Somerville rocks, so why does our Mayor oppose Question 2?

[ron_newman]

Somerville has a well-deserved image of being a haven for offbeat and creative types, so I'm confused and disappointed to see Mayor Joe take part in a press conference opposing Question 2.

As the city's press release itself points out, "Question 2 would decriminalize marijuana use and make possession of small amounts of marijuana punishable only with a fine similar to a traffic violation." (Actually, the police can also seize the marijuana.) That seems to me like just plain common sense. It saves the city money by not wasting police and court time on prosecuting a victimless "crime".

The campaigners against Question 2 call themselves the "Coalition for Safe Streets", but this question has nothing to do with either safety or streets.

Why did you do this, Mayor Joe?

Comments

[exsplusohs.livejournal.com]

In the past decade we have worked diligently on the local, regional and state levels to curb marijuana use, especially among our youth. The approval of Question 2 in November would undermine all of those efforts,” said Mayor Curtatone. “Question 2 poses a very real threat to our youth and our communities. Drug use is a public health, safety and quality of life issue and Question 2 would increase marijuana use while putting more of our youth behind the wheel while high on drugs.

Maybe I'm just confused about Prop 2, but I thought the penalties for minors stayed the same, as did the penalties for driving while high?

[ron_newman]

You're not confused at all. You're correct. If you have any doubts, read the Secretary of State's page on Question 2, and the full text of the question.

[anomie666.livejournal.com]

Its probably one of those issues where it is more politically expediant to oppose this than support it.

[ron_newman]

But the most politically expedient thing to do would be to ignore it and take no public position at all.

[lbmango.livejournal.com]

DRUGS = BAD.

Well, other than caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol of course. Those are fine. Allowing drugs in the neighborhood -> more gangsters in the neighborhood -> more crime in the neighborhood -> drugs in the neighborhood. Repeat.

At least I think that's the rationale... I think it's bogus, but I think it's the argument...

alternatively: more pot -> more skaters. Skaters are annoying. Therefore against pot?

[exsplusohs.livejournal.com]

I always wonder if these rabid anti-marijuana people have ever been around someone who is REALLY STONED. Compare that with someone who is REALLY DRUNK.

I'd say the latter is much more frightening.

[oakenguy.livejournal.com]

A, Somerville needs federal money. B, the Feds are still rabidly anti-pot.

A + B = press conferences like this one.

[arrowintwolakes.livejournal.com]

This sounds like the most likely explanation.

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

That's a strong likelihood. I also think the SPD just doesn't want to deal with the federales leaning on them to fork over the names of every pot smoker they deal with (if you're convicted of felony marijuana possession, i.e. having marijuana, it has federal consequences, such as loss of federal financial aid).

[teele-sq.livejournal.com]

(http://www.mnftiu.cc)

[mrboboto.livejournal.com]

Decriminalizing possession without also decriminalizing distribution would just increase the (criminal) distribution activity, wouldn't it? Seems like you have to go all or nothing, and this is just a little bit of something.

[anotherthink.livejournal.com]

My (fairly uneducated!) guess is that people who want to have less than an ounce of marijuana in their home even though it's technically illegal already do so, and that this change wouldn't make more people stoners so much as it would mean that the unlucky small percentage of current casual users who get busted would be less unlucky. This could be wrong of course!

I support legalization, but it's a long way from being politically expedient. Hopefully this minor change will be a palatable and (IMO) positive step.

[duffless2323.livejournal.com]

You should have posted this 11 minutes later! :-)

[ron_newman]

Fixed.

[ilai]

I've been trying to figure out where I stand on this. In theory I don't have a problem with decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. But I think I read in the Globe or some other paper (I'm having trouble finding the article now) that the policemen in Boston oppose the question on the grounds that it takes away a major tool they have in fighting crime--sometimes marijuana possession is the only charge they can get to stick, when they're trying to get some people they've been tracking for more serious charges. And I've been trying to find more information about this but I'm failing.

[ilai]

Oh, maybe this is it: http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/09/16/a_question_of_possession/

[gwodder.livejournal.com]

Yep, that's some bad government all right!

The emphasis on "not sending the wrong message to our youth" by ending jail sentences for victimless acts tells you everything you need to know.

He thinks the only way to prevent young people from doing something is to have the government threaten to harm them if they try...

It's a nice illustration of the general lack of regard for the character and human rights of citizens that seems endemic to our Massachusetts government.

[purpless77.livejournal.com]

I'm so proud to say I voted for him. If he was for question 2 he would DEFINITELY lose myself and many others as his supporters. Marijuana IS a serious drug and should be treated as such. It might not cause death by one use of unlaced marijuana but in many people it does cause serious lasting illnesses such as panic attacks, anxiety, etc. Which ARE serious. It's almost like cigarettes. It harms some but can leave others unharmed. There are many marijuana smokers who admit it as a gateway drug and an addictive drug. We need to start putting the well being of people in front of "saving money". They're already too leniant on marijuana smokers and dealers.
I'm against it and Kudos to our mayor.

[ron_newman]

I voted for Mayor Joe too, and will likely do so again, as I'm not a single-issue voter.

"It harms some but can leave others unharmed" can apply to lots of things -- drinking alcohol, skateboarding, downhill skiing, climbing Mount Washington, etc.

LiveJournal is addictive and can cause anxiety. Should we penalize it?

[genesayssitdown.livejournal.com]

EXECUTIONS FOR ALL DRUG OFFENDERS

[redcolumbine.livejournal.com]

Victimless crimes create work (and therefore jobs) for police. Police unions will politically slaughter anyone who champions a bill like this one. It's up to us Mere Citizens to take the initiative.

[tt02144.livejournal.com]

I used to agree with the position of decriminalizing marijuana. It just seemed like everyone used it, and it was harmless, right? I've learned, however, after dealing with an addiction problem in my family that for someone who has a propensity to addiction, it can and does often lead to use of other, more harmful drugs. I wouldn't have believed this a few years ago, but have come to change my mind. While it's harmless for most people who use it, unfortunately, there are those who experience the high and have a need for more. This is a conclusion that many people, without experience, simply don't see. Does alcohol serve the same purpose? Of course. Unfortunately, it's already legal, and we've already been down that road once! Based on the drug problem already existing in this city (i.e. notice the increase in reported breakins, etc.?), I think that now is not the time to try to be 'progressive', for the sake of our community.

[marylu.livejournal.com]

you think it's marijuana smokers who are breaking into houses? I don't think you know as much about the drug as you think you do. and really what this law would do is have very little effect on marijuana *use* by people like your relative, but would ensure that if caught they would not be denied access to public housing, students loans, etc. I doubt those kinds of penalties, which are in place now, have any preventative effect for your addicted relative.

[makoshark.livejournal.com]

Perhaps it's just inertia. Government has been used to opposing marijuana for so long that the idea that they might not seems twisted. Basically, they've come to believe the propaganda.

Potheads for 2 unite!

[nvidia99999.livejournal.com]

I don't care either way, but the idea that "creativity" and MJ have to go together is just stupid. When people are stoned they sure THINK they are being creative, but in reality they are just stoned.

Re: Potheads for 2 unite!

[ron_newman]

It's more that I tend to think of marijuana as the drug of choice for writers, musicians, artists, etc. -- more so than either alcohol or hard drugs. Maybe this isn't really true.

Gratuitous picture of a pothead

[redcolumbine.livejournal.com]

I'm still voting 'yes'

[gruene.livejournal.com]

but an ounce is not a "small" amount of pot. That's enough to make 60 joints.