Future of 'Reefer Madness'12-31-2008
To the Editor:
That the passage of Question 2 — the decriminalization of possession of an ounce or less of marijuana — this past November has become anything but curious, continues to perplex me.
Yes, enforcement of the statute, Chapter 94c, Section 2, had become a burden on state resources; and there likely exists a more effective preventative form of drug policy. However, to argue that the penalties imposed by 94c were so draconian as to warrant its repeal remains spurious at best.
I don't want to be taken for feeding the "reefer madness" hysteria that some critics of drug-policy reform proudly trumpet. But if the penalties of possessing an ounce or less were so terrible why not simply ... not possess? Chapter 94c wasn't so vague as to make unclear the penalty for toting an ounce. And even though ignorance isn't a tenable legal defense, most federal and state legislatures have instituted clear and at-all-costs anti-marijuana policies and programs condemning the use of the drug.
Was the legality of carrying, possessing, or using truly in question? Is doing so an "inalienable" right?
Meanwhile the successful passage of Question 2 provides a timely example of democracy at work, and a less invigorating display of a petulant inability to stomach the consequences of our actions within the framework of established laws. Now that the argument of resource-waste has propelled Question 2 to victory, a moment of pause should also be awarded to consider what ramifications may follow. Pressing marijuana toward a decriminalized status will likely require large amounts of financial resources. Consider the multitude of resources tied up in the enforcement and regulation of alcohol. Simply, the cost and effectiveness of this new legislation are too unpredictable for unfettered rejoice.
While the need for a better drug policy is clear, uncertainty clouds the new amendments furnished by Question 2.
To think that decriminalization will led to a prolific increase in the (still illegal) use of marijuana is rather rigid. Yet the same may be said for thinking that change needed to occur anywhere other than with the individual first.
James O. Hobart
Otis
Dec. 30, 2008 |
<<Back |
|
Advertise on
iBerkshires.com
|
