Marijuana Policy Project

Lawmakers in Vermont and New Hampshire will be listening in the next few weeks to arguments pro and con on proposals to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana.

People on both sides have passionate views and all viewpoints should be listened to. Twelve states have already passed similar laws.

Under the proposals, people could be fined for having small amounts of marijuana, but people found guilty of using pot would not have criminal records and likely would not serve time in jail.

To be sure, some law enforcement officials have legitimate arguments against the proposal.

But proponents of the change also make sense when they say police could better spend resources cracking down on serious criminals instead of spending their time arresting, processing and testifying against people who occasionally use pot to get high.

People who make such reasoned arguments should not be dismissed as far-out potheads who want to give society another play toy.

It's hard to argue with some of their views.

Jails are full of drug users who have never committed a violent crime. Keeping people incarcerated is an expensive proposition, and it is legitimate to ask if society is benefiting from putting pot users behind bars.

Former Vermont attorney general Kimberly Cheney recalled prosecuting pot users 45 years ago. There were very few users at that time, she said. Prosecutors have spent the better part of five decades going after marijuana users and "it's inundating us," she said.

"My view is if what you're doing doesn't work, do something else," Cheney said.

The war on drugs — and the war on marijuana in particular — has created lots of problems. It has driven the marijuana industry underground. It has cost the states a lot of money in new jail construction and it has diverted police attention from other pressing issues.

Is this to say the decriminalization laws should be approved? Not necessarily. There is a lot of debate and discussion yet to take place.

But it is to say that the opponents of existing laws raise good points - points that need public airing.

In the coming months, it would be good to hear both sides debate the effect the change would have on police and society in general.

Is marijuana use the first step toward use of more dangerous substances? Could police time be better spent on investigating other kinds of crime? Would society be better served by funding educational programs - rather than police action - aimed at convincing people not to smoke pot?

Let's get at the facts and avoid the emotion that is often connected to marijuana.