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

[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.

[bobobb.livejournal.com]

*With all due respect my two cents*

I worked with addicts as well in a professional and personal setting and I completely disagree with you. I think you are confusing issues and it is hard not to when someone close to you has a drug problem. Drugs are illegal now and yet they are really really easy to get (hence your personal experience), especially when someone is an addict (they have drug-radar or something) -- and when people get caught there is a whole mess of money spent rangling them around that could be spent on more violent crime or more annoying crime like break-ins (we don't have ANY of those here in somerville). Last, I have never seen a clinical study (that isn't being paid for by a propaganda group) that showed 1. Smoking pot leads to drug addition (was it the pot smoking that led to the crack smoking or the addictive personality and depressed life?) 2. Keeping marijuana illegal deterrs use

[chumbolly.livejournal.com]

Props to you for posting a cogent, thoughtful counterpoint to the bandwagon.

As you point out, however, there are other legal substances out there that are perhaps more problematic than pot, and I think that makes our current law on pot ill-conceived. People call pot a gateway drug, but I don't know anybody that tried pot before alcohol, and very few that tried it before nicotine. So if we're serious about preventing people from altering their mental states, pot is not the logical target. Furthermore, the illegality of pot is flouted by such a large portion of the population that I think it diminishes respect for the law generally. I've seen people from skate punks to executives to even a former federal prosecutor spark a bowl. More troubling, however, is that the law is not enforced or prosecuted uniformly. I do not know anybody that has been prosecuted for possession, but I bet if I lived in a different neighborhood I would. For the same reason the Supreme Court can find the death penalty cruel and unusual not because allowing the state to kill a murderer is inherently cruel but because doing so arbitrarily IS cruel and unusual(black killers of whites are much more likely to get the death penalty), I think the current law on pot falls disproportionately on certain segments of our society, and laws like that should be held up to special scrutiny. Lastly, I would argue that the illegality of pot has driven it to become a more hard-core drug. The voter education guide being distributed by the state in connection with this ballot question points out that pot now contains something like 30 times the THC it used to contain back in the olden days. I think that's due in large part to the pot trade being controlled by criminal enterprises and being unregulated. Most people I know actually want less potent pot, and if they could grow a plant in their backyard, would probably grow a milder stain.