Last November, in Massachusetts, the ballot asked voters whether to change the state’s marijuana laws. Under the new law, anyone caught with an ounce or less of pot, instead of being arrested and charged with a crime, would simply get a $100 ticket. According to the official election returns, 63% of the voters thought this was a good idea. (Only 33% disapproved, with 4% abstaining.) This made Massachusetts the 12’th state to enact such a law, and this month, Question 2, the new marijuana law, went into effect. Already, police and drug prohibitionists are complaining about it.
Personally, I’m all for Question 2. Marijuana has never killed a single user, being one of the safest drugs ever discovered, much safer than alcohol. And in general, drug prohibition is a farce; alcohol prohibition was a farce in the 1920’s, and marijuana prohibition works no better. It is a policy born of fear, not of reason, and like all such laws, it wastes resources and creates crime, rather than making us safer. According to a 2008 report by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, Question 2 will save Massachusetts taxpayers approximately $29.5 million a year in law-enforcement costs alone. On top of all that, our nation’s drug laws are cruel and out of proportion, landing some non-violent drug offenders with longer prison sentences than violent crimes like assault and rape. Let me put it this way: I think cops should be chasing down rapists and murderers, not shaking down pot smokers.
Question 2 not only has a large majority of voters on its side, it also has informed reasoning behind it. This rare conjunction of popular opinion and sound thought should be applauded, not disparaged. But if you thought drug prohibitionists would simply take the informed will of the voters lying down, think again. read more »
