Drug Reform Essay Research Paper Activists hope

Drug Reform Essay, Research Paper

Activists hope ballot questions signal support for marijuana bills

By Steve Leblanc, Associated Press, 12/5/2000 17:05

BOSTON (AP) When researchers launched the nation’s most ambitious heart study 50 years ago, they chose Framingham, a middle-class town west of Boston and cross-section of America.

Now supporters of liberalized marijuana laws are hoping voters in this Massachusetts heartland are signaling a fundamental shift in public attitudes about the state’s war on drugs.

On Election Day, Framingham voters overwhelmingly approved a nonbinding question calling for a law that would make possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil violation with a fine of no more than $100.

They weren’t alone.

Voters in Ipswich, Winchester and Harwich also backed nonbinding questions calling for easing of marijuana laws. In March, Amherst voters called for the repeal of laws prohibiting the possession and use of marijuana.

Approval of the measures comes as the U.S. Supreme Court indicated it will hear the federal government’s efforts to block state laws allowing ill patients to use marijuana for pain relief.

Sponsors of the questions say they prove support for weakening of marijuana laws extends beyond traditional liberal enclaves like Cambridge and Amherst.

”There is a terrific, discernible disconnect between the public and our elected officials on the issue of the war on drugs,” said Allen St. Pierre of the National Organization for the Repeal of Marijuana Laws.

Armed with those votes of confidence, pro-marijuana activists are taking their message to a much tougher crowd: Beacon Hill lawmakers.

One proposal would decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of pot by making it a civil infraction punishable by a fine. Another would give a boost to the state’s 1996 medical marijuana law by allowing people to grow their own.

The 1996 law, which allows people with certain illnesses to use marijuana, is on hold because people would have to register with a state Department of Health research project. Federal law currently prohibits such projects.

If they are unsuccessful in the Legislature, activists are preparing to take their proposal to the ballot box in 2002, St. Pierre said.

Both bills face an uphill fight.

Voters in Rep. Bradford Hill’s traditionally conservative Ipswich district soundly approved a nonbinding referendum calling on Hill to support legislation making possession of marijuana a civil violation like a traffic ticket.

Hill, a Republican, isn’t ready to take that step. He said he was baffled by the vote and will hold hearings in his district to gauge public opinion.

”Philosophically, I don’t agree. I have had three friends from high school pass away because of drug abuse,” he said. ”But clearly a message was sent through that vote.”

Hill said he wants to see what effect the decriminalization of marijuana has had in other states.

Voters in eight state have approved medical marijuana ballot questions, including Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and Maine, according to St. Pierre. Lawmakers in Hawaii approved a similar measure.

During the 1970s, lawmakers in 11 states approved laws decriminalizing marijuana, he said. In 1998, Oregon legislators repealed a marijuana decriminalization law, but voters quickly rejected the repeal and reinstated the law, St. Pierre said.

More recent efforts to ease Massachusetts’ drug laws have met with less success.

A statewide ballot question which would have diverted money seized in drug raids to drug treatment failed.

Reform movement

A proposed ballot initiative would fund drug-treatment programs with assets seized from offenders

by Kristen Lombardi

MICHAEL CUTLER: “If people really want to do something about drug abuse — and not just say they do — this proposition is a step in the right direction.”

Even in an era of unparalleled skepticism about America’s war on drugs, the Massachusetts drug-policy-reform movement is used to being ignored. For years, activists pushing to improve what are seen as “useless” and “unfair” drug policies have found themselves up against the same impenetrable barrier: the law-and-order lobby. Police, in general, liken change to a public-safety threat, while politicians shy away from any stance that could be perceived as soft on crime.

Rather than clamor for legislators’ attention, reformers, under the banner of the Coalition for Fair Treatment, are now taking their movement to the electorate. As one member explains, “We believe the public is more ready to change injustices of the drug war than legislators acknowledge.” Since last summer, the statewide coalition, a broad and rather unlikely group of educators, attorneys, and civil-rights advocates, has launched an aggressive campaign, collecting more than 75,500 signatures in an attempt to put an initiative on the ballot this November. Petition P, as it’s known, focuses on two basics in drug policy: substance-abuse treatment and the state’s civil-asset-forfeiture law, which allows the government to take ownership of all property that “facilitated” a drug crime — even before any conviction occurs. The ballot initiative, if approved by

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать