cannabisnews.com: Activists Look To Decriminalize Marijuana
Activists Look To Decriminalize Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on November 26, 2007 at 16:03:31 PT
By The Associated Press
Source: Boston Herald
Boston, Massachusetts -- Activists pushing a ballot question to decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of marijuana say it will save the state millions of dollars in law enforcement costs and spare thousands of state residents from arrest.Instead of facing a criminal record, those caught with a small amount of marijuana for personal use would instead pay a civil fine of $100 — much like a traffic ticket.
Backers say they’ve already collected 105,000 signatures, far more than the 67,000 required to get the question on the 2008 ballot. Those signatures have to be delivered to the secretary of state’s office next week.They said the tide of public opinion is on their side. They point to more than two dozen nonbinding referendum questions placed on local ballots in Massachusetts in the past six years. In each, a majority of voters supported the idea of decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana.About a dozen states have already adopted similar laws."The public is definitely in favor of this," said Whitney Taylor of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy. "The science and the voters are ahead of the politicians."Surprisingly, some of the toughest criticism of the proposed ballot question is coming from other activist groups also pushing for the decriminalization of marijuana.They point to a portion of the proposed ballot question that would define possession of marijuana to include finding traces of the drug "in the urine, blood, saliva, sweat, hair, fingernails, toe nails or other tissue or fluid of the human body.""It uses the drug laws to identify marijuana smokers not who are impaired, but who might have smoked in the past six weeks or so," Keith Stroup, founder of NORML, a national nonprofit group advocating for the easing of marijuana laws."If it makes it to the ballot, a lot of people who would be strong supporters of decriminalizing marijuana may not be able to support this fatally flawed language," said Stroup, who was arrested for smoking a marijuana cigarette at a rally on Boston Common.Longtime marijuana activist Steven Epstein, of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, said the group hasn’t decided if they will support the question.He said under the question, a person who smoked marijuana in a location where it is legal could be fined weeks later after returning to Massachusetts.He pointed to another potential glitch in the ballot question, which equates an ounce of marijuana with an ounce of tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient of the marijuana — essentially a much more concentrated version of the drug."It won’t kill anybody and should probably be legal too, but will the voters of Massachusetts support it?" said Epstein, who said he hasn’t decided whether he will vote in favor of the question if it reaches the ballot.Other critics say they oppose decriminalizing any amount of marijuana, saying it could send a signal to children that smoking pot is no big deal.Michael Mather, a retired police officer and head of the anti-drug education group DARE-Massachusetts, says easing the marijuana laws is a bad idea. "It’s not the right thing to do to our youth. Our youth needs to be strong and not have these drugs inside of them," he said.He also said marijuana could act as a so-called "gateway drug" to other, more harmful drugs."I’m not saying that everyone who smokes pot will do heroin, but almost everyone who does heroin didn’t start out with heroin," he said.Marijuana activists dismiss the gateway argument."It’s like saying every one who rides a bicycle goes on to ride a motorcycle," Taylor said.The ballot question isn’t the only effort underway to ease the state’s drug laws.A bill working its way through the Statehouse would also decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of the drug, but set a higher fine of $250.The bill has already received a public hearing, but won’t come up for debate and a possible vote until next year.Asked if he would support the bill, Gov. Deval Patrick said Monday he was focused on other priorities.Complete Title: Activists Look To Decriminalize Small Amounts of MarijuanaOn the Net:NORML: http://www.norml.org/Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy: http://www.sensiblemarijuanapolicy.org/Source: Boston Herald (MA)Published: Monday, November 26, 2007 Copyright: 2007 Boston Herald and Herald MediaWebsite: http://www.bostonherald.com/Contact: letterstoeditor bostonherald.comRelated Articles:Creating a Sensible Marijuana Lawhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23501.shtmlLesser Charges Sought for Marijuana Possessionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread23493.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #50 posted by museman on December 01, 2007 at 13:47:49 PT
runruff
Remember what our old mutual friend Nehria used to say?"Give me liberty or die!" I like that one too.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #49 posted by Taylor121 on November 30, 2007 at 06:16:31 PT
