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…

Please visit our allies at MassCann/NORML to learn how Massachusetts towns are trying to increase the penalties for marijuana possession, and what you can do about it. The voters by a 65% vote decided to make marijuana possession a $100 fine-only offense, yet thanks to loopholes, many towns are trying to enact local ordinances to increase that fine for “public consumption” to well over $100.

If an area legislator has his way, those caught with small amounts of marijuana in a car will face fines 10 times greater than Massachusetts voters backed last November.

State Sen. Scott Brown, R-Wrentham, wants to make it harder on pot smokers through legislation he filed in January. His bill would mandate a fine of no less than $1,000 for any amount of marijuana in the passenger area of a motor vehicle as well as a 90-day suspension of a driver’s license.

via – The Milford Daily News “Sen. Brown would change marijuana law“

Why is that legislators feel they know more than the voters of their constituency? 65 percent of state voters approved Question 2, which decriminalized the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana and provided for a civil summons and fined $100. Let Sen. Brown know you do not appreciate his meddling with the will of the People he serves.

New marijuana law going well in Georgetown

The Georgetown Police Department is taking a proactive approach to the new marijuana law passed by Massachusetts voters in November. So far, things are running well, according to Georgetown Police Chief James Mulligan. Three tickets have been issued and all three have been paid since the law took effect on Jan. 2. Mulligan says “To me, having any amount of marijuana in a car is tantamount to having an open can of beer in there.”.

Georgetown Police Department is accredited and made a simple plan to implement the decrim law passed by voters. Each law enforcement officer had to read and sign the new law to make sure they understood that possession of less than 1oz. is a civil infraction, not an arresting offense.

Of course other towns are against the new law, but they are going along with it.

Marblehead Police Chief Bob Picariello says “I don’t think it’s the best thing in the world for us,” he said. “I am concerned with the message we send with a law like this. We are telling our kids it’s not a big deal, and we may in fact create an epidemic with this. I think we’re sending a bad message to everybody, but my job is to enforce the laws that the Legislature makes.”

This is a far cry from the recent “The Sky Is Falling” argument that was reported less than 2 weeks ago. Decrim, Medical and (eventually) Legalization will all be greeted with “reefer madness” but the boring truth ultimately wins out.

Massachusetts voters made history by approving a sweeping marijuana decriminalization law on Election Day, but campaign debates are reigniting as communities start to enforce the new rule.

The large margin of victory for the ballot initiative – 65 percent of voters approved the law – is already inspiring similar legislative efforts in other New England states, prompting close attention nationwide to the effects of a less stringent marijuana law.

Massachusetts is not the first state to decriminalize marijuana possession – 12 others have done so. But it is the first since the 1970s to eliminate criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of the drug, even for repeat offenders.

One major concern of some police officials: While marijuana remains an illegal substance, full decriminalization, as is the case in Massachusetts, removes officers’ powers of arrest, which means police can’t compel offenders to identify themselves.

“If someone is sitting on the front steps of City Hall smoking a bone, you can’t do much if they tell you they’re Donald Duck,” says Terence Reardon, chief of police in Revere, a city of 55,000.

Such complaints are overstated, say decriminalization advocates.

“People have tried to claim that [the identification issue] is a loose end, but in fact it’s no different than every other civil citation in Massachusetts, like jaywalking or in some communities drinking in public,” says Bruce Mirken, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project, a national marijuana decriminalization advocacy group that helped coordinate the Massachusetts referendum campaign. “Miraculously, it’s a problem with marijuana.”

The new Massachusetts law specifically allows communities to draft their own public consumption ordinances, and dozens are considering doing so. The state attorney general’s office prepared a model bylaw that would levy an additional $300 fine, the state maximum, on people caught using pot in public.

via Anxiety in Massachusetts over softer marijuana law | csmonitor.com.

The last time one of these officials brought up the “Donald Duck” defense, I noted a Supreme Court case called Hiibel v. Nevada, that I think ruins that argument.  According to this 2004 CNN report:

The Supreme Court has again given police greater power to stop and question suspects, ruling Monday that a Nevada cowboy could not refuse to give his name to officers who tried to question him along a roadside.

He was arrested after he told a deputy that he didn’t have to reveal his name or show an ID during an encounter on a rural road in 2000. Hiibel was prosecuted, based on his silence and fined $250. The Nevada Supreme Court sided with police on a 4-3 vote.

In its ruling announced Monday, the justices upheld Hiibel’s misdemeanor conviction. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “Asking questions is an essential part of police investigation. In the ordinary sense a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.”

According to an AP report, justices were told that 20 states have similar laws to the Nevada statute upheld by the high court: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Here at NORML we forwarded this on to some Massachusetts attorneys who told us they couldn’t find case law that said citizens must show ID, nor any case law that police may require ID.  I don’t know what law the AP report was referring to, but based on Justice Kennedy writing “a police officer is free to ask a person for identification” I think that police have some power to compel that identification.  Otherwise, as Bruce Mirken notes, how would parking tickets or jaywalking tickets ever work?

When I get a better answer to this question – do I have to show ID to police when being given a civil infraction? – I’ll post it.

Prior to passage of Question 2, opponents made it quite clear that police discovered most possession offenses under circumstances where the police would know the name of the offender. Police have ways of getting people to identify themselves, even though everyone has the right to remain silent when questioned. Nothing has changed.

The law has not been in effect long enough to determine if there is a significant scofflaw problem. The problem is not Question 2, but the absurd construction of the law by the District Court Chief Justice’s Office that determined that a criminal complaint application for those who fail to pay or request a hearing is not available under the new law. I submit that just as with a leash law violation, violators who fail to pay or request a hearing risk the police department’s seeking a criminal complaint against them.

The $100 fine and forfeiture of the still contraband cannabis is disincentive enough to those who may consume exposed to the public or in public buildings. More important to a government of laws and not men is the incentive the fine should provide for consistent enforcement of the new law, though the fines are a poor substitute for the revenue constitutionally firm, wholesome and reasonable regulation would raise.

Read the entire post at Epstein: Give decriminalization a chance to work

Click here to view the embedded video.

State Rep. Joseph Driscoll has filed legislation aimed at toughening laws against growing and selling marijuana.

Voters approved a referendum in November that decriminalized possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and imposed a $100 civil fine. Minors would also be required to take a drug-abuse counseling course. The new law took effect Jan. 1.

Driscoll, who opposed the referendum question, said nothing prevents a drug dealer from selling marijuana to a minor.

Under current law, it is a misdemeanor to sell marijuana to a minor and a felony to sell other drugs to juveniles.

Driscoll said one of his bills would lower the amount of marijuana necessary to charge a drug dealer with trafficking from 50 pounds to one pound.

Here are some of the penalties state Rep. Joseph Driscoll, D-Braintree, is proposing for marijuana growers and sellers:

• Up to five years in state prison or up to 2½ years in jail and a fine of $1,000 to $10,000.
• A prison sentence of five to 15 years for a subsequent conviction and a fine of between $1,500 and $25,000.
• A prison sentence of three to 15 years or a jail sentence of two to 2½ years and a fine of $2,500 to $25,000 for 1 to 5 pounds.
• A prison sentence of five to 20 years and a fine of $5,000 to $25,000 for 5 to 10 pounds.
• A prison sentence of to 20 years and a fine of $10,000 to $100,000 for 10 to 20 pounds.
• A prison sentence of 15 to 20 years and a fine of $50,000 to $500,000 for 30 pounds or more.
• A state prison sentence of five to 15 years and a fine of $1,000 to $25,000 for selling to a person under the age of 18.

via State rep wants stiffer penalties for pot dealers and growers – Quincy, MA – The Patriot Ledger.

The current penalty for sales or cultivation of less than 50 pounds in Massachusetts is a misdemeanor, that’s true.  But the penalty for that can be two years and $5,000.

The penalties Driscoll is proposing would make Massachusetts’ penalties even worse than Florida’s.  Florida’s got more than two-and-a-half times the population and, according to Miron, about twice the rate of cannabis consumption (2.3% in Mass. vs. 5.7% in Fla. that use cannabis).   It seems like the state that has the penalties most similar to your proposal has twice the “problem” with cannabis.

Also, Florida has much more of an issue with the so-called “grow house” phenomenon.  Have you thought about the notion that under your new proposed penalties, you incentivize one large grow-op to become ten or twenty smaller grow-ops?

All you will do with these penalties is raise the price of marijuana and increase the profits of the growers and traffickers you do not catch.  No fewer people will smoke it, no less marijuana will flow through and be grown in Massachusetts, and even more people will sell it with the attractive price supports your enhanced prohibition will create.  

When will you politicians learn that prohibition is the drug dealer’s favorite public policy?

Police scramble to codify new marijuana bust procedures – Clinton, MA – The Times & Courier

Voters elected last November to remove the criminal penalty for possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. Since the law went into effect Jan. 1, offenders are now subject to a civil fine. That fine, like a parking ticket, can be appealed in court.

[Lancaster Police Chief Kevin] Lamb said last week that he still has questions and concerns over the new law.“There’s going to be problems if you issue a $100 ticket and they don’t pay it. Who is going to chase them around for it?” he said. “There are all kinds of issues that are going to come up in the next few months.”

Lamb also referenced a hypothetical situation in which one of his officers could sit in a police cruiser, smoking a joint, and the only thing the chief could do is have a citation issued. No further disciplinary action could be taken because the new law classifies the possession of less than one ounce as a civil offense. Conversely, Lamb noted, an officer could be fired if found smoking a regular cigarette in that same cruiser.

“That just doesn’t make sense,” Lamb said.

It’s nice to see that Massachusetts has gone to such great lengths to employ the mentally handicapped.  Really, are you guys that bummed out about not being able to just cuff and stuff pot smokers that you’ve lost all sense?

Chief Lamb, the new law makes marijuana possession like a parking ticket.  Who is chasing around the folks who don’t pay parking tickets?  Nobody!  But if you have an unpaid ticket, then what?  You get cited for contempt, you get a bench warrant, and the next time you interface with a police officer, you’re going to jail.

And you really think you have no grounds to fire a police officer smoking cannabis in a police cruiser?  First off, is this a huge problem in Massachusetts?  Do you not have the standard human resources-approved legal mumbo-jumbo in your employment contracts about “conduct unbecoming an officer” or a “morality clause” or something?

Geez, the way you guys whine you’d think that we haven’t seen twelve other states deal with exactly this same situation!

Hey there, boys and girls!  Having trouble understanding the concept of “federalism”?  You remember this vaguely from high school, don’t you, about how cities and counties can make laws, but those laws are subordinate to state laws, and state laws are subordinate to federal laws?

Apparently, they have trouble with this concept in Worcester, Massachusetts:

WORCESTER — A move is in the works on the City Council to have the city establish a civil penalty, and even the possibility of criminal indictment, for the use of marijuana on public property under the control of the city. 

Under the ordinance being sought by the councilors, the use of marijuana would not be allowed on city streets, sidewalks, public ways, parks, playgrounds, public buildings, school grounds, parking lots and any other area under control of the city. 

The passage of Question 2 reduces the penalty for less than an ounce of marijuana to a $100 civil fine. The three city councilors would like to see the city at least be able to assess an additional fine to those using marijuana on city property. 

Prior to Question 2 becoming law this month, the state Executive Office of Public Safety encouraged cities and towns to pass new penalties for using marijuana in public. Attorney General Martha Coakley has even offered a sample bylaw that would include a $300 civil penalty and the possibility of criminal indictment for the use of marijuana on public property. 

Excuse me?  The state law enacted by 65% of the voters says:

Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, possession of one ounce or less of marihuana shall only be a civil offense, subjecting an offender who is eighteen years of age or older to a civil penalty of one hundred dollars and forfeiture of the marihuana, but not to any other form of criminal or civil punishment or disqualification…. neither the Commonwealth nor any of its political subdivisions or their respective agencies, authorities or instrumentalities may impose any form of penalty, sanction or disqualification on an offender for possessing an ounce or less of marihuana.

Translation: We don’t like the state pot law, so we’ll follow a new local law.

Massachusetts passed Question 2 and now local government doesn’t want to obey that state law.  Compare this to a few other situations where some new local laws were passed.  In Hawaii County, voters told law enforcement that they shouldn’t harass anyone possessing less than 24 ounces or 24 plants and they shall not cooperate with state or federal eradication efforts on the Big Island.  Reaction from the state attorney?

“Under the Constitution, the state Legislature can pass laws, and in the areas where it passes laws, it prevents the county from passing contrary laws.

“We prosecute under the authority of the Attorney General, so these are state laws. So that would not change. As far as how the county proceeds on it at the police level, they’re also bound by the Constitution to prosecute all laws, if they’re valid laws, so it really wouldn’t change anything. They would still need to enforce the law.”

Translation: We don’t like the local pot law, so we’ll follow the state law.

In Fayetteville, Arkansas, city voters passed an initiative to direct local law enforcement to set their priorities on something other than busting pot smokers.  Reaction from the Fayetteville police chief?

Fayetteville Police Chief Greg Tabor said approval of the ordinance won’t impact law enforcement related to marijuana possession because state law remains in force.

“Like I¹ve said many times, I just don¹t see that it will change much,” he said. “Misdemeanor marijuana possession is already low priority for us. I’m not saying we don’t arrest people for it. It’s a Class A misdemeanor and by law, you have to be ticketed and finger-printed for it, which means you’ll have to go to jail.”

Translation: We don’t like the local pot law, so we’ll follow the state law.

In Hailey, Idaho, voters there on multiple occassions have passed local ordinances legalizing medical marijuana, industrial hemp, and decriminalizing pot possession.  The City Council was quick to take those initiatives to court:

The Idaho Constitution provides that cities can enact and enforce laws that are not in conflict with the general laws of the State of Idaho. The Hailey Medical Marijuana Act purports to legalize the use and possession of 35 grams of marijuana for medicinal purposes. This act conflicts with state and federal law and in such a circumstance, the courts have held that a local ordinance is invalid.

Translation: We don’t like the local pot law, so we’ll follow the state law.

There you go, kids, a simple lesson in drug war federalism.  State laws say pot is bad, so local laws that say it’s good need not be obeyed.  But if state law says pot is good, then local laws that say it’s bad must be obeyed.