By Joel Beck Source: Marblehead Reporter "I've smoked marijuana," Steve Epstein nonchalantly announced during an interview this past summer. "I enjoy marijuana." Really Steve? We never would have guessed. Considering his ever-increasing reputation as one of the state's most outspoken marijuana advocates, conversations with Epstein leave little doubt that he likes to spark up on a regular basis. In fact, after noticing the rolling papers that peek out of his front shirt pocket and the odorous smokiness that emanates from his pores - seemingly indicating that he's at least been smokingsomething recently - there's a question that's hard to banish from your mind while talking to Epstein: "Geez, do you think he's high right now?" Smoking pot may be Epstein's thing, but make no mistake, his mind couldn't be clearer or more passionate when it comes to his thoughts on reforming the state's current marijuana laws - a cause which he has personally overseen for more than two decades as a leader with the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition (Mass Cann) and the organizer of Boston's annual pro-pot festival, "The Freedom Rally." Otherwise, how else could you explain the amount of support he's helped drum up in recent years from Massachusetts voters, the majority of whom appear to agree with Epstein that the time has come to reconsider marijuana possession as a criminal offense. Not only does Epstein maintain marijuana is a far less dangerous drug than most people would have you believe, he also says decriminalizing it would create a major economic boost in Massachusetts. So far, the voters seem to agree. In 2000, Epstein and the folks at Mass Cann used their persuasive efforts in the 2nd Middlesex Senate district and the 4th Essex, 6th Middlesex and 4th Barnstable Representative districts, where voters supported a non-binding ballot question asking their representatives to introduce legislation that would decriminalize marijuana possession, instead making it a civil violation - much like getting a traffic ticket. A similar ballot question passed in 2002 in more than 20 representative districts - including the 1st, 2nd and 18th Essex districts, where the question passed with more than 60 percent of the vote. This year, Epstein and Co. are at it again, despite the fact that legislators didn't step up to the plate on either previous occasion that their constituents asked them to rethink the state's marijuana laws. This time, voters in the 2nd Essex, 3rd Essex and 3rd Middlesex Senate districts - which include communities like Beverly, Danvers, Peabody, Salem, Marblehead, Lynn, Nahant, Saugus and Swampscott - will have their chance to chime in with another non-binding question that will appear on this November's ballots. With recent history on his side, Epstein is understandably confident that the ballot question will pass yet again. He is less confident, however, about the prospect of any politicians on the North Shore - or anywhere else in the state for that matter - stepping forward and actually supporting his cause. It becomes especially harder to envision with legislators like Brad Hill, an Ipswich Republican who was a vocal opponent of the idea of decriminalizing marijuana when the issue surfaced in his district in 2000, standing in the way. Hill did file an obligatory bill on Epstein's behalf after the 2000 vote, but he recalls the legislation quietly dying in committee and doesn't see new life being breathed into the marijuana cause anytime in the near future. "Right now, I wouldn't see it passing anytime soon," says Hill. "Does that mean in four years it won't pass or in 10 years it won't pass? I can't answer that question. I do know that there hasn't been a huge turnover in legislators in the past two or four years and right now, the appetite to pass legislation decriminalizing marijuana just isn't at the top of people's priorities." Still, with each time his ballot questions pass, and the will of the people shows a desire to reform the state's marijuana laws, Epstein says sooner or later the politicians are just going to have to listen. "We hope it will be in January of next year that they're finally going to listen," says Epstein. "And we have no reason not to believe that we'll get 60 percent of the 'yes' votes again. "Politicians keep thinking that (supporting marijuana reform) is going to hurt them and we keep showing them that there's no way it's going to hurt them," Epstein adds. "But we continue to be optimistic that eventually the politicians will wake up. We feel we're much closer." Not to mention higher. Stirring The Pot If you ask Gary Insuik, the worst thing that ever happened to marijuana was when it became labeled as a drug. Is it a mind-altering substance? You bet it is, says Insuik. But certainly no worse than anything that comes in a six-pack - and we're not talking about Coca-Cola. "Why isn't alcohol linked to the name 'drugs?'" wonders Insuik, a Salem resident and member of Mass Cann. "I think the stigma of (marijuana) being called a drug is what keeps it illegal. If alcohol is legal, I can see absolutely no reason marijuana shouldn't be. It's a far less powerful substance." While people like Insuik and Epstein will enthusiastically debate the potency of alcohol vs. pot with anyone who comes their way, Insuik's point about marijuana immediately being lumped together with harder drugs is instantly evident the minute you start to talk about it with some North Shore politicians. For example, when asked her thoughts on the continuing effort to decriminalize marijuana in Massachusetts, Peabody state Rep. Joyce Spiliotis admits she hasn't given much thought to the issue, but quickly points out the growing problem with the drug OxyContin on the North Shore. Meanwhile, Ipswich's Hill - although he says he remains open to the discussion about the possibility of decriminalizing marijuana - continues to maintain that marijuana can lead to more lethal substance abuse down the road. "The only concern I ever had - and I can show you just as many reports as (Epstein) can show me - is that it's a gateway drug," says Hill. "That's my only concern in all of this." Some candidates for public office are quick to weigh in on the issue, saying they could never support an effort to lessen any restriction on laws they believe exist to protect the health and well-being of their constituents. When it comes to marijuana, the message is a familiar one: Drugs are bad. "I absolutely do not want to make a partial legalization or a decriminalization for marijuana simply because of the poor example it gives to young people," says Bob Finneran, a Republican candidate for