Question for you boston
"This MPP wording is bunk, they ignored every plea from the local community and in many ways attacked any of us that asked questions. They told us in public on at least three occasions that they would use the bill that is before the state house and then went with another. Some would call that lying.?Does the state bill do anything to change the definition of marijuana in an earlier section of law to exclude internal possession?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #48 posted by Taylor121 on November 30, 2007 at 06:14:28 PT
Boston, read comment 31
Internal possession appears already illegal. Your friends were never arrested because it is probably rarely enforced and very difficult to enforce. The initiative in front of law-makers does nothing to abolish the internal possession penalties, therefore MPP's initiative is actually better.Current law RIGHT NOW:
Chapter 94c, Section 1“Marihuana”, all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; and resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin.Chapter 94c, Section 31(b) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:Look at comment #31.You can work with the legislator to abolish the internal possession penalties after the initiative passes. I'm urging you to look at the current law and realize this is a step forward, not back.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #47 posted by FoM on November 29, 2007 at 18:33:27 PT
Boston
How can a person get on the ARO list?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #46 posted by FoM on November 29, 2007 at 17:47:17 PT
Boston
Welcome to CNews. I understand what you are saying. I feel full disclosure should be something that is done but that's just me. I am not paid for anything. I am strictly a volunteer. Money can mess up a persons motives.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #45 posted by Hope on November 29, 2007 at 17:35:47 PT
Runruff,
Thanks.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #44 posted by Hope on November 29, 2007 at 17:35:05 PT
Nathan Hale
I must have them confused somehow, or got them confused somewhere along the way. I've been asking myself, why do I seem to remember illustrations of him speaking from the gallows and things like that? Now that you mention Nathan Hale, I suspect that that's what I've done. Anyway, I was very wrong... and I'm quite glad that "Give me liberty or give me death" wasn't a gallows speech.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #43 posted by Boston on November 29, 2007 at 15:37:06 PT
Questioning motives?
"This isn't rocket science people. If the initiative could have been written better, we should be disappointed, but that isn't a reason to not vote for a huge step forward. In fact, if someone is willing to vote against this initiative and says they favor decriminalization at the same time, I have to question their sincerity and their motives."You can question my sincerity but I know that marijuana reform may still be possible through the state legislature. I'm not 100% convinced that I will not support it, but I'm on the fence. The State legislature has a good bill and it is much better than MPP's initiative. More people at the State House seem to be supporting this. And MPP's initiative does help in getting them to move. I am glad for that. I have been working as an unpaid volunteer for marijuana reform for at least 7 years. I am sincere. I think anybody that is a marijuana reform activist, that is speaking on this, should first and foremost reveal the people that fund them. If you are being paid by NORML or MPP, that should be known. Sadly many that take money from MPP, do not and then go onto attack their opponents. That sort of bothers me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #42 posted by Boston on November 29, 2007 at 15:22:25 PT
View of Volunteer Boston Marijuana Reform Activist
I am an unpaid volunteer for the local MASS CANN NORML branch. I have no vested interest. If NORML screws up I will call them on it. Sam Adams calling Keith Stroup "Benedict Arnold" stinks and sounds alot like the words that MPP's local chieftain, Whitney Taylor used in a letter posted to the ARO email list. Interesting that Stroup never disparaged MPP or the people running it but they have chosen to do just that. Almost reminds me of right wing or Clinton like politics. Attack the messenger versus actually addressing the issues.There is a lot that could be said about the people running this initiative. Yet, It wasn't. He just pointed out that he might not be able to support it. Arguing over policy is one thing, calling somebody "Benedict Arnold" is different. I just want decrim and freedom where I have lived all my life.Though some have chosen to attack NORML. Nobody from NORML attacked MPP. They attacked a crappy initiative. I have had many friends arrested for marijuana. Never one for internal. This MPP wording is bunk, they ignored every plea from the local community and in many ways attacked any of us that asked questions. They told us in public on at least three occasions that they would use the bill that is before the state house and then went with