With the election only days away, most coverage focuses on the two presidential candidates, a contest seen by many as an epic face off of cosmic proportions. However, ballots around the country will be filled with other important questions, and voters will make decisions that will arguably affect them more directly than the outcome of the presidential race. Here in Massachusetts, we have only three binding questions (Californian students would be stunned by the brevity of the Massachusetts ballot), but they are very important. Out-of-state or underage Brandeis students may be subject to changes in law even if they cannot vote on them. That is all the more reason why those of us native to Massachusetts should vote and vote wisely.

A particularly balanced, reasoned and yet controversial proposal is Question 2, which would partially decriminalize marijuana possession in the commonwealth.

If the question passes, possession of less than an ounce of marijuana would result in its confiscation and a small fine, a civil rather than a criminal offense. Under current law, even possession of small amounts can result in criminal charges, which appear on one's permanent record and could put everything from job prospects to college loans in jeopardy.

Marijuana possession currently can incur a six-month jail term and a $500 fine. A criminal offender record information report, better known as a CORI, is routinely checked by employers, especially for positions that involve working with children.

A criminal record is also a major obstacle to anyone interested in a career in law enforcement. That didn't stop the district attorneys for Suffolk County, the Cape and Middlesex County, the latter of which includes Waltham and my hometown of Framingham, from trying marijuana as youths. According to the Boston Globe, all three tried the drug but are now chief opponents of Question 2.

This doesn't exactly make them hypocrites, as many supporters of the decriminalization feel that it does. People change their minds between the time they are college students and when they are DAs of large urban and metro areas. Many people involved in law enforcement tend to support laws banning drugs, although not all do, as Jack Cole of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition made clear at a recent event at Brandeis.

However, the experience of the DAs demonstrates a major reason that marijuana should be decriminalized. Those men literally are successful attorneys today because they weren't caught using drugs decades ago.

The use of weed didn't seriously damage or alter these men's lives but getting caught and charged criminally would have. It isn't hypocritical to oppose something in theory just because you've done it in the past, but it is unreasonable to support prohibition and excessive penalties for something that you tried without lasting detriment to your health or success. The experience of using marijuana and avoiding any real harm just by not getting caught is shared by many of the 100 million Americans who admit to having tried the drug.

Opponents such as these DAs argue that loosening drug laws will just encourage drug use, creating an impression that it is culturally acceptable. One need only refer to a list of movies and songs that explicitly feature marijuana use to see that the drug is already culturally prevalent.

It's true that some studies indicate declines in drug use among minors in recent years, but at the same time, studies by the Federal Office of National Drug Control Policy indicate that marijuana potency is at its highest point in history.

According to the World Health Organization, the United States still has the highest rate of marijuana and cocaine use in the world. These facts stand despite the prohibitionist efforts pushed by our current laws.

A yes vote on Question 2 still allows for rigorous prevention efforts among minors, who, if caught, would face civil penalties and be required to complete a community service and drug education program.

The idea that the threat of incarceration is the appropriate tool to prevent marijuana use among minors, let alone adults, is preposterous. A yes vote supports a humane and balanced approach to marijuana regulation.