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

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Other district attorneys are not sure if they will attempt to have the law repealed, which would require action by the Massachusetts Legislature.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 estimate

Local DAs, police chiefs come out against decriminalizing marijuana

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.

Lack of attribution a problem at the Springfield Republican

Someone commented today on my most recent story about the Open Pantry, in which I decried reporter Stephanie Barry's coverage of the OP's press conference where director Kevin Noonan spoke. She used phrases like "Noonan's detractors" and "homeless advocates" without ever attributing their opinions to any individual.

At the time I thought (and it may still be true) that what I saw as the article's bias stemmed from a negative attitude toward Noonan from city officials that the reporter picked up on and reflected.

Today, though, my commenter pointed me toward a Sunday story by Barry on district attorneys' salary that makes me wonder what's going on at the Republican.

Barry's story is coming along fine; she talks about salary disparities across the state and then lists the names, job descriptions and salaries of Hampden County's assistant district attorneys. Then she goes back to the last name on her list, Assistant DA Maria F. Rodriguez-Maleck.

Of Bennett's top 10 earners, only Rodriguez's salary raised any eyebrows among courthouse insiders. Most agreed the remainder had paid their dues with time and service, or both.

Though no one would speak publicly, several said Rodriguez - who came with Bennett from his private sector office when he was first elected in 1990 - has virtually no caseload and has never tried a case. Her function is largely, if not solely administrative, according to other lawyers and court employees.

Bennett dismissed those criticisms as unfair, arguing workload isn't measured solely by caseload.

"Courthouse insiders," "most agreed," "no one would speak publicly," -- all without attribution, all inuendos.

If Barry couldn't get anyone to speak on the record about Rodriguez, she shouldn't have written about her at all. Don't we have the right to face our accusers?

What could Barry have done instead, if she wanted to follow up on these leads? She could have investigated the caseload of each ADA on her own, to see how the caseloads compared. She could have found out more about Rodriguez' duties. She could have talked to Rodriguez herself. But if she did any of these things, it didn't show in her article..

Some of you may have followed the soul searching of the New York Times after its too-lenient attribution policy allowed the Bush Administration to lead us into the Iraq War. Obviously the Springfield Republican is no New York Times. But here in our community, the fate of an agency that serves the poor and the reputation of a public servant matter. They deserved better than they received.

I will be keeping my eye on the Springfield Republican from now on, and I'm asking my local readers to do the same.