For the nation, November 4, 2008 was a historic election day, as America elected Barack Obama, the first African American President to be elected to office.
But in Massachusetts, the day was significant for a couple of additional reasons. Voters approved Question 3, The Greyhound Protection Act, which bans commercial dog racing. And Massachusetts voters also voted "yes" on Question 2, which decriminalizes marijuana possession of one ounce or less.
"Question 2 is officially the first marijuana decriminalization law passed by voter initiative," according to the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy.
What Does a "Yes" Vote on MA Ballot Question 2 Mean for Baystate Residents?
The voters' passage of MA Ballot Question 2 makes Massachusetts the twelfth state in America to decriminalize marijuana possession for one ounce of marijuana or less.
The proposition becomes law 30 days after it’s officially reported to the Governor’s Council, which usually meets in late November or early December. Precisely 30 days after that meeting, it will no longer be a crime to possess less than one ounce of marijuana in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Instead of facing criminal charges for marijuana possession, anyone caught with one ounce of marijuana or less will face a fine of $100.
Offenders under age 18 would will also be required to complete a community service and participate in a drug awareness program.
Before the new marijuana possession laws go into effect, it is an arrestable crime to possess any amount of marijuana in Massachusetts.
According to one study by Harvard University, marijuana decriminalization will save taxpayers $30 million a year in law enforcement costs. The study revealed that Massachusetts police spend an estimated $30 million each year on arresting people with an ounce or less of marijuana. This figure does not include court and penal system costs that are associated with prosecuting and penalizing citizens who are found to be in possession of a "small" amount of marijuana.
Arguments in Favor of the Decriminalization of Marijuana (Question 2)
Proponents of Question 2 said that the criminalization of marijuana subjects many people - most of whom are otherwise good citizens, according to proponent groups - to the stigma of a criminal record or "CORI."
A person who is arrested and convicted on marijuana possession charges may have a difficult time getting future jobs or student loans due to a CORI record, and groups like the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy argue this penalty is too harsh.
"I feel that criminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana really just adds to the problem," explained drug rehabilitation counselor Martha Howard. "In the hundreds of patients I've worked with over the years, never have I seen a marijuana user stop because they got caught and arrested. If any thing, arrest and legal troubles exacerbate drug use. I've seen legal troubles contribute to the rapid worsening of depression and hopelessness that often leads to the use of more serious drugs.
"Putting a drug user in jail or requiring that person to perform community service really doesn't address the root of the problem. Criminalizing marijuana doesn't solve the problem - if anything, it makes the situation worse and it taxes our court system and prisons. Fining drug users would hit them where it counts - in the wallet - and there's word that much of that money [gleaned from marijuana possession fines] will benefit drug rehabilitation programs, so when a user decides it's time to seek help, he'll have that resource available," Howard added.
In short, proponents of decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana are in favor of eliminating the cost to the state for prosecuting, processing and imprisoning people who are found to be in possession of marijuana.
Arguments Against the Decriminalization of Marijuana (Question 2)
Opponents of Question 2 say the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana sends the wrong message, in essence condoning drug use.
Law enforcement officials and district attorneys throughout the state have spoken out on this issue and most argue that the decriminalization of marijuana simply enables drug users to continue illicit drug use.
Opponents to the decriminalization of marijuana possession also argued that existing state law already requires judges to dismiss charges and seal records for first-time offenders.
In addition, many argue that marijuana is a gateway drug, meaning drug users who start out with marijuana will gradually move on to more serious and more dangerous drugs like heroin, cocaine and ecstasy.
Dan O'Brien is a police officer in Massachusetts: "My feeling is that a zero-tolerance policy on marijuana possession is the most effective stance. If we can step in during the early stages of drug use, an arrest, criminal charges - all of that - will serve as a wake-up call that will help drug users to realize that they have a serious problem. If we can interfere before a drug user advances to more hardcore narcotics, the recovery process will be easier and society won't have to deal with all the crime that's associated with the use of narcotics like heroin and cocaine.
"I just don't feel that a $100 fine is the 'wake up call' that these drug users need. Though I may have supported Question 2 if the monetary fine was more substantial. We need to send a clear message that drug use is not acceptable. I just don't feel that Question 2 sends that message."
Readers may also enjoy reading about the use of "Sniffer Dogs," who can be hired to detect marijuana and other drugs in the home or office.
Mia Carter - Mia Carter - Journalist, Producer/Editor & Web Writer. Carter's work has appeared on CBS and CNN.com.
Join the Conversation