cannabisnews.com: Safety Group Maps Plan for Tackling New Pot Law





Safety Group Maps Plan for Tackling New Pot Law
Posted by CN Staff on January 02, 2009 at 06:41:55 PT
By Kyle Cheney, Statehouse News Service
Source: Gloucester Daily Times
Boston, MA -- Once admittedly flummoxed at the prospect of implementing a new voter law decriminalizing the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, state officials are now offering a first glimpse into their strategy.The strategy, addressing the new marijuana law that went into effect today, includes encouraging cities and towns to pass new penalties for using marijuana in public, and reaffirming public schools' right to expel or suspend students who smoke pot on school grounds.
In a wide-ranging legal opinion issued this week, the state's Executive Office of Public Safety had one over-arching message: things won't change much procedurally.With the exception of the major thrust of the new law — reducing the penalty for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana from an arrestable offense to a $100 civil fine — police searches, firearms issuances, public school punishments and court proceedings will be largely unchanged."We want to be able to assure people, through our legal analysis, that there can be an effective implementation of this new law," state Secretary of Public Safety Kevin Burke said in a phone interview.Under the guidelines, disseminated by the state Executive Office of Public Safety, officials note the law's expanded definition of possession, which includes "metabolized products of marijuana or THC" — marijuana's active ingredient — "in one's bloodstream."Public safety officials also recommend that municipalities supplement the $100 fine with additional civil and criminal penalties of their own for the use of marijuana in public.A sample bylaw offered by Attorney General Martha Coakley would include a $300 civil penalty and the possibility of criminal indictment for the use of marijuana "upon any street, sidewalk, public way, footway, passageway, stairs, bridge, park, playground, beach, recreation area, boat landing, public building, schoolhouse, school grounds, cemetery, parking lot, or any area owned by or under the control of the town."Voters passed the law in November over the objections of Gov. Deval Patrick, district attorneys and Coakley, who likened it to "the de facto legalization of marijuana."In its opinion, the Patrick administration's public safety office concludes that law enforcement may still search people suspected of marijuana possession when probable cause exists and may stop and detain suspects, as well.Officials conclude that it is "unlikely" that police would be able to arrest those in possession of less than an ounce of marijuana — backers of Question 2 sought to eliminate such arrests — but said "an argument can be made" to continue such arrests."However, proponents of Question 2 would likely argue that by decriminalizing possession of an ounce or less of marijuana, Question 2 revoked officers' power to arrest for this civil offense," according to the guidelines.Other guidelines say recipients of civil fines for marijuana possession would not be categorically prohibited from owning firearms, and police officers in possession of an ounce or less on the job would still be subject to collectively bargained agreements regarding substance possession or abuse.In the guidelines themselves, state public safety officials acknowledge they are testing uncharted legal terrain. Burke agreed, but said his office has "every confidence" that their interpretation is valid.In a memo to school superintendents sent last week, Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester said Question 2 "does not affect the existing authority of school officials ... to impose discipline" on students who possess marijuana on school grounds.But Chester acknowledged the uncertainty of state officials as they tread on uncharted legal terrain."Since no court has yet addressed the proper interpretation of Question 2, or applied it to the public school context, this advisory reflects best judgment based on the language of Question 2 and existing case law regarding public school discipline issues," he wrote in the memo.Question 2 requires that offenders under 18 years old participate in a drug abuse awareness program designed by the Department of Youth Services. The EOPS guidelines, however, note that Question 2 authorized no funding for such programs, nor has the Legislature appropriated any."DYS and the Executive Office of Health and Human Services are in the process of designing a drug awareness program to comply with Question 2 to the best of their ability," according to the guidelines.¬ "Information concerning these plans will be available in the coming weeks."The state Executive Office of Public Safety recommendations and the education commissioner's advisory are available at: http://www.mass.gov/Source: Gloucester Daily Times (MA)Author: Kyle Cheney, Statehouse News ServicePublished: January 02, 2009Copyright: 2009 Essex County Newspapers, Inc.URL: http://drugsense.org/url/yL76QImkWebsite: http://www.gloucestertimes.com/Related Articles: An Inconvenient Questionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread24396.shtmlA Simple Law Goes One Toke Over The Linehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread24395.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #14 posted by The GCW on January 05, 2009 at 05:06:48 PT
LTE: New pot law should bring truthful awareness 
US MA: PUB LTE: New pot law should bring truthful awareness Webpage: http://www.gloucestertimes.com/puopinion/local_story_004225405.htmlPubdate: 5 Jan. 2008Source: Gloucester Daily Times (MA)To the editor:One important component of Massachusetts' Question 2 ("Safety group maps plan for tackling new pot law," The Times, Jan. 2), will come in the form of a more honest "drug awareness program" that will lower hard drug addiction rates.Now it will be more difficult to brainwash students into believing lies, half-truths and propaganda concerning the relatively safe, socially acceptable, God-given plant cannabis (marijuana). They will be taught the truth; cannabis is not nearly as dangerous as honest hard drugs.How many citizens try cannabis and realize it's not nearly as harmful as taught in DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) type government environments? Then they think other substances must not be so bad either, only to become addicted to deadly drugs. The old lessons make cannabis out to be among the worst substances in the world, even though it's never killed a single person.The federal government even classifies cannabis as a Schedule I substance along with heroin, while methamphetamine and cocaine are only Schedule II substances. For the health and welfare of America's children, that absolutely must change.To further help citizens avoid hard drugs, cannabis must be available from regulated businesses so people do not often come in contact with sellers of hard drugs. Stan WhiteDillon, Colo.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by The GCW on January 02, 2009 at 22:40:24 PT
NEW drug awareness programs, too!
