Is history repeating itself? Or are Bristol County's best known law-enforcement officials trying to use child psychology on the voters?

The questions come to mind in the wake of a press conference last Friday, where District Attorney Sam Sutter, three mayors and representatives of 19 police departments registered their opposition to Question 2 on November's ballot.

The proponents of Question 2, which would impose fines rather than jail time for possession of marijuana, ought to send Sutter and Co. a thank you card. With Wall Street rumbling, the McCain-Obama show playing in theaters everywhere, the Patriots actually losing a home game, and another ballot question to repeal the state income tax creating a rather loud buzz - forgive the pun - the pot decriminalization measure hadn't been getting much attention.

As for the history that is or isn't being repeated here, we had in mind the events of 1973, when Massachusetts decriminalized public drunkenness. If memory serves, the regional law-enforcement establishment opposed that measure, saying, then as now, that it would send the wrong message.

Alas, memory has been acting like a bad waiter of late, spilling as much as it serves, and I'm unable to find the clippings, or even specific dates, for the run-up to the change where being drunk in public stopped being a crime in Massachusetts. For all I can tell, local police chiefs and district attorneys led the crusade to replace the crime of drunkenness with the civil infraction of public intoxication (but I doubt it). In either event, what history of the decriminalization of drunkenness in Massachusetts is available on Google indicates that one result was that it sent more messages to more problem drinkers. Yep.

The psychologists who studied the phenomenon called it "paradoxical," but found that the use of jail cells to house drunks went up considerably in 10 Boston suburbs after decriminalization went into effect 36 years ago.

It doesn't look paradoxical from here. One option allowed under decriminalization was to send the public intoxicant home. Another was a trip to a detox center. Now that an arrest record and time in the county lockup were no longer threatened, family members were just saying "keep him," and some drunks were deciding it was time for detox.

Reduced paper work and the eliminated necessity of running the police department budget up with a trip to court to jail a drunk were also factors in the increase of jail time for drunkenness after it was no longer a crime.

As for the suggestion that Sutter and Co. were using reverse psychology, that was meant in jest. We don't really think they're trying to bring out a pro vote from the usual suspects by feigning to be against the measure.

But if a fine is imposed for possession of amounts less than one ounce - $100 for first offense, more for subsequent offenses under varying proposals - it's likely to lead to an increase in the number of marijuana incidents reported by police.

At the present, you hardly ever hear of an arrest solely for simple possession of marijuana (possession with intent to sell is another matter). It's usually an add-on charge, as when a baggie is found in the glove compartment for a speeding stop or in the pocket of a suspect in a break-in or somesuch. Exceptions that have hit the papers include a young teen acting up in a Foxboro backyard or a Southeastern Regional Vocational Technical student caught when marijuana was found in his locker during a drug sweep.

From the record, or a look around the Comcast Center parking lot before the right concert, police are largely looking the other way as regards simple possession of marijuana. Writing out a $100 or $250 fine, while not threatening the offender with a criminal record is an option that would likely turn their heads.

MARK FLANAGAN (mflanagan@thesunchronicle.com) is Opinion Page editor of The sun Chronicle. He can be reached at 508-236-0335.