Thumbing their noses at the state’s lax new pot law, Bay State stoners are brazenly lighting up in front of cops and then refusing to pay fines – leading some frustrated police chiefs to all but give up the fight.

Local police report widespread defiance of the six-month-old law, and a Herald review shows a vast majority of potheads cited by cops blowing off their $100 fines.

All told, a staggering 83 percent of 415 tokers cited in Boston since the law took effect in January have refused to pony up the $100, a Herald review shows.

In Braintree, 15 of 28 citations went unpaid, while in Brookline 26 of 33 blew off the fines.

Somerville Deputy Chief Paul Upton said his officers are now writing few if any citations, in part because enforcing the law costs more money than it’s worth.

“If we send an officer to court, it’s going to cost us $250,” Upton said. “We’re not getting a lot of (citations) written.”

Meanwhile, in Braintree on Monday night, police spotted a suspected perv smoking pot in a car filled with coils of rope, a pair of handcuffs and bottles of NyQuil. But they had to let the man go, even though he was awaiting trial on child sexual assault charges.

Said Deputy Chief Russell Jenkins, “Had the law not been changed, he absolutely would have been placed under arrest.”

via Pot law leaves cops high & dry – BostonHerald.com.

The Boston Herald since Day One has been opposed to the decriminalization measure in Massachusetts that was supported by almost 2 out of 3 voters.  The reason people supported Question 2 in the first place was that they felt police in the Bay State had better things to do than to haul pot smokers in front of a judge at $250 worth of an officer’s time per pop.

In the penultimate graf, we get a ridiculous and offensive implication about marijuana and pedophilia – have they been reading John English in Boston?  First of all, let’s suppose the “suspected perv” (nice journalistic integrity there) had been sitting in his car smoking a cigarette.  The police would have nothing to bust him for, as possession of rope, handcuffs, and NyQuil, even for those accused of (not proven to be) child molesters.  Is it really Chief Jenkins and the Herald’s assertion that the only way he can keep Braintree safe from child molesters is if they choose to smoke pot in public and he has the right to lock them up for it?  Does he really mean that nationwide, 872,721 marijuana smokers per year have to have their lives ruined so we can catch the four or five suspected-but-not-proven child molesters in that group?

As for this “toothless” decriminalization, are the people of Massachusetts upset about this?  Do they feel they’ve been duped, thinking they’d reap $100 for every pothead caught, and are now gnashing their teeth over all the stoners who are getting off scot-free?  The Herald asked about this in their online poll:

Is the $100 fine for smoking pot a good idea?

7% – Yes, give it a chance to work
3% – No, double the fine
19% – No, go back to it being an arrestable offense
70% – Just legalize pot and save us all the trouble

Total Votes: 3,477

Download the NORML Daily Audio Stash for 2009-01-29

Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2009-01-29.mp3)

I’m getting some great suggestions from the Stashers out there – keep ‘em comin’!  And if you want to contribute your own two-minute MP3 reports on cannabis news in your area, you could be played on the Stash as our Regional Correspondent (I’m sure I’ll think of a Stashy-sounding title by then.)

Today’s Stash features a conversation with Michael Crawford, from the board of directors for MassCann/NORML and the musical director of the Boston Freedom Rally.  Even though Massachusetts passed Question 2, making possession of marijuana a $100 civil fine, city leaders are proposing local ordinances to create additional fines of up to $700.  Why can’t elected officials understand that 65% approval for $100 fines is a landslide!

Then Tere Joyce brings us the latest from Southern California.  She has an intriguing idea for helping stimulate the American economy, and it’s not weed!  Tere brings along medical cannabis dispensary employee Jim Wilson, to tell about the experience the recent Tahoe Raid victims probably felt, because he went through a raid along with Tere a couple of years ago.

It’s my penultimate day of fortyhood!  Any excuse to use the word “penultimate”.

Stashers, when staid old-money business networks like CNBC start noticing us, you know the tide is turning.  Their new documentary, “Marijuana Inc. Inside America’s Pot Industry” premieres Thursday, January 22 at 9pm.

This may be apocryphal, but when FDR was running for President for the first time in 1932, he said something along the lines of “What America needs now is a good, stiff drink.”

Then he won and went on to help end prohibition.

Well, now we’ve got a new Democratic President coming into office, we’re in similarly dire economic straits, and maybe what America needs is a nice toke?

It’s time to legalize, or at least decriminalize, drugs. Admittedly this would be a blow to the flourishing prison industry at a time when we don’t want to cause additional job losses.

But perhaps we could make up some of those lost prison-guard jobs by opening up new rehab clinics and filling them up with addicts who need treatment.

The voters are miles ahead of the politicians on this issue. Most national politicians would rather admit to using drugs than come out in favor of decriminalizing them. But in Massachusetts, a resolution decriminalizing the possession of small amounts of marijuana passed with the support of 65% of voters, despite opposition from the governor on down. The politicians seem to believe it’s political suicide to favor a more rational drug policy, and even the massive popularity of measures like Question 2 in Massachusetts can’t convince them otherwise.