another. Some would call that lying. The fact that many of us, myself included are against this and have been working for marijuana reform for years is MPP's problem. I commend National NORML for listening to the local folks in MASSACHUSETTS and having the balls to stick up for us. You might try to contact some of us who live in Mass and are on the front lines, to ask us what we think. I am probably going to be against this new initiative. I will be here long after MPP has rolled up their campaign to go to the next place.Having grown up here, I know it may not pass. Not because people here are against marijuana reform. The large majority support it. But because people here are informed and into politics. With or without NORML this was going to face a tough fight. It's the language, it won't fly in Boston. This aint the heartland. We ask questions. MassCann/NORML has not yet decided as an organization, whether to support it or not. A members meeting is scheduled for Sat. Dec. 8th, 2PM-4:20PM, Pizzeria Uno in Newton, MA. I am told that some reps from MPP will be there to speak in favor and answer questions. The membership of masscann will decide whether or not to support this. The people will decide. We are not a dictatorship but open to all people and they will decide.This is MPP's fault not NORML. NORML did the right thing. I commend them for it. I'm sure it wasn't easy. I have had misgivings about the whole situation. But in the end, right is right.If MPP can't win in MASS, where MASSCANN/NORML is undefeated, that's a problem. MPP alienated a strong base, that is their problem. I hope they at least recognize that they can do better in future dealings with local constituents.
http://myspace.com/band4masscann
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #41 posted by runruff on November 29, 2007 at 09:27:19 PT:
............one life to give to my country.
It was Nathan Hale, the 21-year-old patriot who announced from the gallows as he was about to be hung, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country!" Maybe he was being confused with Patrick Henry who said," give me liberty or give me death!" I've read Nathan Hale's biography, and I've been very inspired by him.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #40 posted by Hope on November 29, 2007 at 08:01:05 PT
Tom and Rollie did personify Patrick Henry's words
"Since his quote reminds some of Robin I want to add it reminds me more so of two other gentlemen who lived the quote for real and died one week before 9-11. They choose liberty and paid the ultimate price for it with their lives. I respect that more than you may understand."
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #39 posted by Hope on November 28, 2007 at 17:15:30 PT
Patrick....
That's such good news. I can't imagine that I believed he was hanged, for no reason. Weird. Someone must have told me that at some point and I just believed it.Patrick Henry has always been one of my heroes. I felt devastated when someone told me that he was in fact, hung by the British.I can't believe I didn't even check it out.My apologies... my glad apologies.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #38 posted by Patrick on November 28, 2007 at 10:22:43 PT
Patrick Henry
He died in his home. No one killed him. “Give me Liberty or Give Me Death.”Came at the end of his speech but in the middle of it there is a part that mentions HOPE…They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free-- if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending--if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained--we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us!Today our battle has been raging for 70 years not 10. I don’t advocate a general call to arms but the government uses arms to subjugate cannabis users in much the same way the British treated the colonists.We all will die but what I think is more important than how we die is how we live.Since his quote reminds some of Robin I want to add it reminds me more so of two other gentlemen who lived the quote for real and died one week before 9-11. They choose liberty and paid the ultimate price for it with their lives. I respect that more than you may understand.Native Americans choose death over slavery as well.This drug war seems to wants my bodily fluids for testing at every turn which in my mind is the modern day form of slavery and subjugation. So I think that famous quote still applies today. Death is inevitable. So, if you prefer chains and urine cups that is your choice in life not mine.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #37 posted by FoM on November 27, 2007 at 18:15:39 PT
Taylor121
I don't think it's the DMV but whoever controls the transportation industry requires testing. There I feel better.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #36 posted by FoM on November 27, 2007 at 17:44:58 PT
Taylor121
I am not up on this but I did a search and I couldn't find any drug testing laws in Massacheutts. I know it is optional for employment and the DMV requires testing but not a general person who might have metabolites in their system with no marijuana in their possession.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #35 posted by fight_4_freedom on November 27, 2007 at 17:30:56 PT:
“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”
I can only think of Robin when I hear this quote.God Bless Her Soul.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #34 posted by fight_4_freedom on November 27, 2007 at 17:29:00 PT:
Option #2 is looking pretty good
"In fact, if someone is willing to vote against this initiative and says they favor decriminalization at the same time, I have to question their sincerity and their motives."Yeah, I can't see any true marijuana reformer voting down on this one. Anything that is going to improve the wrong doing that is going on as we speak should be fully supported. Looks like we might have an exciting November of 08' for this movement.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #33 posted by Hope on November 27, 2007 at 16:59:37 PT
God rest his soul
in peace and freedom.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by Hope on November 27, 2007 at 16:58:40 PT
“Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death”
Always remember... they killed the guy that said that.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by Taylor121 on November 27, 2007 at 16:53:25 PT
Are fluids already illegal in Massachusetts?
Arguably so. I found two definitions that allude to this: Chapter 94c, Section 1 “Marihuana”, all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; and resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. Chapter 94c, Section 31 (b) Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation: (1) MarihuanaIt appears to me that the Marijuana Policy Project hasn't created any new penalties. It looks like internal possession of marijuana in your fluids or anywhere on your body already was illegal in Massachusetts (which makes me wonder how many other states define marijuana like this). The MPP probably included the language for the reasons they already cited in their Reason interview.This means there is absolutely no worthwhile reason not to support the Massachusetts initiative. Here are your options:Option #1: Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana or of any amount of marijuana in your bodily fluids or on your skin constitutes a criminal misdemeanor, a $500 fine, forfeiture of the marijuana, and up to 6 months in jail. Best case scenario is probation with records being sealed upon your first offense. You only have a possibility of probation on your second offense and will have a criminal record (you could be jailed, and probation may not happen at all if you don't plead guilty). With the criminal misdemeanor comes collateral sanctions for the convicted such as: suspension of their driver's licenses, forfeiture of their professional licenses, loss of their right to own a firearm, and ineligibility for adoption, student aid, and unemployment benefits.Option #2: Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana or any amount of marijuana in your bodily fluids or on your skin constitutes a civil fine of $100 that you simply send through the mail and forfeiture of the marijuana. Since it is a civil fine, there are no collateral sanctions for the convicted.I choose Option #2 hands down. This isn't rocket science people. If the initiative could have been written better, we should be disappointed, but that isn't a reason to not vote for a huge step forward. In fact, if someone is willing to vote against this initiative and says they favor decriminalization at the same time, I have to question their sincerity and their motives.http://libertyindex.blogspot.com/2007/11/is-it-already-considered-possession-in.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by fight_4_freedom on November 27, 2007 at 10:40:59 PT:
I just read that statement made by MPP
from your Reason Tv link Taylor. I figured it was only a matter of time before they cleared that up. Now I don't feel so bad about that wording."Just as important, pot smokers would avoid collateral sanctions such as suspension of their driver's licenses, forfeiture of their professional licenses, loss of their right to own a firearm, and ineligibility for adoption, student aid, and unemployment benefits."These are surely some big reasons to support this measure.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by fight_4_freedom on November 27, 2007 at 10:16:09 PT:
Taylor
I definitely agree that a fine is better than jail. And yes, you're probably right as this decrim. initiative has a way better chance of passing than a total legalization try. I guess we have to try and soften them up a little before we pull out the big guns.I didn't mean to put this initiative down in any way. I appreciate and totally support this effort. I apologize for not reading the initiative thoroughly enough before opening my mouth. After carefully reading it all, the benefits of this initiative most definitely outweigh the fine.This is definitely a step in the right direction. I guess I just feel impatient sometimes with this reform. I feel we should go for the hail mary touchdown pass in the endzone, but being that our country has been brainwashed for so long, we have to gain little by little in order to get into scoring position.
Medical Marijuana in Michigan 08'
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by Patrick on November 27, 2007 at 10:08:09 PT
criminalizing metabolites?
So, if you or I have no marijuana on our person, the language in this bill leads me to assume then that all citizens can be considered to be carrying less than an ounce? Since no weed is less than an ounce last time I checked right? If a cop stops me somewhere in the United Police States of Amerika and I have no marijuana in my possession I guess that would now be probable cause to take my hair follicles or urine especially if I am driving? Nice Nazi please don’t tattoo a marijuana leaf on my skin and ship me to Humboldt County Internment Camp #15.I would think at the least the police would need a warrant to search for and test my hair or urine (4th amendment against unreasonable searches)? Not to mention a 5th amendment right to not incriminate ourselves? They’ll have to take my sample by force. Silly me, I forgot the Constitution was used up long ago as toilet paper along with the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus. How could I expect to have any rights left since I am not incorporated? The concept of “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” seems to have died off in this country as a founding principle or meaning of Freedom. To be replaced with “Piss in this Cup or Face a Fine.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by tintala on November 27, 2007 at 09:33:14 PT:
100$ fine, is way to serious of a penalty STILL!
I mean, comon! You don't get a 100$ fine for having a bottle of tequila, or a keg of beer in your HOUSE or CAR.. go buy a carton or 2 of cigarettes which CLEARLY states that smoking can be "hazardous" according to the surgeoun general. but with no consequences from smoking or inhaling cannabis only the LAW is the consequence. IT's just so rediculous this is STILL even a topic of discussion never the less an ISSUE? Im soo sick of it. Tobacco and alcohol kills, my grandpa died of a heart attack from smoking KOOL menthol, last ime i heard drinking and driving was the BIGGEST killer in America besides OBESITY.. not cannabis. My dad would ALWAYS drink and drive when I was a kid, swillin segrams 7 whiskey and coke,while driving, even as a kid i knew that was dangerous.Yet they always punished me for whatever..
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by afterburner on November 27, 2007 at 07:49:40 PT
"currently impaired"?
CN AB: PUB LTE: Impaired Logic, The Calgary Sun, (24 Nov 2007) http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v07/n1363/a01.html?176
Excerpt:
{ It seriously IS time to remove marijuana from workplace drug testing, or at least switch from urine-sample testing to mouth-swab testing. This would capture those "currently impaired" instead of catching those who were impaired two weeks ago last Saturday. }
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by FoM on November 27, 2007 at 06:57:34 PT
Sam
I think both organizations have benefits and faults and will disagree just like the way people in politics do. We might learn something. I am not involved in either organization so I have no preference. I have always stayed out of the fighting. I just don't like the clause. I hope they stay out of my state.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by Sam Adams on November 27, 2007 at 06:40:34 PT
comment on this
Keep something in mind folks - Keith Stroup and others are publicy taking shots at someone's else reform project. MPP raised this money and one thing is 100% for sure - they are doing the best they can to change the laws and help pot smokers in Mass.Stroup and others are choosing to use the precious media exposure they get to attempt to hurt someone else's project. The last time NORML managed to get $500,000 to spend on project, they burned it all on a vindictive ad campaign in NYC that did NOTHING except to create a career enemy of MJ reform in Mayor Bloomberg. I didn't see anyone from MPP going into the media to attack their project at the time.Re: the metabolite law - MANY states already have them - over a dozen. It does sound frightening. But the truth is that next year, 10,000 people will be arrested in Mass. if this referendum does not pass. Virtually all of the arrests will be eliminated if it passes. Also, no one will be sent to jail for parole drug test violations, something that sends many people to jail for nothing more than failing a piss test for cannabis.The ONLY possible people that could be affected by the metabolite laws are people that are pulled over for drunk driving and given a blood test. That is the only situation where the piggies can test your blood for metabolites of anything. If the drunk driver tests postive for MJ metabolites, the WORST they can do is tack on a $100 civil fine, on top of all the criminial sanctions and fees for drunken driving, which are typically several thousand dollars.I know one thing - I'm not sure whether this referendum is the perfect language. But you'll never see me stab my brother in the back. Period. I'm appalled at NORML's behavior. Benedict Arnold city.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by Hope on November 27, 2007 at 06:34:21 PT
The "Clause"
I dont' like the sound of it either.... but I would vote for the initiative and tweak it later, if necessary.It's better to have it pass, than not have it at all. It's much better than the way it is now. I say, "Vote for it, while you can".
