The Republican reported earlier this week that at a meeting packed by police officers there to defend their Quinn Bill money the West Springfield City Council voted unanimously to approve an ordinance that will allow police the arbitrary power to enforce public pot consumption violations with either criminal or non-criminal disposition.
The criminal offense will bring a $300 fine. The non-criminal fines will be $150 for a first offense, $300 for a second offense. The fines will be in addition to the state fine of $100 for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana.
Here’s the full text WEST SPRINGFIELD.
So basically, in Massachusetts, following passage of MPP’s decriminalization bill* with a landslide 65% yes vote, you will not get a criminal record and you’ll only pay a $100 fine for possessing less than an ounce of marijuana. Unless you’re displaying it in public (a.k.a. “smoking a joint” or your baggie’s in “plain view”), in which case a cop in an increasing number of Massachusetts municipalities can decide on his/her own to arrest you, give you a criminal record, lock you in a holding cell, and fine you an additional $300 (or more in some locales). This is a lot like how New York State has decriminalized, but New York City is still the marijuana arrest capital thanks to “public display” being a criminal offense.
This is what happens when a well-funded Washington DC organization pushes aside local activists who’ve worked in their state’s system for thirty years because they’ve got the best and brightest legal and political minds and “former attorneys general” crafting a decriminalization bill that contains a gaping “home rule clause” loophole. You end up with “decriminalization” that still allows cops to treat pot smokers as criminals.
(Question 2, Section 2, Paragraph 3 – the local loophole) Nothing contained herein shall prohibit a political subdivision of the Commonwealth from enacting ordinances or bylaws regulating or prohibiting the consumption of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol in public places and providing for additional penalties for the public use of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol.
I spoke with MassCann’s Keith Saunders at Hempfest and he told me that the irony here is that before decrim, pot possession cases were usually sent up to the magistrate who would issue a $250 fine and no jail time. Now these same cases are going to cost the offender $400. The same criminal record but a larger fine when 65% of the voters chose no criminal record and a lower fine… thanks, MPP!
Let’s just hope the nightmare scenario I saw in Section 2, Paragraph 3 doesn’t come to fruition…
As used herein, “possession of one ounce or less of marihuana” includes possession of one ounce or less of marihuana or tetrahydrocannabinol and having cannabinoids or cannibinoid metabolites in the urine, blood, saliva, sweat, hair, fingernails, toe nails or other tissue or fluid of the human body.
…because to my non-lawyerly reading, that says failing a workplace urine screen for inactive metabolites means you just possessed and consumed marijuana in a public place, and nothing shall stop a political subdivision from enacting criminal penalties and fines above the $100 decrim fine. Yay, a criminal record and a huge fine for failing your pee test!… thanks, MPP!
I wonder how many pot smokers at Boston Freedom Rally will be arrested this year, thinking they are in the clear to puff a doobie on the Common because MPP passed a decrim bill, only to find themselves handcuffed in a squad car with a CORI record and a $400 fine?
*That’s funny, the “full text” link at SensibleMarijuanaPolicy.org is a 404. Might make one think they didn’t want anyone actually reading it…
i’m not black but aren’t laws like this similar to the old jjim crow laws? laws like these pave the way for large-scale racism and should be one of the top priorities of the naacp. there’s no way the regular street cop possesses the judgment to determine who gets punished more… hell, they’re not even required to have a college degree. you should at least have a bachelor’s in law or even philosophy or english or something if ur gonna fuck up lives. actually… everyone should get punished the same no matter what!
this law will creat subgroups of people that will face harsher penalties from the college-rejects we all know that grew up to become dirty pigs. im sorry, but ive never met a cop worth the material his badge is made out-of… and im a pot smoking minority so i get to meet new dick cops all the time. it’s always interesting to ask the pigs, “don’t you have anything better to do? like a murder to solve? you know, most rape and murder cases this month will go unpunished and unsolved, and you’re here bothering a regular, working, tax paying citizen like me. thanks for making the streets safe!”
actually… one time a cop harassed me I loudly applauded him in public after saying the above. i think he wanted to beat me up but left me alone like he shouldve in the first place.
ACLU, maybe. I wouldn’t wait for the NAACP, though. They won’t touch marijuana law reform with a ten foot pole.
I hear ya, Russ.
This West Springfield one is really scary, though. If I read it right it essentially gives the beat cop the authority to arbitrarily pick and choose which pot smokers are criminals and which ones are not.
Based on what? Skin color? Economic status? The Cops mood?
Can they even do that at all? I would think this kind of law enforcement would wake up the ACLU or NAACP or something.
holy shit.
i live in cali, but this makes me really sad. because of this bill, MPP, and the few policemen influencing our laws, i bet several people’s lives will forever be changed for the worse.
someone won’t get to see his baby walk because he’s sitting in jail, possibly causing psychological damage for growing without her father.
a student will lose out on scholarship money, lose the internship that would’ve and coudl’ve been, and may not finish college at all.
countless teenagers and young adults will have to suffer under social anti-weedism (what i call “racism” against potheads), for simply emjoying a relaxing high.
so lame… this makes me sad.
Well, I wouldn’t hold my breath. When you get 90% of your funding from one person, you need to only please that one person. For MPP, it’s about “winning”. Get money, put question on the ballot, and “win”. Emphasize “win” to your billionaire funder, get more money, put next state question on the ballot. Rinse and repeat.
Of course, “win” in this context doesn’t necessarily mean “make things better for your average pot smoker”. Why would they attempt to amend language that they found so compelling in the first place? It “won”, didn’t it? Time to move on to Arizona for 2010 and make sure that medical marijuana patients who live within 25 miles of a dispensary can’t grow their own medicine and must purchase it from that one dispensary (no shopping around; you have to designate your dispensary) at $300-$450 per ounce. Then it’s legalization in Nevada for 2012, where if the language is similar to 2006′s Question 7 that got 44% of the vote, there will be that “public view” loophole that allows cops to harass stoners by getting them to show their marijuana (a la New York City and Massachusetts).
Remember, they are about marijuana “policy”, not smokers. They’ll be the first to tell you they’re not “pro-pot”, they’re “anti-prohibition”. Keep in mind in 2006 they were saying “No, we’re not pro-pot-legalization” while pushing medical marijuana language in Rhode Island and at the same time saying “Yes, we are pro-pot-legalization” while pushing that language in Nevada.
One thing you can say for NORML: though we lack the massive war chest of MPP (and six-figure-salaried leaders), all our funding comes in little amounts from average pot smokers and pot supporters like you. We can’t do anything that pisses off average smokers, or we’d be out of business.
What can we do? We vote for de-crim. We send the letters out. We win.
Now we sit powerless having to watch law enforcement lobbies go against the will of the people and dictate law to them.
Where is the MPP with the question 2 Amendments for 2010 that address this?
Oh, I am. I interview Bruce often on the Stash and I post the videos of he and Rob debating drug warriors. I praised their California TV ad. In fact, I’d say NORML in general and I in particular give far more props to MPP than ever come back the other direction.
But I will not be silent when I find them making what I consider to be legislative mistakes that are bad for our constituents, like decrim-that’s-not-decrim in Massachusetts and the intended medmj initiative in Arizona that surrenders the right for patients to grow their own.
I’d say that’s the very definition of fair.
[...] Massachusetts’ decriminalization law’s huge loophole leading to local recriminalization of marij… [...]
Please be fair to MPP, they are doing great things as well..we are on the same side! Just watch Bruce and Rob on the news shows, they work very hard and deserve love. my 2 cents :)
What a bummer.
Bone-weary, I am.