A Fully Baked Proposal

On Nov. 4, Massachusetts voters will find themselves faced with a crucial decision. Lobbyists and enthusiasts from across the country have vehemently campaigned for each side. Political organizations, interest groups, Harvard professors, and billionaires have all been drawn into the fight. The all-important issue: What should our state do about weed?

One of the measures on the ballot, Massachusetts Ballot Question 2, would partially decriminalize marijuana use by reducing criminal penalties on possession to a fine of $100. It would also stop collecting Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) reports on such crimes. We applaud the idea of reducing these restrictions, and recommend that the state and federal government consider going much further.

The strict laws restricting marijuana possession have caused far more damage to society than the harmless plant itself could ever do. The current laws, under which possession can be punished by up to six months in jail and a $500 fine, are a waste of state resources. According to a study by Harvard professor of economics Jeffrey A. Miron, the measure could save the state almost $30 million each year—money that could go toward reducing the budget deficit or toward improving our schools.

This is also a victory for privacy. Keeping these charges from being permanently recorded in CORI will prevent youthful use of marijuana from coming back to haunt people later in life. Such violations have nothing to do with an individual’s competence in a specific job and should not show up on background checks.

More importantly, however, the laws punish an act that should not be illegal. Smoking marijuana hurts nobody except, arguably, the smoker. Since the proposal wisely keeps intact the laws that punish driving under the influence of marijuana and even strengthens the laws governing underage use, there is no conceivable justification for punishing possession except for the smoker’s own good. Even if smoking has a detrimental effect on one’s life, it can hardly be as harmful as a jail sentence, and the notion that we are helping smokers by arresting them and sending them to prison is patently absurd.

The passage of Ballot Question 2 will do much to make state laws more reasonable, but it does not go nearly far enough. While preserving some criminal penalties for possession and maintaining laws against growing and selling the drug may help the ballot measure pass, these laws are fundamentally foolish. Marijuana, which is less addictive than caffeine and no more damaging to the body than tobacco, should be regulated as a legal commodity rather than as an illicit drug.

Even if marijuana were legal in Massachusetts, the drug would still be illegal under federal law. The U.S. government’s restrictions on marijuana are even more unreasonable than those of Massachusetts. If any state is to reap the full benefits of decriminalization or legalization, the federal government must stop regulating it—which is sadly unlikely. Still, changing state laws is an important step toward demonstrating that the war on marijuana is an unnecessary one.