Half-Baked Reasons For Opposing Pot Law

When citizens of Massachusetts voted yes in November to Question 2, the “Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative,” many of them thought that they were voting to legalize marijuana. Because marijuana is illegal under federal, not state law, this would be impossible—states can only choose how they punish use of the drug, not whether or not it is illegal. The new law, which was inserted into The General Laws of Massachusetts, chapter 94C, section 32L, actually reads, “possession of one ounce or less of marihuana shall only be a civil [rather than criminal] offense, subjecting an offender who is eighteen years of age or older to a civil penalty of one hundred dollars and forfeiture of the marihuana, but not to any other form of criminal or civil punishment or disqualification.” In Massachusetts that is, small-scale possession became the legal equivalent of a bad traffic ticket. Law enforcement officers, however, worry that citizens’ first impression may prove all too close to correct—that the “marijuana ticket” will prove impossible to enforce and is thus a de facto legalization of weed. In the short run, officers should try to enforce the law as best they can, despite the enforcement challenges that it presents; it is, after all, law. In the long run, however, citizens and officers alike should consider the real reasons that officers hesitate to enforce the law, and what can be done to better the situation.

It is essential to uphold the integrity of the law to the degree that law enforcement officers can. In a January 3rd article in the Boston Globe, “Police Balk at Ticketing Marijuana Offenders,” chiefs of police in the towns Clinton and Auburn stated that because of the flaws in the law’s wording, their forces would not even attempt to enforce it. Their line of reasoning here is faulty. Police are not hired to legislate, but to enforce legislation. One concern voiced by Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association—that state law prohibits officers from demanding identification when dealing with civil infractions—is simply not true. Other worries, including those such as who will print the physical tickets, that current citation books lack a check-off box for marijuana possession, or that officers will be unable to identify “an ounce,” are simply laughable. Law enforcers in Massachusetts are trained to deal with life-and-death scenarios; they should have enough initiative and creativity to improvise physical tickets in the short-run and to Wikipedia “ounce,” as anyone can do with an internet connection. Despite enforcement issues, some users are sure to be compliant, which means that the law will be at least partially enforced. Officers must do their best to enforce this democratically-enacted legislation, even if a few marijuana offenders will slip through the law’s loopholes.

It is worth noting, however, that some police officers’ reluctance to enforce the law as it now reads may be because citizens of Massachusetts on whole (police included) overwhelmingly believe that marijuana use should not be considered a crime. While it is understandable that the Massachusetts Sheriff’s Union and the Massachusetts’ Chiefs of Police Association opposed Question 2 (due of the enforcement challenges that it presents), these very organizations could make their own—and citizens’—lives much easier by supporting movements such as the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), which seek to remove marijuana from the federal Controlled Substances Act Schedule I list. This list, which claims to include and does include drugs (1) with a high potential for addiction, (2) no medical use and (3) a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug under medical supervision. Schedule I is not the right place for marijuana—a drug no more addictive than cigarettes, that very arguably has medical uses (such as an anti-nausea medication) and is not unsafe under medical supervision.

Question 2 raises several important issues for Law Enforcement Officers in Massachusetts. For now, officers should do the best that they can to enforce the existing laws. Eventually, however, officers’ organizations should realize that all would benefit from removing marijuana from the controlled substances act and letting states determine the actual legality of smoking pot. Law enforcement organizations would help citizens and themselves by getting behind the movement to legalize marijuana.


Justine R. Lescroart ’09, a Crimson editorial writer, is a Romance languages and literatures concentrator in Quincy House.