No spurring the pot
Little did I know how fond we in Massachusetts are of our marijuana. However, I have been educated in recent weeks.
My learning came in the form of the scathing reader response to a column I wrote in opposition to Question 2, the ballot question that would decriminalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. In response, I have been called everything from a moron to "an obvious Bush supporter." (Bush has a position on Question 2?)
In retrospect I should have expected the response I got, with the country perhaps on the verge of electing the third president in a row who has inhaled, or not.
The gist of my argument was that Question 2 will not solve any problems, while making life only more difficult for people on the front lines of crime.
I thought, and still do, that this is a measure overwhelmingly supported by people who don't really have to deal with actual crime in their communities.
The fact is, the opponents of Question 2 have known all along that they were running against public sentiment.
Not everyone disagrees with me. One person I know, who has dabbled in the recreational pharmaceutical industry, stunned me by telling me he completely agreed with me. "It's the craziest thing I ever heard," he said. He thinks the government should stay away from industries it doesn't understand.
But he and I are in a distinct minority, and not just anecdotally. According to a 7News/Suffolk University poll released yesterday, Question 2 is cruising to passage. The poll says 51 percent favor passage, while only 32 percent oppose it. The anti-Question 2 forces, who had believed public sentiment was closer, clearly have their work cut out for them.
This has, in fact, shaped up as a fascinating battle pitting the establishment against everyone else. The governor is against it. Every district attorney in the state is against it. Police chiefs and school superintendents are against it. The newspapers, for what it's worth, are against it.
But they are outweighed by the huge volume of voters who have smoked a joint, or know someone who has, and don't see why anyone should be arrested for such an innocuous activity. They have a point.
Stubbornly, I still disagree. First of all, arrests for possession are rare, and jail time for first offenders is nonexistent. Besides that, I believe that it will only encourage use of other drugs. This is the single most controversial argument advanced by opponents, but I believe it is true. I remain troubled that this measure is largely bankrolled from out of state, as part of a national movement with no real ties to Massachusetts. I don't see anything that improves as a result of passing this law. Absolutely no one I know who is involved in fighting street crime supports Question 2.
The strongest argument in favor of passage, to me, is that arrests for possession saddle offenders with criminal records. For that reason, Question 2 is supported by those who support reform of the Criminal Offender Record Information laws. I'm on record supporting CORI reform. But the records of first offenders are sealed after six months - or are supposed to be.
At any rate, while CORI needs a serious overhaul, I view that as a separate issue from decriminalizing pot.
Obviously, the election is not over, and voters, who are focused on other races, are notorious for making their mind up about ballot questions at the last minute. On the other hand, any pollster will tell you that once half the electorate has taken a position, the results are much less likely to change.
Opponents of Question 2 stubbornly maintained yesterday that they still believe their efforts are not going up in smoke. They may be right, but the calendar is clearly not their friend. The movement to decriminalize marijuana is more popular than they - or I - ever knew.
Adrian Walker is a Globe columnist. He can be reached at walker@globe.com. 