This is in response to Adrian Walker's editorial "A Question of Possession," about Massachusetts Question 2, an initiative to decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana.
Adrian Walker, has this to say about decriminalization of less than an ounce of marijuana:
"The arguments in favor of Question 2 are weak. If people are not going to jail for possession, what is the argument for making the law even weaker? Turning marijuana possession into a lesser offense than speeding will only encourage and embolden drug pushers and their customers. Why, exactly, is that a good idea? This is a bad solution to something that isn't even a problem."
Care to look
here? You'll find the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Report, over 800,000 arrests (and when you're arrested, its pretty much guaranteed that you're going to jail) making Mr. Walker out to be a liar. Or incredibly stupid. I'm trying to not insult Mr. Walker's character - I will assume the latter case.
As for "drug pushers" (I still haven't encountered this mythical figure, can ANYONE point me to one? I mean, Chris Rock is right: people don't sell drugs, drugs sell themselves. People just make the stuff available for a price) - the law doesn't do anything about distribution. So, again, see the above reference to either an outright lie, or the product of gross stupidity.
Now, what is a good idea is for the police to stop paying so much attention to a bunch of pot smokers (more people arrested for marijuana possession alone than any other single offense other than DUI (all larcenies, property crimes and assaults are grouped in the UCR, giving them the appearance of higher incidents), and a hell of a lot more attention to people trying to hurt others.
What's the bad idea about that? Question 2 is about being realistic - there is no evidence that arresting for marijuana possession has one, single, measurable positive outcome, and a whole lot suggesting that it wastes resources, and perhaps most importantly, people's lives.
Mr. Walker is good at talking about people dealing with the problems that "drugs" "cause" in inner city neighborhoods. He's good at stating that suburbanites have no idea how much damage "drugs" cause. He's hopeless at understanding that a majority of this harm is caused by poorly conceived drug policies, not the drugs in and of themselves. Until Mr. Walker manages to come up with evidence to back his wide generalized statements, perhaps he should spend more time in research, and less writing unfounded garbage in the Boston Globe's local section.
