Prior to passage of Question 2, opponents made it quite clear that police discovered most possession offenses under circumstances where the police would know the name of the offender. Police have ways of getting people to identify themselves, even though everyone has the right to remain silent when questioned. Nothing has changed.

The law has not been in effect long enough to determine if there is a significant scofflaw problem. The problem is not Question 2, but the absurd construction of the law by the District Court Chief Justice’s Office that determined that a criminal complaint application for those who fail to pay or request a hearing is not available under the new law. I submit that just as with a leash law violation, violators who fail to pay or request a hearing risk the police department’s seeking a criminal complaint against them.

The $100 fine and forfeiture of the still contraband cannabis is disincentive enough to those who may consume exposed to the public or in public buildings. More important to a government of laws and not men is the incentive the fine should provide for consistent enforcement of the new law, though the fines are a poor substitute for the revenue constitutionally firm, wholesome and reasonable regulation would raise.

Read the entire post at Epstein: Give decriminalization a chance to work

NORML Blog » Blog Archive » Snapshots from Boston: Update on Commonwealth v. Cusick and Stroup
NORML Founder and Legal Counsel Keith Stroup dishes the latest on his court case, where he and High Times’ Rick Cusick are being prosecuted for smoking a joint on the Boston Common during the 2007 Freedom Rally.

More video from Rick Cusick, Dr. Lester Grinspoon, and Steve Epstein follow after the jump…