Voters approve marijuana law change By David Abel, Globe Staff | November 5, 2008 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.
Opponents of the proposition said they are concerned about the potential consequences of the vote. "The administration is clear in its opposition to the decriminalization of marijuana, and we are concerned about the effects of ballot Question 2's passage," Kevin Burke, secretary of the state's Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, said in a statement.
He would not comment on whether the administration will try to repeal the law, which will require violators younger than 18 to complete a drug awareness program and community service. The fine would increase to as much as $1,000 for those who fail to complete the program.
Proponents of the initiative, who spent about $1 million promoting it, argued the change in the law would maintain the state's existing penalties for growing, trafficking, or driving under the influence of marijuana, while ensuring that those caught with less than an ounce of pot would avoid the taint of a criminal record.
The opponents, who include the governor, attorney general, and district attorneys around the state, argued that decriminalizing marijuana possession would promote drug use and benefit drug dealers at a time when they say marijuana has become more potent. They warned it would increase violence on the streets and safety hazards in the workplace, and cause the number of car crashes to rise as more youths drive under the influence.
In a statement, the Coalition for Safe Streets, which opposed the initiative, blamed the loss on being outspent by supporters of Question 2, which included the billionaire financier George Soros, who spent more than $400,000 in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.
"Now these pro-drug special interests will move on to another state as part of their plan to inflict a radical drug-legalization agenda on as many communities as possible," said the statement.
The Rev. Bruce Wall, pastor of Global Ministries Christian Church in Dorchester, was among several prominent black ministers in Boston who called on fellow clergy to oppose the initiative.
"I guess there are a lot of people smoking the stuff, and they don't see what we see," Wall said.
The initiative's success last night sparked loud cheers from supporters gathered at the Silvertone Bar & Grill in downtown.
"I think this points to how our Legislature is unwilling to represent their constituents on these issues," said Bill Downing, president of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition.
posted
Senator Barney Frank is trying propose a bill that will similarly do this nationwide. It makes sense that this was in Mass. his home state.
I think you walk a slippery slope once you start condoning illegal behavior, but on the flip side, enforcing petty crimes cost the taxpayers millions that could be used towards other things.
Posts: 190 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pot was initially made illegal through a bullshit move by the government in the first place! A lot of lives have been made miserable as a consequence of that bullshit!
Nobody has ever died of a pot overdose, while millions have died due to alcohol.
Go Senator Frank!!
-------------------- It's a sick world, and I'm a happy guy! Posts: 762 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by footgirl0226: It should be illegal. So should cigarettes.
Cigarettes I can understand because they do kill thousands each year. (although doing so would cause the same problems as prohibition. As mentioned by Salvy_Mic.
But why marijuana? It's not addictive, does NOT lead to harder drugs, and no one had ever died from a pot overdose. It's much safer than booze.
-------------------- It's a sick world, and I'm a happy guy! Posts: 762 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
everything that's even remotely bad for you should be illegal. fast food should be illegal. in fact, the government should design nutritional "replacement" pills that replace actual food so they could strictly regulate absolutely everything that goes into our bodies.
quote:Originally posted by footgirl0226: It should be illegal. So should cigarettes.
Cigarettes I can understand because they do kill thousands each year. (although doing so would cause the same problems as prohibition. As mentioned by Salvy_Mic.
But why marijuana? It's not addictive, does NOT lead to harder drugs, and no one had ever died from a pot overdose. It's much safer than booze.
I used to be a former pot head and I can say is really is the gateway drug. Although, I have not tried any other "drug" other than mary I have seen a lot of friends venturing into different drugs ending up in bad places.
Personally I would love to see mary jane legal in this country but I doubt it.
posted
I find amusement in all the people who think this is a step in legalizing marijuana. The only reason the state shot for this is for money. As a state, why would you want to spend the money to put people in jail when you could make money by fining them instead?
Posts: 425 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some very important points have been made here; honestly, I have never been able to make up my mind on the matter and haven't found a conclusion that balances the pros & cons.
There are a couple of notable errors in the above replies, however.
1)There are deaths directly attributable to marijuana - even on the first exposure. THC and some other chemicals found in pot act on a number of our organs, chief among them is the heart. Many weed enthusiasts will mention that they experience a rise in heart-rate as the drug begins to take effect; for some this effect becomes exaggerated and kicks the heart into overdrive and a heart attack ensues. Most, if not all, ER's will test for cannibinoids, among other things in a blood test, when such a case arises.
Moreover, damage to the lungs, liver, and brain can be significant. One must smoke a lot of packs of cigarettes to coat the lungs as thickly as a single joint. Though the lungs and liver can make a recovery of sorts, the brain damage is irreversible and has been medically established since the mid-seventies (I was one of the students doing the research of studies of physical changes in the brain and a pot-smoker at the time).
Bottom line: "No one ever died of a pot overdose" is, at best, a naive myth; at worst, malicious propoganda.
2)Mona (sorry to single you out), what little vice do you have that you are willing to maintain once it is taxed? Some 80% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes goes to the government as tax. Believe me, if cigarettes are outlawed the government (local, state, and federal) will be looking for that revenue elsewhere...and they will be looking at you. Smokers pay for a lot of what you think is "free".
Just some notions that nearly became diatribe.
Posts: 5067 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Toetapper: There are a couple of notable errors in the above replies, however.
1)There are deaths directly attributable to marijuana - even on the first exposure.
WRONG
quote: THC and some other chemicals found in pot act on a number of our organs, chief among them is the heart. Many weed enthusiasts will mention that they experience a rise in heart-rate as the drug begins to take effect; for some this effect becomes exaggerated and kicks the heart into overdrive and a heart attack ensues.
Never happened in the history of pot.
quote: Most, if not all, ER's will test for cannibinoids, among other things in a blood test, when such a case arises.
It has never been linked directly to death (not counting loss of control of a vehicle or falling off a balcony or whatever other environmental aspects cause it).
quote: Moreover, damage to the lungs, liver, and brain can be significant. One must smoke a lot of packs of cigarettes to coat the lungs as thickly as a single joint.
Very, VERY wrong. Marijuana helps to alleviate the symptoms of asthma for one...doesn't sound like it affects the lungs that negatively...
quote: Bottom line: "No one ever died of a pot overdose" is, at best, a naive myth; at worst, malicious propoganda.
I ask for ONE case where the coroner has definitively stated "consumption of marijuana" as the medical cause of death.
quote: 2)...Some 80% of the cost of a pack of cigarettes goes to the government as tax. Believe me, if cigarettes are outlawed the government (local, state, and federal) will be looking for that revenue elsewhere...and they will be looking at you. Smokers pay for a lot of what you think is "free".
(Cigarettes will NEVER be illegal - trust me, BUT - hypothetically, if they were, yes the governments would recoup their losses by heavily taxing other aspects - common sense tells us this)
posted
Ooooh. I knew that I was poking a stick into a hornets' nest when I offered up my thoughts here but I didn't realize that how successful the propaganda has been.
I have little time at this writing, but will take up all the issues individually, as time allows.
Lets start here: "Very, VERY wrong. Marijuana helps to alleviate the symptoms of asthma for one...doesn't sound like it affects the lungs that negatively..."
Treating symptoms is not treating the disease. For example, taking anti-histamines actually prolongs a cold by preventing the nose from running which carries away the affected tissue. It makes you feel better but the affliction persists.
Additionally, it is medically established that the chemical nicotine is beneficial for regulating the heart. Do you, therefore, recommend that people smoke cigarettes (it is the most readily accessible source) to keep their heart healthy? That would certainly keep the tobacco companies in business.
Allow me to re-state that I am not for nor against the use of pot. I simply want the user to be mindful of the consequences of that use. Relax a little Andy-Laa, I would rather calmly debate the matter than come out of the gate shouting.
One other quote before I trundle off to horizontality:
"Never happened in the history of pot."
There is a tome entitled "The History of Pot"? Though his memory might be dubious, I'd like to know the author.
Honest, I'm not trying to pick a fight.
Posts: 5067 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Toetapper: Honest, I'm not trying to pick a fight.
...it's a debate. A fight is where you irrationally attack someone (verbally or physically).
Got nothing against you at all...I just kinda would like to see definitive evidence to back up your points is all...'cause...I'm guaranteeing you can't back up 80% of what you said...
quote:Originally posted by Toetapper: Lets start here: "Very, VERY wrong. Marijuana helps to alleviate the symptoms of asthma for one...doesn't sound like it affects the lungs that negatively..."
Treating symptoms is not treating the disease. For example, taking anti-histamines actually prolongs a cold by preventing the nose from running which carries away the affected tissue. It makes you feel better but the affliction persists.
I said it "alleviates the symptoms" - not cures I can, however, counter your implication that it prolongs asthma in any way by quoting a medicine that does with another illness...it doesn't prolong it and it makes inhalers basically unnecessary is all (as in – it is a more long term suppressant than inhalers as you don’t smoke it AFTER (or during) an attack – you smoke it to PREVENT a future attack…). (also helps with glaucoma and cataracts btw )
quote: Additionally, it is medically established that the chemical nicotine is beneficial for regulating the heart. Do you, therefore, recommend that people smoke cigarettes (it is the most readily accessible source) to keep their heart healthy? That would certainly keep the tobacco companies in business.
No. The relevance being…?
quote: Allow me to re-state that I am not for nor against the use of pot. I simply want the user to be mindful of the consequences of that use. Relax a little Andy-Laa, I would rather calmly debate the matter than come out of the gate shouting.
Good…so would I…? (But to do that I need responses from you).
quote: "Never happened in the history of pot."
There is a tome entitled "The History of Pot"? Though his memory might be dubious, I'd like to know the author.
*Gives a reluctant smile* But yeah…it hasn’t, mate…
At least we can agree that feet are attractive, eh? haha
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Joint]](graemlins/joint.gif)
![[Cry]](cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Tongue]](tongue.gif)
