Massachusetts heads up: say YES on 2

SouthCoastToday.com: Area law enforcement say 'no' to marijuana decriminalization

Area law enforcement say 'no' to marijuana decriminalization

NEW BEDFORD â?? Make no mistake about it: law enforcement officials in Southeastern Massachusetts are strongly against decriminalizing smaller amounts of marijuana.

"Question 2 ignores the extreme effects drug legalization would have in Massachusetts," said Cape and Islands District Attorney Michael O'Keefe, who is leading the statewide charge against the November ballot initiative.

In a Thursday press conference on the steps of New Bedford Superior Court, Mr. O'Keefe was joined by a coterie of public officials that included Bristol County District Attorney C. Samuel Sutter as well as mayors, police chiefs, prosecutors, sheriffs, and business leaders from SouthCoast and Cape Cod.

Speaking at a podium with a prominently displayed "Vote No on 2" sign, several speakers warned that crime would increase and a dangerous message sent, especially to youths, if voters approve the initiative â?? which would create civil instead of criminal penalties for possessing an ounce or less of marijuana.

One ounce of marijuana has a street value of $600 and equates to approximately 60 individual sales, officials said.

"Just think of the message this would send to every single middle and high school student," Fall River Mayor Robert Correia said.

"The message this sends to our teens and young adults is that smoking marijuana is not a big deal, when it is," said Mr. Sutter, adding the measure will "incontrovertibly" lead to more drug usage.

Whitney A. Taylor, the campaign manager of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, the group advocating for the initiative, said the officials' comments clouded the ballot question's pragmatic aims.

"The issue first and foremost is that under Question 2, marijuana is still illegal," she said. "Legalization is not what this is about. We don't condone marijuana usage. We are for a smarter law enforcement approach."

Under Question 2, instead of arresting and charging individuals caught with one ounce or less of marijuana, police would issue a $100 fine. If juveniles were caught possessing marijuana, their parents or legal guardians would be notified and they would be required to complete 10 hours of community service.

Supporters argue that the current system penalizes individuals by annotating arrests for simple possession as part of their Criminal Offender Record Information, making it difficult for them to secure certain jobs, college loans and apartments.

Police counter that first-time offenders have their cases dismissed in court and their CORI sealed. Opponents argue the CORI is not always sealed and can still be distributed for years.

Also, supporters of the initiative argue that 11 other states, including New York and Maine, have similar laws and that the research indicates they do not have higher rates of marijuana use.

Citing a 2002 report by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, supporters also argue the changes will save taxpayers almost $30 million a year on arrests, bookings and preliminary court expenses.

New Bedford Police Chief Ronald P. Teachman argued that the group's figures are "bogus."

"The money still goes to the gangs that terrorize our neighborhoods," he said. "Why now do we want to take a step backwards with marijuana? We're going to make our streets unsafer, and at what cost?"

Thursday's press conference in New Bedford was part of a statewide campaign organized by the Coalition to Save Our Streets, the committee organized to oppose Question 2.

The controversy over the issue has spurred pitched political battles.

Supporters filed a legal complaint alleging the state's 11 district attorneys violated campaign finance laws by raising and spending money to defeat the initiative before forming their committee.

Meanwhile, opponents have attacked the legitimacy of the proponent group by pointing out that many of its donors are from outside the state, including George Soros, the international financier, who donated $400,000.

Contact Brian Fraga at [email protected]
-----------------------------
isnt the italic part quite ironic... the money making belt of different entities who fear financial blow if this measure is approved... and thus they try to make us the people fear of bogus charges over no statistics nor experiments that crime will rise... why will crime rise, if one of them can argue and convince me on this i will quit smoking for good! i can argue that crime will go down statistically cuz u r eliminating a good number of so called "soft crimes" from being recorded as such anymore or at least they become kind of a civil violation... and police can focus on real crimes, thus there is absolutely no excuse or reason for crime to rise! it should go back the other way, dont u agree?

just tell us u love your jobs and we assure u will keep them and perhaps get some raises and applaud too, since u be doing the real thing that u r supposed to do more now, which is to fight real crime and protecting the public from violent idiots... not locking up stoners and fillin your quotas