I've been loosely following the new law in effect in Massachusetts "decriminalizing" marijuana possession and consumption, but my limited reading of it has raised more questions than answers. Below the fold is the perplexing language from the Boston Globe attempting to clarify the new laws....
Being found in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana is no longer a crime in Massachusetts, a state law that went into effect Friday says.
The marijuana decriminalization law passed in a referendum last November by state voters would mean offenders caught with such marijuana amounts would only face a ticket and related fine, The Boston Globe said.
That civil infraction and $100 fine would be comparable to building code citation, the newspaper said.
Huh? How is it decriminalized if there's still a ticket and related fine? How does this approach differ from existing law?
I suppose we'll cut back a little on caseload costs from shuttling pot smokers in and out of courthouses if those busted can simply mail in their fine, but it still seems as though the biggest liabilities of our existing marijuana prohibition will continue to stick around.
Secondly, I've always noticed that marijuana apologists cite the limited to nonexistent health risk from marijuana consumption. My knowledge on this is limited, but that viewpoint strikes me as a little naive and self-serving. Is it possible to burn any plant material without producing nitrosamines and benzopyrenes, both carcinogens? And the ingestion of this burned plant material on a chronic basis comes without any heightened risk for cancer or heart attack in the way that tobacco smoking would be? Seriously?
I guess I'd need to be persuaded on that. The stuff I've read on the issue strikes me as the clever but likely delusional musings of marijuana smokers attempting to justify the legality of marijuana smoking. As a libertarian-minded guy, I have no objection to that, but it sounds awfully similar to what was read in tobacco company memos before their confession to the carcinogens in their product and which tens of millions of smokers apparently accepted at face value, at least until 1964 (and judging by the continued tobacco lawsuits of smokers who started smoking since then, even after 1964)....willful ignorance that ultimately led to a reversal of the accepted benign position.
That's just one of the potential downfalls I see to legalization for many of those who support it. The states and insurance companies have handsomely paid scientists who dedicate their professional lives to cooking up as many new horrific consequences as possible for cigarette smoking. Why? Because states and insurance companies profit mightily, in their own respective ways, by raising the threat assessment that arises from tobacco use. They don't have a strong incentive at this stage to tout the "health risks" associated with marijuana smoking, but if it becomes legal, do you really expect that to continue? A new batch of scientists will produce dozens of new studies showing "never-before recognized consequences" to marijuana smoking as a justification to, respectively, raise marijuana "sin taxes" and raise insurance premiums on marijuana smokers to account for their "high-risk lifestyle".
With that in mind, I don't think the health risks, or lack thereof, related to marijuana will ultimately matter in the event of legalization. Studies WILL be produced arriving at the preordained conclusion of those funding the study that "marijuana smoking in fact is a serious health risk" as justification for those new sin taxes and insurance premiums. Furthermore, legalization would likely put the production and distribution of marijuana into corporate hands, which historically means a more "streamlined" manufacturing process likely to involve chemicals and preservatives that may not exist in the current black market. So even if pre-legalization marijuana is not medically dangerous, isn't it likely that post-legalization marijuana would be?
Don't get me wrong here. In theory, I support legalization of marijuana, but I've come to realize that government would almost certainly screw it up and I foresee no end of consequences unforeseen by current legalization advocates that are very likely to negate any expected benefit that may emerge through legalization. Massachusetts' new law seems like a baby step on a road to inevitable legalization, but I hope supporters realize existing problems are very unlikely to go away and new problems will certainly emerge with an almost certainly incompetent government and corporate oversight of the transition.