Tom Kiley
Cape Cod Times

As a former first assistant attorney general, a lifelong resident of Massachusetts, a father of three and both drafter and original signatory to Question 2, I've dedicated my professional life to creating a safer and more just commonwealth. And by ending the creation of permanent arrest records for minor marijuana offenders, dealing with juvenile marijuana use in a stricter yet more responsible way and saving taxpayers an estimated $30 million a year, that's exactly what Question 2 will do.

Question 2 creates a civil penalty system for personal possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. It replaces arrest and booking for such minor offenses with a citation and a fine similar to a speeding ticket. Funds generated from the fines stay in the community where the offense occurred to be used as that community deems appropriate.

Marijuana remains illegal under Question 2 and all related laws — including laws banning sales, distribution and trafficking — remain unchanged. Additionally, Question 2 in no way affects laws or regulations prohibiting driving under the influence or workplace intoxication.

Question 2 ends the creation of permanent arrest records known as Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) reports and the collateral sanctions resulting from the 7,500 low-level marijuana arrests conducted each year. CORIs are generated solely upon arrest — meaning you can be exonerated, have the charges dropped or the criminal charge sealed, yet still carry this record for life — imperiling your ability to gain employment, housing and loans for school. CORIs also cost individuals their ability to adopt children, get bank loans, obtain professional licenses and many other means to becoming productive members of their families and communities.

Question 2 also takes a more proactive approach to juveniles than current law. Persons under 18 will have the citation delivered to a parent or guardian, so the family's immediately involved. Instead of worrying about attorneys, court dates and navigating the criminal justice system, families can focus on the young person.

Under Question 2, young people must complete a drug awareness program and community service as well, so there are immediate, appropriate consequences to their actions.

Some would have you believe that if we pass this sensible measure, Massachusetts will end up awash in marijuana. But research shows that's plain nonsense.

Eleven other states have enacted similar laws without the sky falling. In fact, in a study commissioned by the White House, the National Research Council found that marijuana use rates are not affected by changing the penalty system for simple possession. And just this year, the World Health Organization released the largest international research study to date on illicit drug use rates and arrived at a similar conclusion.

The fact is it's been proven that the severity of a marijuana law has no impact on marijuana use. And not only does our current law fail to achieve its goal, it comes with a hefty price tag.

According to Harvard economist Dr. Jeffrey Miron, Question 2 will save taxpayers almost $30 million a year in arrest, booking and basic court costs alone. And this doesn't include any additional court costs, probation costs or loss of taxable earnings due to a person's inability to work or to go to school after the loss of a driver's license due to the offense.

Question 2 will keep these funds where they belong — in community coffers, where they're desperately needed for local programs and to fight violent, serious crimes.

Question 2 is a good, modest public policy proposal that will improve our laws, conserve taxpayer resources, and remove these outrageous lifelong penalties. I invite all my fellow Bay Staters to join me in voting "yes" on Question 2 this November.

Tom Kiley is a lawyer in private practice in Boston.