Next to the last paragraph is one of the most important components of Question 2's acheivements."DYS and the Executive Office of Health and Human Services are in the process of designing a drug awareness program to comply with Question 2 to the best of their ability," according to the guidelines.¬ "Information concerning these plans will be available in the coming weeks."-0-The message to every single middle school and high school student will be the truth; responsible cannabis use is safer than alcohol on every facet. Now it will be more difficult to brainwash students into believing lies, half-truths and propaganda concerning the plant. And it will be difficult to start convincing them at an early age that it is ok to cage citizens who choose to use the plant. Etc.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by E_Johnson on January 02, 2009 at 19:13:04 PT
rchandar I'm not talking about economics
I'm talking about the grief of soldiers and the role it plays in prolonging war.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by FoM on January 02, 2009 at 17:53:32 PT
fight_4_freedom
That's ok. I checked and didn't see it in the database at Mapinc. so I didn't post it.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by rchandar on January 02, 2009 at 16:09:29 PT:
E_Johnson
E Johnson, a Marxist would have a field day with what you're concerned about.Marx (loosely paraphrased): If people don't want to do the work we want them to do--never mind, how little we give them--there is a large supply of cheap labor and we will use other people.Translated, in our terms: If people don't support the Drug War, we can find other people who will. That will be enough, just so long as we keep enough people in a state of fear, hysteria, and relative ignorance.In truth, our "battle" is much harder to fight than theirs. It's like a richter scale--too many things tip the balance in their favor. Remember that 63 % of Americans have said the Drug War is a failure.But for this cop, it doesn't matter. He'll keep on fighting.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by fight_4_freedom on January 02, 2009 at 15:42:59 PT
I didn't see this posted yet
But I'm sorry if you already did FoM.http://michiganmessenger.com/10723/state%E2%80%99s-new-rules-need-revision-say-medical-marijuana-advocatesState’s new rules need revision, say medical marijuana advocatesBy Eartha Jane Melzer 12/24/08 8:25 AMAdvocates say the state’s plan for administering a new medical marijuana law, approved by state voters on Nov. 4, focuses too much on law enforcement concerns and not enough on health.Michigan’s medical marijuana law–which passed in every county while winning 63 percent of the vote–allows people with qualifying medical conditions to grow 12 marijuana plants and/or possess 2.5 oz. of marijuana for medicinal use. Those who use marijuana medicinally may also designate a caregiver to grow the drug for them. The mood-altering plant relieves chronic pain and nausea.The Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) has proposed rules for the program a scheduled hearing of those rules takes place 9 a.m. Monday, Jan. 5, at the state secondary complex general office building in Lansing.Patient advocates say they see many shortcomings in the proposed rules.“I think they were written by people who don’t have a clear idea of how something like this would work,“ said Greg Francisco, director of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Association (MMMA), an education and advocacy group for patients and caregivers. “I think they [MDCH] took on some responsibilities and roles that were not given in the law.”The rules suggest the state envisions its role as one of law enforcement, not administering a public health program, Francisco said, adding that MMMA has compiled 21 concerns with the draft rules which it will air at the Jan. 5 hearing.One problem, Francisco said, is a requirement that caregivers or patients provide detailed cultivation records and track where each and every plant goes.“This is akin to telling a farmer who grows beets he must track which beet goes to which processing facility,” he said.The MDCH proposed rules require that any marijuana leftover when a patient no longer qualifies or dies be handed over to police–something Francisco said is unreasonable. Because medical marijuana remains illegal under federal law, he suggested that patients and caregivers might be hesitant to provide police with evidence by handing over excess marijuana.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Sam Adams on January 02, 2009 at 15:19:56 PT
battling
It doesn't have to be a "losing" battle, when they take down some evil drug lord it's a win for them. They just need to stop fighting the battle, that's not defeat, it's just moving the forces to different crime "battle".