state rep. in Epstein's own 2nd Essex District. "I don't want to sacrifice our young people and I'd be shocked if the people in the 2nd Essex District voted otherwise." But people in districts all across Massachusetts have indeed recently voted otherwise. And Epstein acknowledges the number of people who believe marijuana is a far less dangerous substance than most other drugs has increased far beyond the usual collection of hippies and potheads. In order for marijuana to actually kill someone, Epstein says, something truly drastic - or cartoonish - would have to take place. "I think a bail of it would have to fall on top of you," says Epstein. "You just can't consume enough marijuana for it to kill you. "The question you have to ask is, is this something the government should be involved in while supposedly creating an environment where people are free to pursue their own concept of happiness?" continues Epstein. "I can see prohibiting citizens from owning nuclear warheads, but I can't see prohibiting citizens from growing a plant. It just doesn't make sense." Let It Grow It's not that Insuik has lost all hope in his longtime effort to make marijuana laws less stringent. It's just that he kind of hoped he'd be able to light up a joint on the subway by now. OK, maybe Insuik never really envisioned a worldthat relaxed in its views toward marijuana, but he certainly thought they'd be further along in their cause than they are now. Complete legalization always seemed like a stretch, but Insuik says there are days he believes Mass Cann's work is all for naught. "Every year that it doesn't get done, I figure it will just be longer until it actually does get done," says Insuik. "We're so close, but if we can't get it done now, then why? Do we have to wait for a whole generation of lawmakers to die off? Hopefully we can get a generation in there that has some thoughts of their own. You get a little tired of this politics by party." Other than some gains that have been made in making medicinal marijuana available to ease the pain for chemotherapy and glaucoma patients, Insuik laments the fact that they are no closer to decriminalizing marijuana than at any previous point. Part of that, Epstein says, comes from the fact that most people can't differentiate between legalization and decriminalization. For the number of times he's confronted people who are dead-set against loosening the government's grip on marijuana laws in any form, Epstein says he meets just as many people on the other end of the spectrum - the people who think marijuana should be, as he calls it, "legal as lettuce." The real solution, he contends, lies somewhere in between. "What's difficult is getting someone who wants to see the marijuana laws changed and convincing them that the only way we're going to get there is through incremental steps," says Epstein. "The hardest part is convincing those people that their neighbors don't think marijuana prohibition is a good idea." But again, if recent ballot question results are any indication, the next-door neighbors aren't the ones preventing the decriminalization of marijuana - unless of course your next door neighbor happens to be a senator or a state rep. But Epstein honestly believes that if you rounded up all the politicians on Beacon Hill and swore to them their true feelings on the issue would never be revealed to the general public, you would discover a vast majority who privately believe marijuana laws are too strict. Whether that means the tide will soon turn on this issue remains to be seen. But if a vote on the North Shore this November shows the voters still want a change, the voices may become too loud for legislators to ignore. And that's not just blowing smoke. Related Article: Drug Money Thursday, October 28, 2004 To the North Shore activists who are anxiously waiting for legislators like state Rep. Brad Hill, R-Ipswich, to suddenly reverse their longtime opposition to decriminalizing marijuana in Massachusetts, here's some sound advice: Pull up a chair. It looks like you're going to be waiting for a while. On the other hand, even Hill - who in 2000 told the Gloucester Daily Times that only a "huge majority" of the voters could possibly sway him to consider proposing a marijuana decriminalization bill - appears to be bending ever so slightly on the issue. Though he says he still sees marijuana as a dangerous gateway drug, Hill says pot activists like Georgetown lawyer Steve Epstein raise some valid points about the economic impact decriminalizing marijuana could potentially have. That issue, he says, is the one that could eventually persuade even the most conservative legislators to rethink their argument. "Court-wise, time-wise and money-wise, it's a lot of money to spend for one person who makes a mistake," says Hill. "I am certainly always open to discussion." Meanwhile for people like Epstein and his fellow advocated at the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition (Mass Cann), it's a discussion that can no longer be ignored. Epstein is quick to point to a report compiled by Boston University economics professor Jeffrey Miron, which shows that marijuana legalization would save Massachusetts more than $120 million a year in government expenditure on police enforcement of prohibition. On top of that, Miron's report also estimates that legalization would bring an annual tax revenue of $16.9 million. The way Mass Cann's Gary Insuik sees it, people are going to buy marijuana anyway, so why shouldn't the state make the most of it? "I'm of the personal opinion that if it's legalized and taxed, it becomes a heck of a revenue stream," says Insuik. "It's a fallacy to believe that they're actually stopping it now. All they're doing is artificially increasing the value and keeping the black market strong." Not to mention, Epstein says, the strain he believes is put on local law enforcement officers who are still forced to treat marijuana as a criminal offense. Not only is that expensive in the long run, he says, it also seems rather unnecessary. "I think the federal income tax is probably one of the greatest injustices there is, but this is right up there," says Epstein. "As far as the number of people affected, we're talking about more than 650,000 nationwide who are handcuffed, brought to the station and face a judge in a criminal situation. That's not a good use of resources." - Joel Beck Source: Marblehead Reporter (MA) Author: Joel Beck Published: Thursday, October 28, 2004 Copyright: 2004 Tri-Town Transcript Contact: marblehead@cnc.com Website: http://www.townonline.com/marblehead Related Articles & Web Site: MassCann http://www.masscann.org/