the punishment be more suitable to the crime, a win for both sides.

    Reply
    Link

  5. The man on the left is completely wrong when he says that marijuana is more carcinogenic than cigarettes. One marijuana joint may contain more tar than a few cigarettes, but studies have shown that the active chemical in marijuana, THC, actually helps prevent cancer from growing and metastasizing. A summary of the findings can be found here:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

    The criminal prosecution of people who have been found to posses a small amount of marijuana for personal use is a drain on the system and should be stopped. Many good people have a criminal record which limits jobs and other opportunities just from possession of a minute amount of pot. A recent drug raid on 10/24 at Andover High School in MA. resulted in 1 person being charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, even though he had less that half an ounce. A news article on the topic can be found here: http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_299005932.html
    The raid used 15 police dogs, and over 30 police cruisers were there just for this small offense. Is this what we want are hard earned tax dollars being wasted on? A teenager with a bright future ahead could now be considered a felon. They found the substance in his car which was broken into without first showing him a warrant. Why doesn’t the government spend more money on stopping hard core drugs such as crack and heroin or violent crimes? There is much more a problem with people getting mugged at gun point around Downtown Crossing than with people smoking a little marijuana. Help law enforcement get their priorities straight by
    VOTING YES ON #2 November 4th.

    Reply
    Link

  6. I bet if “they” could find a way to tax this stuff, it would quickly become a non-issue or at least the arguments from the state would diminish significantly.

    Reply
    Link

  8. I think the problem is not the danger of going to prison or court charges. That’s not what people should be worried about. Forget prison– this is a permanent criminal record that will prohibit people from getting jobs and from job advancement over the course of their entire lives for bad decisions they made when they were 16 years old? 20 years old? 25 years old? Lt. Nolan has a point: prop 2 isn’t legalizing marijuana, and isn’t condoning the use of marijuana. It’s simply a reassessment of our law enforcement resources. Massachussetts doesn’t need to worry about Johnny the NEU student who has a gram of marijuana in his pocket. Massachusetts needs to worry about real crime: rape, assault, battery, dangerous illegal substances like meth or crack cocaine, theft, and most importantly the overall safety and well-being of citizens.

    Reply
    Link

  9. I think that there is a common misconception that decriminalizing marijuana will lead to a large upswing in users – this is completely untrue. Most of the people reading this are probably college students – so think about it. Marijuana is obviously on campus, and you have access to it if you really want to . Ultimately, the thing that deters you from using it is not the fear of the law (many people do it and get away with it every day) – it is personal choice. The people that have avoided smoking in the past because they don’t feel that it needs to be a part of who they are will continue to refrain from smoking, and the people that already do smoke as a lifestyle choice will be able to breathe a little easier.

    I won’t waste time talking about facts regarding marijuana vs. other substances like cigarettes and alcohol, the numbers are out there if you care to look them up. Several people who have posted on this board already have made some excellent points about those very facts. All I would like to say is decriminalizing marijuana is a win win situation.
    For the users:
    -No criminal record
    -Ability to advance at work
    -Ability to secure federal financial aid
    -No lengthy court process
    And for the state:
    -Large amounts of money saved prosecuting “offenders”
    -resources available to fight serious crimes

    One more thing – there was mentioned a concern that drug dealers would have a much easier time distributing their drugs if marijuana was decriminalized. Use common sense, this can’t be true. Drug dealers nearly ALWAYS possess over an ounce at a time, thereby qualifying them for the “intent to distribute” charge.

    Oh dear, I haven’t even mentioned the medical benifits…

    The bottom line is… If people want to enjoy marijuana in the safety of their own homes, on their own time, is there any real reason to send them to jail? Have they committed a serious crime against anyone? Are they doing anything more unhealthy than having a drink or smoking a cigarette? Think about it. As it stands the government has no control, other than prosecution. If they were instead to decriminalize it, and even make it available for purchase to those with a valid reason, people would flock to them because they would be able to offer lower prices and a guarantee of purity. Now that’s control.

    Thanks for reading,
    A tower elevator #3

    Reply
    Link

  10. I think people who believe the lies that have been told over the many years are niaeve and no nothing about the drug.

    No one has ever overdosed on pot. Where as alcohol is legal and kills you when taken in large quantities.

    It is claimed that pot is the gateway drug. No, Cigarettes or Alcohol are the gateway drug. 100% of the people I know that tried Pot actually tried cigarettes or alcohol first.

    Most people who smoke pot are friendlier people. I know this to be a true statement as well. Although I have never done a study or research of this fact. I draw it from my experience.

    Reply
    Link

  11. The proponents keep arguing that this is for a “small amount” of pot, but an ounce of pot is NOT a small amount! It can be divided up into dozens and dozens of joints and/or blunts and is clearly more than one person could consume in the course of a week (unless you are Cheech and Chong). And the issue of financial aid will not be resolved by Massachusetts changing its policy because it is the FEDERAL government that makes the policies regarding financial aid. The real issue is Criminal Records and their availability…but the current law mandates that first time offenders must have their cases dismissed and sealed after a short period. It is only the habitual users (who also apparently are too stupid to not get caught repeatedly) who need to worry about their records and, quite frankly, I wouldn’t want them working for me!

    Reply
    Link

  12. If one actually follows the history of cannabis, how it came to this country, how it was regulated, and how it was eventually criminalized, one will find that each and every step in the process of criminalization was due to issues of race, gender, and sex. In a free country, these things DO NOT matter. Marijuana was originally criminalized because of an increasing number of mexican immigrants flooding the country after the depression, the fact that they often posessed this, and a desire to stop legitimate immigration. In addition, pot was associated with “blacks and entertainers” in the 50’s, with clear racial overtones.

    Now, its 2008. Our legislation today tells us things like sex, gender, and race dont matter. Why hasnt the legislation for pot caught up? Stop wasting our time, possibly our lives, trying to bust users. No victim no crime. peace

    Reply
    Link

  13. I’d invite Prof. Breen to cite published studies substantiating the claims he’s making. The strength of today’s marijuana relative to thirty years ago is irrelevant; users generally self-titrate. Talking about higher carcinogens compared to “tobacco” is downright silly, when there’s been no recorded case of cancer linked to cannabis alone. Arguing that a law should remain on the books because it is *not being properly applied in most cases* is baffling.

    Come on, people. Can’t we have an informed debate? The commenters on this article seem to know much more about the subject than Prof. Breen.

    Reply
    Link

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest from BU Today