In my recent Phoenix article, “Blunt Object,”
regarding Commonwealth marijuana reform, I guessed that Attorney General Martha
Coakley would decline to scold the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association
(MDAA) for allegedly publishing lies on its web site about the Committee for
Sensible Marijuana Policy (CSMP) and its Question 2 ballot initiative. I
predicted this for two reasons: 1 – While I believe that the district attorneys
who are lined up against marijuana decriminalization have absolutely bent the
truth, I assumed that they were smart enough to avoid legally slandering their
opponents; and 2 – Coakley is aligned with the district attorneys both
professionally and on this issue in particular, and no self-respecting attorney
general chooses ethical integrity over political camaraderie.
Let’s have a
quick recap of the CSMP complaints, one by one, with summaries of the positions
that Attorney General Coakley’s office took on them:
1 – The CSMP
claims the following MDAA statement to be false: “The proposed petition
decriminalizes the possession of up to an ounce of marijuana; consequently, any
person may carry and use marijuana at any time, thus ‘normalizing’ its use.” It
seems the MDAA covered its ass by throwing quotes around “normalize,” because
Coakley’s Deputy Chief Peter Sacks, who wrote the response, alleges that the
definition of “normalize” is thus a matter of opinion rather than a provable
falsehood. Furthermore, since the proposal only authorizes (but does not
require) municipalities to “explicitly forbid public use” of marijuana, it’s
cool for the MDAA to scare people into thinking that if Question 2 passes
everyone from bus drivers to grade school teachers will be habitually burning
spliffs.
2 – The CSMP
claims the following MDAA statement to be false: “Decriminalization will
reverse a recently documented positive trend in youth marijuana use.” I’m siding
with Coakley on this one; not only does the CSMP lack adequate evidence to
counter this allegation, but I’m fairly certain that kids will have easier (or
at least the same) access to weed if this measure passes. However, I do differ
from the district attorneys in that I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad
thing, particularly if young people will no longer be subjected to Criminal
Offender Record Information (CORI) reports that will eternally screw their
attempts at finding college loans, employment, and housing assistance.
3 – The CSMP
claims the following MDAA statement to be false: “There is a direct link
between marijuana use and criminal activity.” I suppose this is why I’d be a
shitty lawyer, but I don’t understand how, according to the attorney general’s
office (and the legal system, I suppose), “lack of evidence of truth does not
amount to proof of falsehood.” If the MDAA is so sure of this direct link, and
the district attorneys have access to a wealth of criminal statistics, then why
shouldn’t they have to (and better yet, why can’t they) provide resounding
evidence of this “direct link?”
4 – The CSMP
claims the following MDAA statement to be false: “There is a direct link
between marijuana use and motor vehicle crashes.” Marijuana reformers argued
that this statement is irrelevant because there is no evidence that the passage
of Question 2 would lead to increased marijuana use. Naturally, such self-sabotage
led Coakley’s office to reject this claim on grounds that Massachusetts campaign law “does not
prohibit the making of irrelevant statements in ballot question campaigns.”
5 – The CSMP
claims the following MDAA statement to be false: “There is a direct link
between marijuana use and workplace safety.” While I’m aware that the attorney
general is able to legally quash the first four allegations on quasi-legitimate
grounds, Coakley’s response to this particular grievance truly displays her
inability to objectively evaluate CSMP allegations. Rather than stating the old
“lack of evidence of truth does not amount to proof of falsehood,” Coakley’s
office simply decided that it prefers the MDAA evidence more than it does
studies offered by the CSMP. Furthermore, while the attorney general goes to
great lengths in referencing the MDAA Web site to defend the district attorneys,
marijuana reformers are strictly held to evidence cited in the CSMP complaint.
In conclusion, I
recommend that the CSMP stop attempting to fight establishment bullies on their
own turf. There’s no winning, especially when the honcho making decisions is admittedly
on the other side (and refuses to acknowledge a conflict of interest). Marijuana
smokers, reformers, and advocates should simply spread the message about what
Question 2 would actually do if passed. Those
who aren’t capable of understanding the reality of the situation are either Massachusetts district
attorneys, law enforcement officials who were conned into opposing this
measure, or close-minded opponents of the truth who are voting no on Question 2
anyway.
Latest Slideshows
