By Krtisten Lombardi Source: Boston Phoenix Here's a telling piece of drug-law-reform trivia: in every election cycle since 2000, Massachusetts voters have strongly favored ballot questions calling for marijuana decriminalization. To date, residents in 58 cities and towns across the state, including in Boston, have supported - by an average of 61 percent - referendums that instruct legislators to make possession of an ounce of pot a civil violation, as well as to legalize medical-marijuana use for patients with diseases such as cancer. "We've never lost yet," says Jon Holmes, an Allston activist who has worked on these ballot questions with members of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition (MASS CANN) and the Drug Policy Forum. The state's voters, he adds, "have decided it's a bad idea to arrest and prosecute people for pot." The ballot questions are non-binding, which means that state lawmakers can choose to ignore voters' wishes. And, evidently, they do. In legislative session after legislative session, drug-reform groups have filed bills on Beacon Hill that would decriminalize minor pot offenses and enable sick people to grow small amounts of pot for medicinal purposes. And just as routinely, House and Senate members succeed in stymieing the bills. This year, for example, a measure that would have made possession of an ounce or less of marijuana the equivalent of a civil violation, "like a traffic ticket," has been languishing in the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice because, as Holmes puts it, "no one has the political courage to do anything." So this election year, activists are at it again. They've collected signatures from 5500-plus voters throughout the state to put marijuana-regulation referendums on the ballot come November. This time, the questions will appear in the districts of both chairs of the criminal-justice committee - Senator Thomas McGee, a Lynn Democrat; and Representative James Vallee, a Franklin Democrat. In addition, the referendums - which ask voters whether possession of marijuana should be punished as nothing more than "a civil violation," and whether "seriously ill patients, with their doctor's written prescription" should be able to grow small amounts of pot for medicinal use - will appear in 46 other communities, including Cambridge and Arlington. Activists hope the ballot questions will encourage lawmakers - in particular, McGee and Vallee - in these districts to get behind the pending pot-reform legislation. "We want to deliver the hard evidence to legislators," says Bill Downing, who heads Mass Cann. "We want to put them on notice and say, ‘This issue is not going to go away. Do your job and represent your people.'" Some legislators actually do respond to non-binding voter initiatives. Case in point: Senator Charles Shannon, the main sponsor of the pending decriminalization bill, who used to be a just-say-no-to-drugs politician. In 1991, when activists were pushing a medical-marijuana bill in the legislature, recalls Holmes, "Shannon said, ‘Whoa! Wait a minute. We can't have this.'" In 2000, activists put a referendum on the ballot in Shannon's district, which comprises Woburn, Somerville, Medford, and Winchester. As many as 66 percent of his constituents voted in favor of decriminalization. The results caused Shannon, a veteran Lexington police officer, to change his tune. Now, he's one of the drug reformers' biggest allies on Beacon Hill. Whether McGee and Vallee will follow Shannon's lead remains to be seen. But if nothing else, drug reformers will find out just where the voters stand on the issue. Then again, given past results, they're pretty confident about how things will turn out. "A lot of these guys [legislators] don't think their people support these efforts," says Downing. "But they do, so we're forcing legislators to listen." Source: Boston Phoenix (MA) Author: Krtisten Lombardi Published: August 13 - 19, 2004 - Issue Date Copyright: 2004 The Phoenix Media Communications Group Contact: letters@phx.com Website: http://www.bostonphoenix.com/ Related Articles & Web Site: MassCann NORML http://www.masscann.org/
Sometimes I can be very torn on how the American government is set up. The people have the right to voice their opinion but politicians always have the final say and can overrule the people if they feel it's for the best of the people. On one hand I respect the system because "the people" in general can sometimes be very ignorant, and the system was put in place to protect ourselves from our own ignorance. However, other times I absolutely despise our system. It sticks out most with marijuana. When a higher percentage of citizens are in favor of a certain law or reform common sense tells me that politicians should be forced to obey the people's demands. I, along with many of the members of Grasscity, understand the injustice with current marijuana laws, and this is one topic where majority should rule. But this just brings me back to my original respect for the system, because more times than not our government bails us out of our own foolish desires. It's really a lose/lose situation. If majority always ruled we'd find ourselves in a hellish society because in all honesty the morons of this country should not have equal say with the intelligent citizens. But if majority doesn't rule then sometimes a large percentage of the country will end up mistreated and upset. What's the right answer? I honestly don't know. As a smoker when I see this post I can't help but scream out, "What the fuck! You see the people want decriminalization, and pot is harmless, so just give it to them!" But then I begin to think about what would happen if politicians gave into the people more often, and I come out completely dumbfounded. That's what I am after reading this post, completely dumbfounded. I guess I think too much for my own good, because it would be a lot simplier if I just took the pothead stance and cried foul. But for some reason I just can't.