Voters approve marijuana law change (decrimilize small amt's in MA)

[catgirl]

Source: The Boston Globe

Voters yesterday overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, making getting caught with less than an ounce of pot punishable by a civil fine of $100. The change in the law means someone found carrying dozens of joints will no longer be reported to the state's criminal history board.

With about 90 percent of the state's precincts reporting last night, voters favored the Question 2 proposition 65 percent to 35 percent.

"The people were ahead of the politicians on this issue; they recognize and want a more sensible approach to our marijuana policy," said Whitney Taylor, chairwoman of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which campaigned for the ballot initiative. "They want to focus our limited law enforcement resources on serious and violent crimes. They recognize under the new law that the punishment will fit the offense."

The proposition will become law 30 days after it is reported to the Governor's Council, which usually meets in late November or early December. But the Legislature could amend or repeal the new law, as they have done with prior initiatives passed by the voters, said Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Read more: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/05/voters_approve_marijuana_law_change/

---

Good. Make room in jail cells for real criminals.

[ensho]

1. kick

nt

[ExPatLeftist]

2. Excellent.

Anyone know: Is this amount only, anything under an ounce? Or does it have that stupid "packaged for sale" clause like in so many states? (For example, 3 grams in one baggie = possession charge; in 3 separate baggies = "packaged for sale" and therefore you are a "dealer" and get locked up for several years...)

[catgirl]

3. I think it's the total amount

[frickaline]

4. I didn't see anything like that in it

Here is the ballot question text:

http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele08/ballot_questions_08/quest_2.htm

[ExPatLeftist]

6. Thanks for this!

It sounded really good until I got to this: "The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana."

I am guessing that they could still do whatever they want to define a "trafficker", and therefore this new law would not apply. I hope not, but this is similar to the way it is handled in many states... Basically that unless it is "dealing", this law applies. If they, however, determine it to be "dealing", then this is not applied and instead the case is handled under the trafficking laws, where penalties are much more oppressive. The rub is how do they determine what is "trafficking" and what is for "personal use". As that is not addressed in this law, I am thinking that it probably would be handled by existing laws defining trafficking, which would make this new law moot in those cases. I hope that is not true, but it seems to be the case...

[catgirl]

8. Key words here- "public use"

Marijuana is not legal in the Netherlands, at least when I was there, it was tolerated. So public use could mean-
sitting in front of an elementary school when kids are being let out, and smoking a joint... this language needs to
be in there for obvious reasons- and it should be in there.

[proud progressive]

5. this is a good first step

now if they would only get rid of those goddamn 'blue laws'. oh! and somebody tell the gov that turning 'right-on-red' is SAFE!!

[defendandprotect]

7. This phony Drug War has to be overturned -- and soon--!!!

Good work MASS --!!:)