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by FoM on November 27, 2007 at 06:15:14 PT
Group: Put Pot on Ballot
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2007/11/27/news/news3.txt
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by FoM on November 26, 2007 at 21:56:21 PT
Taylor121
I think I remember. Making stiffer penalties doesn't help anyone. People can do down right stupid things and cause serious harm to someone and they should be sued and have their license taken away or something along those lines. I believe that people don't want to hurt someone while driving under the influence. Let the insurance companies fight out how much should be paid because that is why we have insurance.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by Taylor121 on November 26, 2007 at 21:44:25 PT
FoM
"I am glad I don't have to decide about voting on it because the clause really bothers me. They had something in the Nevada Initiative too that I didn't like but I can't remember exactly what it was at the moment. I don't believe organizations should fight but they should talk and listen to people like us and others as to how they want to see change. The people are what matter. We live with the laws so we should have a right to say how we feel. Our country isn't only Washington, DC and California."Well I would say to NORML and other people looking to vote on the Mass. to put emotions aside and think about what policy is better. Is it the initiative that would decriminalize marijuana possession which would save millions of dollars and protect thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens from arrest (that just so happens to have one bad clause that will have little ill effect), or a law that would prescribe arresting, jailing, giving a record, denying financial aid, etc. to otherwise law abiding citizens. I think the initiative is clearly a step forward and I'm going to have to urge everyone to support it despite the crappy clause.Oh yeah, FoM, the portion of the Nevada initiative you didn't like was the one that doubled the maximum penalty (not the mandatory minimum) for killing or hurting someone while under the influence of alcohol or drugs on the road. I don't see how you could oppose legalizing marijuana just because of that clause, even if you oppose it. However, to each their own.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by Taylor121 on November 26, 2007 at 21:38:21 PT
Reason Online picks up the subject
Reason Online has picked up the decrim story and talked to the MPP about it. Perhaps we were all too quick to judge?: The Marijuana Policy Project, the D.C.-based group backing the initiative, says internal possession is already arguably illegal in Massachusetts. MPP says it included internal possession to keep the initiative simple and to preclude the government from punishing a positive test result more severely than holding a bag of pot. Overall I think the outright opposition to the initiative is a bit overdone.http://reason.com/blog/show/123657.html
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by FoM on November 26, 2007 at 21:36:59 PT
Taylor121
I am glad I don't have to decide about voting on it because the clause really bothers me. They had something in the Nevada Initiative too that I didn't like but I can't remember exactly what it was at the moment. I don't believe organizations should fight but they should talk and listen to people like us and others as to how they want to see change. The people are what matter. We live with the laws so we should have a right to say how we feel. Our country isn't only Washington, DC and California.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by The GCW on November 26, 2007 at 21:35:26 PT
A good step is not a perfect step.
