Toke-up Massholes Massachusetts became the 12th state to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana when it passed Question 2. On Nov. 4 Massachusetts voters passed Question 2, which decriminalizes small amounts of marijuana, with 65 percent of the vote. According to the state constitution, ballot questions take effect 30 days after being certified by the Governors Council. The vote was certified Dec. 3 so the new law should go into effect Jan. 2. The new law approved by the voters decriminalized the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana. Anyone caught with less than an ounce would be issued a $100 ticket and would forfeit the marijuana. Those under age 18 would be required to go through drug and alcohol counseling; a failure to do so would carry a $1,000 fine. Under current law, someone arrested for marijuana possession could face up to six months in prison and face a $500 fine. ------------- Ok now that the funny part is over I find it sort of odd that in the land of taxes for them to get such a high, get it high, number of folks to pass such a law. Guess you really don't know what your neighbors do at nights, unless they are your dealer
do u guys have a problem, though, with federal law overriding state law concerning marijuana possession?
State (State Troopers), county (Sheriffs) and local (Police) law enforcement personnel enforce State laws and Federal officials enforce Federal laws. Police Powers are reserved for the States, not for the Federal Gov't. However, if there is a Federal law on point, Federal law enforcement officials can enforce it (CA is a good example of thie State vs. Federal enforcement issue on the subject of weed, and I think the US Supreme Court made a ruling adverse to CA's claim that its state law trumped Federal Controlled Substance Law), it is just that the Feds cannot generally use local law enforcement to enforce Federal law. It is a shame to decriminalize this. If you think that statistically, the most dangerous activity the average person does each day is ... drive on the road. When you consider how much faith we all place in the assumption that everyone driving with us - or directly at us at speed - is as qualified and NOT under any influence as we are, it is playing roulette with innocent peoples' safety ... People don't need any motivation to mess up other peoples' lives. The only way I could ever agree with decriminalization is if EVERY user could GUARANTY to never engage in an activity involving other people ... and since that ain't happening ... this is where the country is headed ... So many users think that their actions are in a "bubble" and are harmless ... Well, I have three - count 'em, 3 - relatives who are dead from accidents caused by complete strangers under the influence - all in completely different accidents over 2 decades. I don't have much sympathy for someone's "right" to this stuff or the fact that were you find .9 ounce, you will also find a lot more close by... Ken
The way it should be all across America.......but big pharma and the "law enforcement" industry sure don't want it that way.......big drug companies would lose a lot of customers........and the cops would lose all the easy to catch non-violent "criminals" and might have catch real criminals.....but then all the probation people would lose their jobs cause real criminals don't get home detention......oh, and i forgot about all the poor drug dogs(we got 9 for a city/county of 60,000 people...do the math...that's GESTAPO levels).............. I'd move to Mass. if i could afford it......... Peace WildBill
But they still grow and sell medican pot in many states. The feds and locals don't push the issue very hard. We had a guy here local who got busted a few time but they just started to ignore him as it was for medical use and gorwing his own, keeps the money he would have to spent to buy it on the street from going into the hands of terrorist
By your reasoning they should ban alchohol, Prohibition doesn't work. I too have a Niece who died at 19 because they were drinking, got on a bike and never came home. I don't smoke pot, by choice but do I think it should be illeagal? Hell no, I say make it easy to go to a liquor store and by it with a 12 pack of Summit IPA. Large corporations got the government to ban Hemp because the Dupont family held the pattent for Nylon and the they wanted to eliminate the competition for the fabric industry. Then think about how most Stains and paints used to contain hemp seed oil. Wait now they use petroleum based distilates in paints and stains. The plant has a million uses for industry and agriculture and the governmet doesn't want lose the billions it get's in lobby money from the pharmacutical and petroleum industries.
Everything is harmful to degree. But no one ever ODS on pot, but take 13 aspirin and your dead. Problem comes is where folks, some folks its not enough. They need more harder drugs to mix in, coke, booze, tobacco. Forcuding your anger on pot wont ever get you anywhere but in a tizzy, long as cigarettes and booze are still legal, soft-core drugs will be more then acceptable in society world wide.
... I wish my cousin and aunt & uncle were around to speak about how "unharmful" its use is ... but they can't ... they are buried 6 feet in the ground. Two of the three were closed casket, if you understand what that means. Oh, but the 3 different people who were "harmlessly" enjoying the stuff are still around to join you in your argument ... and enjoy a "box of cookies". You have to balance rights in the aggregate. Because you may have not had a problem with it does not mean others - a lot of others - don't. And, like I stated in an earlier post, you cannot guaranty your temporary "harmless enjoyment" does not infringe on the most fundamental rights of others - the right to life, liberty, et al. Nobody is "picking" on you ... the laws are there because of the consequences suffered by other through no fault of their own from the usage of the stuff. I suggest you study the NHSTA data on correlation between "harmless" casualy pot usage and accidents involving tractor trailers and other commercial equipment - shocking, actually. Still "harmless", huh? It is not anger ... it is rational concern. The fact that you state no one OD's on weed is utterly short-sighted. So, according to your logic, because no one OD's on weed but can OD on aspirin ... that we all should NOT be concerned a train engineer crew using pot, but should test for aspirin use? It is the logical extension of your statement in order to illustrate a point. The tragedy occurs when someone's inability to control themselves or their actions with other instrumentalities (trains, busses, cars, guns, etc.) is unilaterally imposed on another person simply BECAUSE they are impaired. THAT is were the issue is - where one person's "right" is unfair to the public. And, there has to be accountability. Sometimes you just can't undo what has been done or wrongly taken. I can figure out the price of a replacement fender damaged in an accident, but how much is your arm worth? What is a life worth? Don't shy away from the issue because this is precisely where the issue is. Do what you want in your own house. But since you cannot control the environment in which the stuff is used, the rights of others to NOT be affected by an impaired person have to - MUST - prevail ... period. If weed users self-policed the usage, that would be one thing, but they don't. By logical extension of your statement, we should do away with drunk driving laws because people (so few or not enough) OD on alcohol. Or, to further illustrate your point, you would have to postulate that there is NO danger in an airline pilot using pot before taking off? Or, why don't you light up before taking a test in college, etc., what's the problem then? Oh, I see, not at your "mental" best? Impaired a little? Harmless, isn't it? C'mon. Right. Ken
Hawken so your saying 3 times someone smoked a joint and only a joint and killed your realtives??? Or was it a drunk driver who also smoked pot? Folks on dope alone can barley do the speed limit.
I believe everything should be legal. I also believe your actions should be accountable. There should be a one strike policy on driving under the unfluence. You loose your license for life on the first offense. At some point the penalty will deter people from driving under the influence. It works better in Europe that our laws do here.
Though I should say I don't buy drugs / pot. Last stuff I bought was 100% legal herbal smoke from Hawaii which afterward I wish I had just bought real dope as it was the same price. But I don't fund the illegal network with my money. But if you were to hand me a lite joint, I can't say that id pass on it or not Im sure at every Buick get together there is one 4:20 room. And Id expect an invite
I almost don't want to chime in on this. But there are already laws to prohibit usage of marijuana while driving- these are the identical laws that prohibit driving while under the influence of alcohol or prescription meds etc. I have no problem with you doing whatever you want in your own home. But if you drive while you are impaired (on whatever), as far as I'm concerned you deserve the death sentence. -BC
People who live in glass states................ Alaska has the most liberal marijuana possession laws in the United States. Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana in the privacy of the home is 100% legal in Alaska. No fine or ticket, don't have to give it up. You cna even grown your own. Possession of less than 25 plants is protected under the Alaska Constitutions right to privacy (See Ravin v. Alaska) DEA Ordered to Pay Back Alaska Marijuana Grower Sep 27, 2007 A federal judge has ordered the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reimburse an Alaska man whose assets were seized in a raid of his marijuana-growing operation, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner reported Sept. 22. Alaska Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Recriminalizing Marijuana March 24, 2008 Two years ago, however, the state legislature passed a law recriminalizing personal at-home use of marijuana. The law was struck down by a lower court, which cited the 1975 ruling.
