Worcester's Marijuana Initiative

As predicted, the Worcester City Council will be working on a new ordinance to "deal with" the perceived fallout from the enactment of Massachusetts Question 2, which decriminalized possession of an ounce or less of marijuana.

I can certainly understand the confusion. But there's a difference between confusion caused by drug use and confusion caused by a lifetime of indoctrination. The former is temporary, while the latter is most likely permanent.

If you've ever watched the film "It's a Wonderful Life" then you'll remember George Bailey's public behavior, reeling down Main Street, shouting out loving remarks to various inanimate fixtures, familiar to him around the town. Back then, America was different. Today, such behavior would get you arrested, charged with being intoxicated (whether you actually are or not) and disturbing the peace.

Today, you can't be Foster Brooks in public. You can't be Frankie Fontaine or Dean Martin, either. But 75 years after Prohibition was repealed, you can possess and use alcohol without any fear of having your life ruined... and the businesses surrounding the manufacture, distribution, and sale of alcohol are no longer associated with neighborhood gangs and murder.

Today it's the acquisition, distribution, and sale of prohibited drugs that's associated with neighborhood gangs and murder. Those who have been unable to fully understand the societal issues surrounding drug prohibition can hardly be faulted for their lifetime of indoctrination. They are not stupid people. Given the information they have to work with, their logic is impeccable. Unfortunately, the information they have is severely limited and highly skewed.

Three generations of propaganda and disinformation is very difficult to undo, especially when it comes to marijuana. The prospect of George Bailey turning into Tommy Chong, for instance, would be a most frightening vision for the fully indoctrinated...

But that's the sort of thing that will be fueling the enactment of any city ordinances to "handle the confusion" surrounding the passage of Question 2. It isn't a matter of protecting the public, or making the city safer. It isn't a matter of preventing harm from coming to anyone. It's a matter of personal perception and fear of something that, quite frankly, is not now, nor ever was a problem at all.

It's already an arrestable offence to go reeling around in public like George Bailey, no matter whether you're drunk, stoned, or just plain loopy.

The most ridiculous argument, however, is that the Worcester Police Department is in any way "powerless" as to who they might decide to arrest and lock up at any given moment.