State and county law enforcement officials are encountering major obstacles in trying to implement the voter-approved decriminalization of less than an ounce of marijuana, with a month remaining before the new law takes effect.

State and county law enforcement officials are encountering major obstacles in trying to implement the voter-approved decriminalization of less than an ounce of marijuana, with a month remaining before the new law takes effect.

Gov. Deval Patrick’s top public safety aide has been working with district attorneys to conceive the tools necessary to enforce the voter mandate, which imposes civil rather than criminal penalties. But law enforcement officials call the law such a drastic shift from current policies that assembling the implementation package is nearly impossible given the timeframe. The Legislature, which has no formal sessions scheduled before the law is due to take effect in early January, appears unlikely to make changes to the new law before then.

Training police, developing an education program for juveniles arrested for possession, issuing civil citations, and working with schools and colleges to align anti-pot rules have all proved problematic for Patrick administration officials as they hold meetings with officials from several administration agencies and law enforcement.

“I don’t see how they can possibly do this,” said Geline Williams, executive director of the Mass. District Attorneys Association. “Even if you only addressed the issue of police education, if that was the only thing you did, perhaps it would be doable.”

Williams said police groups have questioned whether officers would be subject to civil action if they arrest someone in possession of a quantity of marijuana that is later found to be less than an ounce, or whether officers would be permitted to search a vehicle if they saw a marijuana cigarette, or “joint,” as allowed under current law.

“There are very, very significant implementation problems,” Williams said. “The DAs saw this coming, as did the attorney general.”

“There are some very serious issues which aren’t necessarily going to get resolved,” said Berkshire County District Attorney David Capeless.

Question 2 passed with about 65 percent of the vote, making Massachusetts the 12th state to decriminalize marijuana, and the first to do so through the ballot, rather than legislation or the courts.

“I think that people are going to wake up to the fact that this wasn’t the very simple piece of legislation it was sold to them as,” Capeless said.

A spokeswoman from the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy did not return phone calls seeking comment.

One top lawmaker said corrective measures were unlikely before the effective date, but that bills would probably be filed for the legislative session that begins next month.

“I don’t at this point anticipate anything [passing before the end of the year],” said House Judiciary Committee chair Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty. “However, at least on my end, that doesn’t prevent a member or the governor, or whoever else, the DAs collectively, [from] recommending that anything be done. There isn’t anything proactively going on in our committee currently on that issue.”

O’Flaherty said, “I would imagine some piece of legislation or pieces of legislation could be filed for the upcoming session.”

The Patrick administration was reluctant to discuss behind-the-scenes deliberations over how to respond to the new policy. Immediately after the Nov. 4 vote, Patrick instructed Public Safety Secretary Kevin Burke to lead the implementation process.

“We’re confident we can work out a solution,” said Patrick spokesman Joe Landolfi, adding, “We’ve heard from law enforcement that there are some concerns.”

Landolfi said, “You’re going to have to stay tuned for specifics.”

Earlier, a Burke spokesman was less forthcoming

“Nobody’s going to talk to you about this,” Terrel Harris, a spokesman for state Public Safety Secretary Kevin Burke, a former prosecutor, told the News Service Tuesday afternoon.

Brian McNiff, a spokesman for Secretary of State William Galvin, who oversees elections, said Tuesday that he expected election results, including initiative petition outcomes, to be certified Wednesday by the Governor’s Council. Under the constitution, he said, the marijuana law would take effect 30 days later.

“Whether there are some efforts underway by the DA’s to extend the effective date is sort of beyond the scope,” McNiff said. “I don’t know how they would do that.”

Executive Office of Public Safety officials have been meeting with law enforcement, district attorneys, Attorney General Martha Coakley, court officials, Executive Office of Health and Human Services, Department of Youth Services, Department of Public Health, and elementary and secondary education officials. The meetings “continue as we work to establish a civil regulatory structure that doesn’t currently exist,” Harris said in an email.

Asked whether there was an effort underway to circumvent the law, Harris said, “Not to my knowledge.”

Patrick has frequently touted transparency as a cornerstone of his administration. Asked why the administration was so silent about implementation of one of the most significant changes ever to the state’s drug laws, Harris said, “When the time comes, we’ll talk about it.”

Coakley, who joined Patrick and county prosecutors in opposing Question 2, also declined an invitation to discuss the new law. A spokeswoman said Burke’s office was “coordinating issues around implementation.”

In lobbying against the proposal, the state’s district attorneys called it an “extreme departure” from current law that would leave the $100 fine for possessing and carrying less than an ounce of marijuana, with a street value of between $200 and $600, at less than a fine for speeding.

Former assistant attorney general Thomas Kiley, who drafted the language of Question 2, told the News Service before the election that he wrote the petition to take advantage of existing citation mechanisms but that the law could require additional changes from the Legislature.

“If there are any deficiencies whatsoever, perceived or not perceived, the Legislature can deal with them immediately,” said Kiley in October.

On the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association web site, prosecutors say decriminalization “emboldens and enables drug dealers to use our kids to sell their product with minimal risk of meaningful consequences.” They also say today’s pot is nine times stronger than the marijuana of the 1960s and 70s.

Williams said the voter law protects especially potent marijuana, to the point where the drug is upgraded from a Class D substance to Class C, under the civil clause.

Prosecutors also say current laws mandate leniency for first-time offenders and the new law will make civil fines for marijuana possession open for public inspection, stripping away current privacy rights. They claim further that there is a link between pot use and motor vehicle crashes, that the law is a step towards full legalization of marijuana, and that claims of reduced police administrative costs are incorrect.

Under the new policy, the Department of Youth Services would provide classroom education for anyone under 18 cited for marijuana possession. But Williams called DYS, which deals largely with incarceration, the wrong agency to handle that task. To shift the education responsibility to another agency, the law would have to be changed.

“There is no mechanism, no funding, and, sort of, no clue as to how this is going to be done,” Williams said.

Public schools and colleges have also asked for guidance, because the new law forbids entities associated with the Commonwealth from imposing any “form of penalty, sanction or disqualification on an offender,” leaving open the possibility of drastically more lenient student drug policies, officials said. Williams said public schools with “three strikes” rules for marijuana possession could be prohibited from taking action.

Capeless said the provision would also likely apply to foster parents, bus drivers and public safety officials, who could be effectively exempted from further punitive action by employers.

“That’s a pretty broad statement, and people are going to find out that that’s going to hamstring them from doing very reasonable policies,” he said.