The decriminalization of marijuana after Question 2: A cop’s take

OK, here is yet another whining, sore-loser cop weighing in on the outcome of the last fall’s referendum on Question 2, the decriminalization of marijuana. Perhaps being the father of a teenage son has something to do with it — or maybe the fact that I have always thought it best not to fix something that isn’t broken.

For those not familiar with Question 2, here is a brief summary: As a result of the passage of Question 2 on Nov. 4, the possession of one ounce or less of marijuana or tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, typically in the form of hash, hashish and hash oil) has gone from being a criminal offense to a nonarrestable civil violation. Offenders who are 18 years old or older are now subject to a civil penalty of $100 and forfeiture of the marijuana. Offenders under 18 are required, in addition to the penalties described above, to complete a drug-awareness program within a year of the offense.

The new law does not apply to distribution, which means if you plan on selling the pot you’re holding, you can still be arrested. I saw that firsthand in my department shortly after the new law went into effect. One of my patrol officers arrested a high school student for possession with intent to distribute marijuana — even though he had less than an ounce of marijuana — based on the statements he made and the way the pot was packaged. That will be an interesting case to follow through the courts because, though the amount of marijuana involved was small, the articulated facts described in the report certainly justified the arrest.

The truth is, in my 30-plus years in law enforcement, I recall no one even being convicted of possessing small amounts of marijuana. (Not that an ounce is a particularly small amount — one ounce of pot can produce about 50 joints and cost $500, and has a potency far greater than the pot your mother smoked at Woodstock). More often than not, those found with small amounts of marijuana were “diverted” into community service, placed on pretrial probation or brought home to their parents with no court intervention. Those who were brought to court often found their way there through a summons, not an arrest, and once there had their cases continued without a finding. After six months, their cases were usually dismissed and any records of these offenses were sealed. And, previously, because of our Criminal Offender Record Information, or CORI, laws, we were legally prohibited from disclosing this information. But under the new law, since this is now a civil violation, CORI is not applicable and this is now a public record for anyone to see. Also, judging from my experience, I believe marijuana is, in fact, a “gateway” drug. That is, I subscribe to the theory that marijuana is frequently the first illicit drug that youngsters try. Adolescents rarely use cocaine or heroin before using marijuana.

But what now? The marijuana bloggers are already spreading tips on how to respond to police interaction. (“My name, officer? That would be Smokey the Bear”). They know as well as we do that we are powerless to do anything to those choosing not to identify themselves — a quirk in the new law that we hope will be rectified. And the savvy recipients of a $100 ticket for civil possession? “Just ignore it,” these pot-smoking “experts” on the new law would say.

Once again, we are the ones handcuffed, as there is nothing in the new law that returns this to criminal sanctions. This is so frustrating that some Massachusetts chiefs have said they won’t enforce it.
Proponents also claimed the state would save $30 million a year in prosecution costs. Certainly not, considering the provision in Question 2 requiring the state to develop, implement, staff and administer a drug-awareness program, all while basic programs are being cut. But the vote was overwhelming and proponents were ecstatic.

Marijuana use adds nothing to an adolescent’s development. How, exactly, does this new law advance our society? And for those who argue that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana, I don’t particularly disagree. But where is the logic in condoning marijuana use because it is less dangerous?

Enough whining. We will deal with it as the voters have asked us to. But here is a suggestion to my fellow police officers who view this new law as too confusing and meaningless to enforce. The new law itself sends the wrong message to young people; let’s not compound that by giving up on any enforcement. We have an obligation to our profession and to our communities to do what we have been sworn to do. Change is here — let’s make the best of it. {EXA}

Scott Bushway is the deputy chief of police in Walpole and is also an adjunct instructor at MassBay Community College and a freelance contributor to several publications. He can be contacted at ScottBushway@aol.com.

Image by ILiekCake, via Flickr. Posted under a Creative Commons License.