I would favor completly re-legalizing the relatively safe God-given plant cannabis&impose a $250 fine for discriminating against responsible adult cannabis users.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by Taylor121 on November 26, 2007 at 21:00:25 PT
FoM
"Thank you. I am getting very tired of being kicked around. I try to always be nice but I can stand against what I find offensive as we all should."Heh, not problem. I will criticize the flawed wording in that one section, but for utilitarian reasons, I would probably vote for the initiative as it is a positive step forward and will help more than hurt. As a matter of practicality with respect to funding and other things, NORML and others shouldn't go against the initiative, rather they should support it while preparing to lobby to change the flawed portion of an overall positive initiative.Even though I'm basically saying I would vote for it and others shouldn't be so against it, I still am very angry that a flawed piece of language was included in the bill, but I can't let anger blind me from the reality that the initiative is an overall positive change.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by Taylor121 on November 26, 2007 at 20:55:47 PT
fight4freedom
MPP is funding Michigan's Medical Marijuana Initiative, and to me they did a magnificent on the text of it. Plus with all the other initiatives they've done successfully, it's hard to imagine them adding this flaw to such a big initiative."I would really like to hear what they (MPP) have to say about this part of the initiative. It just doesn't seem like such a great organization would add such a bad clause."It was extremely sloppy and careless. It's also possible the flaw was included by the Committee For Sensible Marijuana Policy and not the MPP directly."And then to go through all this work, get all those signatures, go through such a tough process and long haul.....yet even if it passes you'll still have to pay a $100 fine for possessing this beautiful herb."I disagree with you here. I support the fine rather than an arrest,jail, and record as an intermediate step that has a much better chance of passing than outright legalization. I promise you legalization for adults for recreational purposes would fail in Mass. right now. A $100 fine is a HUGE step forward as it would save millions of dollars, allow police to target violent people, and it would save thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens an arrest, jail, fine, and probation of a marijuana offense.But as you said, you know why they're doing it like this :) It's just that on provision that bothers me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by RevRayGreen on November 26, 2007 at 20:40:27 PT
I'm all for a 'Freedom-Tax'
instead of jail, probation...etc.....$$$$$.....now can we choose how what this "freedom-tax" goes toward ?
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by fight_4_freedom on November 26, 2007 at 20:32:40 PT:
I'm with you Taylor
MPP is funding Michigan's Medical Marijuana Initiative, and to me they did a magnificent on the text of it. Plus with all the other initiatives they've done successfully, it's hard to imagine them adding this flaw to such a big initiative.I would really like to hear what they (MPP) have to say about this part of the initiative. It just doesn't seem like such a great organization would add such a bad clause.And then to go through all this work, get all those signatures, go through such a tough process and long haul.....yet even if it passes you'll still have to pay a $100 fine for possessing this beautiful herb. I mean yea it's better than jail, and I know they are trying to fit one small piece at a time with these efforts, but why should we still be fined if it's decriminalized? I understand but at the same time I don't understand....if that makes any sense :)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by FoM on November 26, 2007 at 20:21:41 PT
Taylor121
What's a million or a billion or a trillion among friends! LOL!I must laugh or I think I'll explode and go poof!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by FoM on November 26, 2007 at 20:19:44 PT
Taylor121
Thank you. I am getting very tired of being kicked around. I try to always be nice but I can stand against what I find offensive as we all should.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by Taylor121 on November 26, 2007 at 20:15:15 PT
Correction: It would save the state millions
In my post below, it would save the state millions, not billions! ;)
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by Taylor121 on November 26, 2007 at 20:13:35 PT
Law going through house
"A bill working its way through the Statehouse would also decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of the drug, but set a higher fine of $250."Support it. A $250 fine is much cheaper than what it is now, and it would eliminate jail time. In the meantime the proposed initiative has a failure in it, but I'm not going to necessarily tell you not to support it. They could fix the flaw with a bill or amendment in the future (or they may not).
