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

[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/

[ron_newman]

That's a pretty lame opinion column, and it doesn't (by itself, at least) support the claim. By the way, the author of that column was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol earlier this yera.

[ilai]

Yeah, upon re-reading this and thinking about his arguments I was less convinced.

[hissilliness.livejournal.com]

We could criminalize "lookin' at me funny" instead.

Seriously, isn't that just a nice way of saying "the police would like to be able to put people in jail even if they can't prove they've done anything wrong?"

[ilai]

Here's the problem I think the police are considering: sometimes evidence that would be otherwise convincing gets judged inadmissible in court because of some technicality or other, and not supposed to be taken into consideration (I didn't realize this was even that common until I served jury duty and saw this happen). So even if they're going after someone for a greater charge, the evidence that proves it can't get used, and so they can only go with a lesser charge.

But yeah, I'm not really clear this is entirely a good reason (or the right reason) to oppose the question. Just something that I was considering when I was weighing the relative merits of both sides.

[marylu.livejournal.com]

here's the problem with your theory: when people say that evidence is inadmissible based on a "technicality", what they generally mean is that the police violated a person's rights during a search or seizure. The fourth amendment of the constitution is not a technicality. There ARE police out there who stop and frisk people with the argument that a suspect was "lookin' at me funny". When police abuse their authority, any evidence they may happen to find is inadmissible because it was obtained illegally.

[ilai]

Yeah, I've thought along those lines as well. For some reason I thought that it might also be easy for the police to, in good faith, accidentally say something wrong or do things in the incorrect order that would violate some rule causing evidence recovered subsequently to become inadmissible, but I'm not well-versed in this issue so I can't say for sure. In any event I agree that the arguments against the ballot question that I've heard so far aren't entirely well thought out.

[gwodder.livejournal.com]

yes, sometimes we have to punish guiltless people in a semi randomly fashion because of what the bad people in another place are doing. official policy.

[ilai]

If the column above is to believed, no one was charged on just marijuana possession last year--the ones charged were also allegedly doing other bad things. But yeah, that doesn't really mean the current policy makes sense.

[marylu.livejournal.com]

yeah, it's such a drag for police to actually have to dig up evidence on those serious charges. let's get rid of that whole "probable cause" notion while we're at it.

[ilai]

See my comment above to hissilliness.