Barack Obama won’t admit that the war on drugs is a failure, but in his autobiography he admitted to doing cocaine in his youth. During the primaries the Clinton campaign tried to gin-up a scandal out of this fact. I think the real scandal is that the President Elect believes that other people should go to prison for something that he, and many others, get away with Scott free. The same goes for Bill Clinton, who smoked marijuana but “never inhaled.”

The war on drugs does two things: it makes the business of drugs more profitable and more violent, and it sends lots and lots of people to prison.

Wouldn’t it be better if we could bring this business out into the open, slap some taxes on it, and keep people from shooting each other? Of the 2.3 million people incarcerated in this country, more than half are in prison for drug-related offenses. That’s unconscionable, and I believe future generations will see this fact, more than the pseudo-legalization of torture under the Bush Administration, as the great moral failing of our time. As the late, great Milton Friedman, an opponent of the War on Drugs from the very beginning when Nixon initiated hostilities, put it, “there is no light at the end of that tunnel. How many of our citizens do we want to turn into criminals before we yell “enough”?”

No one believes that illegal drugs are anything but harmful, but Americans, or at least our leaders, use that fact to stop any discussion of a rational policy to deal with the problem.

I hope the new guy will be different. For now my generation is much more progressive on this issue than older Americans. But I wonder what will happen to younger proponents of decriminalization as they grow up and have children. It’s a fact that we can’t prevent people from getting their hands on drugs in this country by locking up dealers and using F-16s to spray herbicides all over Colombia. We’ve tried for over 30 years, and the only thing the policy succeeds at is ruining lives.

What kills me is that nobody seems to care, not about the human cost, or even about the financial cost.

WORCESTER — The City Council last night thwarted an effort to have the city establish an additional civil penalty, and even the possibility of criminal indictment, for the use of marijuana on public property.

By a 7-4 vote, the council placed on file two orders that had asked the city administration to prepare such an ordinance in response to the passage of Question 2 on the November ballot that decriminalized the possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana.

The vote to file is the parliamentary equivalent of placing an item in the wastebasket.

A majority of councilors simply felt it was not necessary or appropriate to have the city alter what the voters approved.

via Worcester Telegram & Gazette News.

This is a followup on our story from Friday where city officials were considering creating a $300 fine and criminal complaint for use of marijuana on publicly-controlled property, despite Question 2’s limit of $100 civil fine and no criminal complaint.  It’s nice to see most of the Worcester City Council does understand the authority of state law.

Marijuana decriminalization presenting logistical hurdles – Belmont, MA – Belmont Citizen-Herald
BOSTON, MASS. – State and county law enforcement officials are encountering major obstacles in trying to implement the voter-approved decriminalization of less than an ounce of marijuana, with a month remaining before the new law takes effect.

Gov. Deval Patrick’s top public safety aide has been working with district attorneys to conceive the tools necessary to enforce the voter mandate, which imposes civil rather than criminal penalties. But law enforcement officials call the law such a drastic shift from current policies that assembling the implementation package is nearly impossible given the timeframe. The Legislature, which has no formal sessions scheduled before the law is due to take effect in early January, appears unlikely to make changes to the new law before then.

Training police, developing an education program for juveniles arrested for possession, issuing civil citations, and working with schools and colleges to align anti-pot rules have all proved problematic for Patrick administration officials as they hold meetings with officials from several administration agencies and law enforcement.

Williams said police groups have questioned whether officers would be subject to civil action if they arrest someone in possession of a quantity of marijuana that is later found to be less than an ounce, or whether officers would be permitted to search a vehicle if they saw a marijuana cigarette, or “joint,” as allowed under current law.

Hold on, let me get out the World’s Tiniest Violin so we may play a mournful tune for the poor public officials in Massachusetts who have been so suddenly blindsided by marijuana decriminalization they have no working plan on how to implement the law.  

That’s funny, because a little ol’ blogger like me has been following this initiative since February.  It’s even funnier that the Legislature held a hearing on the initiative in March.  Funnier still that it was polling at 72% support in August.  Even funnier when you consider that cities like Amherst and many others made pot their lowest law enforcement priority by large voting majorities.  So it’s not like this initiative passing should have caught anyone by surprise!

Here’s an idea.  If you want to know how cops will have to behave in a decriminalized state, ask some in the other twelve decriminalized states!  It’s not like Massachusetts now has to re-invent the wheel.  We decriminalized marijuana in Oregon 35 years ago, ask us! 

Download the NORML Daily Audio Stash for 2008-10-27

Download audio file (NORML_Daily_AudioStash_2008-10-27.mp3)

With one week left before Election Day, we here at the Stash are keeping you informed on all of the federal, state, and local initiatives, questions, measures, propositions, and bills you need to know about.  All this week our interviews will feature the top drug law reformers giving you the news on the ground in important cannabis reform legislation.

