[420 Girl]

As a physician, educator and leader of public health in Massachusetts, I urge you to vote "yes" on Question 2. Question 2 is a modest proposal that will save money and, as importantly, reduce the creation of lifelong criminal records upon arrest for minor offenses. It's a policy that is already in place in 11 other states and that will work in Massachusetts, and it will have a meaningful impact on the public health of our communities and commonwealth.

Question 2 creates a civil penalty system for personal possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. In plain English, it replaces arrest and booking for such minor offenses with a citation and a fine, similar to a speeding ticket. Marijuana remains illegal under Question 2, and all related laws - including laws banning sale, distribution and trafficking - remain unchanged. Additionally, Question 2 in no way affects laws or regulations prohibiting driving under the influence or workplace intoxication.

These safeguards are good and appropriate. But from the vantage point of a medical professional, Question 2 will more crucially end the devastating public health consequences that follow the creation of lifelong arrest records. In the commonwealth, a mere arrest for small-scale marijuana possession results in a permanent arrest record known as a Criminal Offender Record Information report ... and there are 7,500 of these every year. The lifelong punishments that result - like the denial of access to employment, housing and public services, the foundations of success in our society - cripple our neighbors' abilities to live productive lives.

Public health is based on the overall health of individuals and families, as well as the economic and social prosperity of our communities. When neighborhoods are poor and disenfranchised, when residents find their options severely bounded by CORIs, the health of the community decreases dramatically. And to be clear: CORIs are generated upon arrest. Even if the arrestee is exonerated, even if the charges are dropped, the record remains ... frequently for decades.

CORIs lead to people not being able to get basic necessities like jobs or housing, the lack of which also limits access to proper nutrition, preventative health care, and improved living conditions for entire families. And when the health of individuals and their families suffers, so does the overall health of the community. It’s a cycle that perpetuates itself.

As a doctor, I do not promote or condone the use of marijuana - but I do support a smarter policy approach like Question 2.

For instance, this initiative demands a more proactive, education-based approach with regard to juveniles. Persons under 18 will have the citation delivered to a parent or guardian, so the family is immediately involved - not always the case under current law. And instead of worrying about attorneys, court dates and navigating the criminal justice system, families can focus on the young person ... why he or she was breaking the law and how it could it best be handled.

Under current law, a small mistake can cost young people their futures, especially those from disadvantaged communities. But under Question 2, they'd instead complete a drug awareness program and be required to do community service, without being saddled with a CORI. These are immediate, appropriate consequences - opportunities for growth - that don't disproportionately punish offenders.
The fact is that our current law not only disenfranchises vulnerable populations and deprives young people of opportunities, it comes with a hefty price tag for everyone.

According to Harvard economist Dr. Jeffrey Miron, Question 2 will save taxpayers almost $30 million a year in arrest, booking and basic court costs alone. This estimate doesn't include any additional court costs, probation costs or loss of taxable earnings because of a person's inability to work or to go to school after the loss of a driver's license due to the offense.

Question 2 will keep these funds where they belong - in community coffers, where they're desperately needed for local programs to improve the quality of life throughout the commonwealth.

Opponents would have you believe that if we pass this sensible measure, Massachusetts will end up awash in marijuana. But research shows that's plain nonsense.

Eleven other states have enacted similar laws without the sky falling. In fact, in a study commissioned by the White House, the National Research Council found that marijuana use rates are not affected by changing the penalty system for simple possession. And just this year, the World Health Organization released the largest international research study to date on illicit drug use rates and arrived at the same conclusion.

Question 2 is a good, modest public policy proposal that will improve our laws, conserve taxpayer resources, and remove these outrageous lifelong penalties. Massachusetts voters should support improving overall public health and vote "yes" on Question 2.

Dr. Robert Meenan is dean of Boston University's School of Public Health.

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/in...stion-2-a.html