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by Taylor121 on November 26, 2007 at 20:09:30 PT
My latest Thoughts on Mass
I'm completely disappointed with the Marijuana Policy Project and the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy. The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body.and the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy. I have strongly supported MPP's Nevada initiatives in the past, as well as their Alaskan initiative to tax and regulate marijuana, but this latest initiative has pissed me off.When I first read it, I believed that they were trying to include metabolites with possession and it would simply count as part of the possession charge so law-makers wouldn't attempt to circumvent the initiative by criminalizing metabolites. If that was the intent, they failed miserably. I apologize for my misinterpretation, and I admit I read it in a biased way thinking that any initiative the MPP is funding would surely not be so incompetent, but alas, facts are facts.After reading the initiative's language several times, it is fairly clear that the way it reads will qualify inactive metabolites as being guilty of possessing one ounce or less of marijuana even when no physical marijuana is present.If I don't convince you, look at what the Massachusetts's AG said: The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body.Now that we know what the initiative will do, it's time to ask ourselves if we can support it. If the initiative were to pass, it would save the state billions of dollars of taxpayer money and would prevent thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens from obtaining a criminal record. It would also save police time and money by encouraging LEO's to simply issue a ticket like you would get for a traffic violation.On the other hand, this initiative is flawed in that it would create the first ever (to my knowledge) penalty for simply having inactive metabolites of marijuana in one's system, even when not having ANY marijuana on you. Does this outweigh the positives? I don't think so because it would violate the 4th amendment to just start randomly searching people and fining them, and the penalty itself is a small fine, but it makes me extremely uneasy outright endorsing the initiative.http://libertyindex.blogspot.com/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by ekim on November 26, 2007 at 18:35:45 PT
like stories like this
The Possession Law has Fallen in Ontario, Canada!
http://www.blog.leap.cc/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by mayan on November 26, 2007 at 18:27:21 PT
Boston
I would have thought that the revolutionary folks of Boston would have legalized long ago. THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY IN...The Second Annual Boston Tea Party and Conference for 9/11 Truth! December 15,16:
http://boston911truth.org/teaparty/Flight School Head Admits Neither He Nor 9/11 Hijackers Could Fly 9/11 Planes:
http://911blogger.com/node/12672A 9/11 bombshell:
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/4791Glenn Beck Visits Ohio and is Confronted by 9/11 Truth Groups (w/video):
http://911blogger.com/node/126669/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB - OUR NATION IS IN PERIL:
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by FoM on November 26, 2007 at 18:11:08 PT
rchandar
My state has decriminalized and there isn't any drug testing clause. I think that it totally unfair. My state's law has worked well since the 70s so why not try to do it that way?Why are there trades? I'll scratch your back and you'll scratch mine type thing. You win one but you have to lose one too. It doesn't make sense to me.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by ekim on November 26, 2007 at 18:10:25 PT
more info
see www.marijuananews.com norml is meeting in FL in a little bit.this whole wording thing could be gone thru --
http://www.marijuananews.com
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by rchandar on November 26, 2007 at 17:43:39 PT:
Drugged Driving
I personally believe that the "drugged driving" laws are wholly unfair and should be scrapped nationwide. It doesn't matter whether you're pro-pot or not; really here's a new type of law that ignores the possibility of rehabilitation. a person who quits pot is still a crook; it's medically very unreliable too.that being said, i still think the measure should pass. if for the reason to reduce the criminal component on the docket and reduce the amount of deferred sentencing clients. and mass is a popular place for smokers, with an annual demonstration upwards of 50,000. what has to happen is that politicians would have to agree on an "intoxication" level which is unfair to MJ, since it stays in your system for 45 days. some of these measures, you're right, don't consider this kind of problem in determining an offense. but then, a lot of people don't drive anyways, and the measure is probably good for inner-city people who already have criminal records for other crimes like stealing or vandalism, etc, etc.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by ekim on November 26, 2007 at 17:36:58 PT
higher fine of $250. for what penhot
A bill working its way through the Statehouse would also decriminalize possession of an ounce or less of the drug, but set a higher fine of $250.more info
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 26, 2007 at 16:18:10 PT
Just a Comment
I really like Governor Deval Patrick and I think he is wise to stay out of it. It could turn around and bite him.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment