The initiative, known as Question 2, will reduce the criminal penalties for carrying an ounce or less of marijuana to civil penalties and exclude information related to the offense from an offender’s permanent criminal record.

Supporters of Question 2 generally cite the growing prison population of petty drug users, the inability for offenders to get a government job with a marijuana possession charge on their record, and the over-allocation of law enforcement resources toward catching marijuana users instead of violent criminals.

To the opposition however, the passing of this question means something else. Greg Collins, the President of the UMass Republican Club, believes that the passing of the question does not send the right message. Collins said that supporters “just wanted more freedom to use marijuana” and that “if [marijuana is] more readily available, people will have the incentive to use it more.”

Brad DeFlumeri, vice president of the UMass Republican Club, agrees.

“I don’t think it sets a very good precedent in terms of deterrent. I think one of the major purposes of law is to deter people from behavior that we would call criminal. It endorses a negative behavior that our society should not accept as acceptable behavior,” he said.

DeFlumeri believes that had the law stayed as it was, less people would have taken the risk of jeopardizing their future by using or possessing drugs.

“If somebody gets arrested for marijuana possession and later wants to go to a state school and apply for financial aid under the old statute, they would become ineligible for governmental financial aid and I’m pretty sure that young man or woman is deterred from using marijuana again or possessing it. I think that’s a good thing,” said DeFlumeri.

Collins stated that he would have considered supporting the initiative if there had been more education involved, such as the implementation of more drug prevention programs for youth. He believes that as a result of the question passing, the threat of being caught with marijuana is gone.

“There won’t be that threat of being criminalized for it. I don’t think decriminalization solved any problems,” he said.

Another major concern for the opposition is that there could be more people making irresponsible decisions, as well as more drivers on the road who are under the influence of drugs now that marijuana is decriminalized. DeFlumeri agreed with these concerns and raised another question as well.

“What is now stopping an eighteen-year-old from…getting high when they run the same risk of being civilly charged of possessing marijuana as they do of being charged for going over the speed limit? I never heard the argument that someone didn’t want to drive because of the potential of getting a speeding ticket. It’s no more dangerous to possess marijuana than it is to run a red light or speed,” he said.

DeFlumeri also dismisses the argument that passing the question would allow law enforcement more time to devote to other crimes. He said that 11 district attorneys from Massachusetts were adamantly against the passing of the question, reasoning that “it wouldn’t necessarily clear up law enforcement or the criminal justice system.” DeFlumeri cites the district attorney’s opposition as the main reason for his disapproval of Question 2.

Collins further stated that students will not benefit from the marijuana decriminalization initiative, and that they have only gained “freedom without moral responsibility.”

“I don’t think decriminalizing marijuana would have any substantive benefit towards students doing better in school or making more responsible decisions,” he said.

According to Emily J. LaGrassa, spokeswoman for the state attorney general, the ballot question will go into effect on Jan. 2.