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by E_Johnson on January 02, 2009 at 13:48:07 PT
Here's some wisdom about losing battles
In Russia today you can still find Afghan vets who refuse to admit that the Soviet-Afghan War was a losing battle. My theory is that once a soldier has lost brothers in arms on the field of battle, admitting defeat feels like a betrayal of the fallen.I think this is now the main motivation of the DEA. They've created a bureaucratic culture of revenge over their fallen comrades. If they admit the war on weed is a waste of time, they'll feel guilty of betraying those fallen comrades to the people who tortured and murdered them.It's a sad place to live. I feel for this detective. He could be a veteran of the Soviet-Afghan War.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by The GCW on January 02, 2009 at 13:05:15 PT
Nice conversation...
CN AB: 'I'll Just Never Say It Is A Losing Battle'Pubdate: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 -
Source: National Post (Canada)Excerpt Of Transcript Of Alberta Provincial Court Judge Heather Lamoureux Questioning Calgary Police Detective Doug Hudacin During The May, 07, Trial Of Philip Kaminsky, Found With Two Grams Of Crack Cocaine In His Possession. Det. Hudacin Was Testifying As A Calgary Police Drug Expert. Judge: If this is such a difficult problem along 7th Avenue and the St. Louis and Cecil Hotel and Olympic Plaza such that you cannot even walk down the street without getting approached to buy drugs, how come it is not being stopped? Det. Hudacin: That is not really a question I can answer. Judge: What haven't they been able to stop? Det. Hudacin: In my opinion, the bottom line is money. Not so much the money the police service has or the government has, there's a lot of money to be made selling drugs. Judge: How does that affect your desire as a police officer to stop it? Det. Hudacin: It does not affect my desire to stop it, not in the least. What I am saying is there is a lot of money to be made in the world of drug trafficking and everyone wants to make money. So for everyone that gets arrested, for everyone that goes to jail, there's going to be another one or two that's going to take their place to make money.... If you could control the addiction aspects of it, there would be no demand for it. But I don't think that is going to happen. I mean, again my opinion on it, through time man has been addicted to one thing or another, whether it's, you know, drugs, alcohol, gaming. I mean we have, you know, people have addictive personalities. *** Judge: So it does not matter what we do, really? We are fighting a losing battle? *** Det. Hudacin: No, I don't think it is a losing battle. I mean, I think it's just a -- Judge: Sure it is. What part of it do you think we are winning? Det. Hudacin: Ma'am, you'll never get me to say it is a losing battle. It is a battle. Judge: I am not here to make you say anything. Det. Hudacin: It is a battle that is very hard to fight. It is a battle, where -- no, I'll just never say it is a losing battle. http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v09/n004/a07.html?397
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on January 02, 2009 at 11:59:50 PT
The fat lady is singing!
If this were a basketball game, the crowd would be singing "Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey hey, GOODBYE"
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Hope on January 02, 2009 at 10:41:29 PT
I would say these officials
have a serious addiction to punishing pot users. They obviously have a very serious, dangerous, even traitorous, and extraordinarily expensive addiction, that all of us, even those who think they should stop, have to pay for.They've been known to kill over cannabis and, and then, to add insult to injury, try to justify their killing.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by John Tyler on January 02, 2009 at 09:26:14 PT
65%
The elected officials that can’t seem to “understand” the new law should be voted out of office in the next election cycle and replaced with people that can “understand” it. Note to elected officials… 65% of the public voted for this law. Figure it out or else.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by HempWorld on January 02, 2009 at 09:13:15 PT
Marijuana, you can't have it ... even medicinally 
"officials note the law's expanded definition of possession, which includes "metabolized products of marijuana or THC" — marijuana's active ingredient — "in one's bloodstream."Public safety officials also recommend that municipalities supplement the $100 fine with additional civil and criminal penalties of their own for the use of marijuana in public.A sample bylaw offered by Attorney General Martha Coakley would include a $300 civil penalty and the possibility of criminal indictment for the use of marijuana "upon any street, sidewalk, public way, footway, passageway, stairs, bridge, park, playground, beach, recreation area, boat landing, public building, schoolhouse, school grounds, cemetery, parking lot, or any area owned by or under the control of the town."So on one hand we have the voters who overwhelmingly approved decriminalization but our rulers and masters are bending over backwards to take the power of a democracy and change it into a police state with police powers. 
On a mission from God!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by OverwhelmSam on January 02, 2009 at 08:12:00 PT
Oh That Smell!
The smell of court cases against cities across the state. This should tie the courts up nicely for years. Way to go DA, now I know why those initials stand for something else. By the way, you are the one who is confused, duped and misinformed about marijuana.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment