Possessing small amount of marijuana in Massachusetts decriminalized

Marijuana plants growing wild

Before discussing the primary topic for today, I want to mention that a staff member in the newsroom of a San Francisco television station told me this morning that Proposition K in that city was defeated by a vote of about 57 percent to 43 percent. If this proposition had passed, it would have legalized prostitution in San Francisco.

When asked why the proposition did not pass, the man stated that he did not know. A general search of the Internet and one San Francisco news website did not produce any useful results.

Regarding the a consequences of another traditionally unlawful activity, The Boston Globe reported this morning that Ballot Question 2 in Massachusetts that called for decriminalizing the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana passed by an estimated margin of 65 percent in favor of this law to 35 percent against it. The article did not include any information about the percentage of voters who supported this change who went out for munchies after casting their ballots.

It is expected that the change in Massachusetts law will become effective no later than early January 2009 and may allow some people to enjoy New Year's Eve more than they ever have. After that effective date, someone who is found to possess less than one ounce of marijuana will have to pay a $100 fine and will not have the incident reported as a criminal offense.

Someone who is under 18 and is caught with less than one ounce of marijuana must also do community service and complete a drug awareness program. It does not seem that the penalties get any harsher for subsequent offenses that anyone of any age commits.

In the interest of full disclosure, I want to say that I do not smoke marijuana but understand why some people do smoke it; I do not want to risk my bar membership. Further, I do not want the stink to attach to my walls or my clothing.

The article in the Globe reports that supporters of the change stated that it allows police to use their limited resources fighting what these people described as "serious and violent crimes." It is emphasized as well that this law does not change the legal consequences for crimes that people commit while possessing a small amount of marijuana or for larger-scale marijuana related crimes that include growing or selling it. (You can read more about the Massachusetts' ballot issue from the Business Examiner.)

Although Proposition K in California was apparently introduced to protect prostitutes, it would have had the same effect as the new Massachusetts law of directing law enforcement efforts at activities that some consider to be a higher priority than having what is described as a small amount of marijuana or exchanging sex for money.

These laws also sought to eliminate the handicaps that a criminal record can create regarding renting a home or being hired for a job. A prostitute who is not doing anything illegal or a person who is not even arrested after being discovered with a small amount of marijuana generally would not have to report that work or that incident to a potential landlord or employer.

On a broader level, this two proposals reflect the modern more liberal view that some activities that are traditionally considered reprehensible are not so bad. They also indicate that local police forces lack the resources that enforcing every law requires and that this condition will not change any time soon.

I received some interesting feedback on Monday and encourage more of you to join in the conversation by posting comments to this entry or sending me e-mail at nelsonexaminer@gmail.com. You can even do so at 4:20 p.m. today if that makes you happy.