Today we bring you two panelists from the NORML Convention last weekend in Berkeley, California (and check out the ever-growing archive).  Keith Stroup, Founder of NORML, gives a presentation on the federal bills addressing cannabis in the next Congerss.  Then Rob Kampia, Executive Director of Marijuana Policy Project, presents a look at the two big state initiatives, Question 2 (decrim) in Massachusetts and Proposition 1 (medmj) in Michigan.

Poll indicates half of voters want marijuana decriminalized – The Boston Globe
A ballot proposal to decriminalize the possession of marijuana has the support of about half of Massachusetts voters as the Nov. 4 election nears, a new poll indicates.

Fifty-one percent of registered voters supported Question 2, while 32 percent opposed it, and 16 percent were undecided, according to the 7News/Suffolk University poll taken earlier this week.

In an August survey, 72 percent of those surveyed had supported decriminalization. But law enforcement officials have mobilized to oppose the proposal and have made significant progress in swaying people to their side, said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Suffolk.

“The no side has gained momentum over the past two months,” Paleologos said in a statement.

“The issue is whether the brass and blue will be able to move enough additional voters to their side in 12 days.”

It’s amazing how much pull the law enforcement community has with voters and the ease with which they can lie about Question 2.  They want to scare voters by saying that teen marijuana use has dropped (it has) and that Question 2 would end that trend.  It’s that old “message we send to the kids” argument.

What I don’t understand about that argument is that the message you’re sending to kids right now isn’t working.  We’ve sent the message that cannabis is awful and illegal and if you do it we’ll arrest you and give you a record and mess up your life.  We’ve sent that message for 38 years now and kids are still smoking pot!  Yes, rates have declined recently, as they have nationwide, but over the entire 38 years span of this message, we’ve seen very little change in marijuana use rates.

So, for some reason, the message used now doesn’t work to stop pot smoking, but if we changed the message to “we still think you shouldn’t smoke pot, we’ll still fine you, but we won’t ruin your life”, then suddenly the use rates of marijuana by teens would skyrocket.  The “NO we really hate it” message isn’t working, but somehow the “NO we really dislike it” message will successfully encourage more use.

Then there’s the idea promoted by opponents that this will open the floodgates to drug dealers.  Please.  The amounts we’re talking about – less than an ounce – are far lower than what a “drug dealer” works with.  Nobody is making a consistent buck of selling 1-gram joints out of a 27-joint bag.

Hub rips cops featured in soft-on-marijuana ads – BostonHerald.com
Boston cops and Mayor Thomas M. Menino are up in arms that pictures of two uniformed officers and a marked cruiser appear in new political ads supporting a controversial proposal to decriminalize marijuana.

“Their decision to incorporate the BPD brand into their ad campaign was very inappropriate,” Boston Police Department spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said. “They did not ask for permission and we in no way endorse this advertisement.”

In one ad, retired Sgt. Howard Donahue says he supports Question 2 because it would free up cops to fight “violent criminals.” The ad features an old picture of Donahue in uniform in front of a BPD cruiser.

Another ad features retired Lt. Tom Nolan and a picture of him in uniform while he argues that existing weed laws give offenders a lifetime criminal record that makes it hard to get jobs and student loans. Question 2 would make possession of up to one ounce of pot a civil offense punishable by a fine.

“I entered law enforcement to catch bad guys, not to deny someone an education for life just because they made a mistake,” Nolan says.

While state ethics laws ban the use of taxpayer-funded resources in political ads, Yes on Question 2 spokeswoman Whitney Taylor said, “There are no ethics violations. Those were personal pictures from retired police officers.”

Menino spokeswoman Dot Joyce also slammed the group’s use of the BPD car and uniforms, saying, “It’s an unfair tactic to try and confuse voters. The mayor doesn’t support this ad.”

OK, got that?  Using the Boston Police Department brand in a political campaign is just wrong.  “It’s an unfair tactic to try and confuse voters.”

Got it.  So, I suppose this photo, appearing in the header image of the No on Question 2 website, is similarly unfair and confusing?

See, folks, when cops appear in uniform on the website of the group opposed to reforming marijuana laws, a group that includes 11 state DAs, a bunch of police chiefs, and other officials alleged to have been using taxpayer resources to oppose a citizen initiative, see, that’s OK, because drugs ‘r’ bad, mmmkay?

But if a couple of old retired cops (the only ones who are free to speak out) use a couple of their personal photos from what, the 1980’s?, that’s a huge violation of ethics and a slander of the Boston Police Department brand, because, well, drugs ‘r’ bad, mmmkay.

And since when did police departments become “brands”?  How about “protect and serve” for a brand, huh?  How about “enforce the law, not influence the law” for a brand?  They’re not even active police, they’re retired! 

I’ll bet there are a whole lot of Boston and other Massachusetts police officers who will be voting yes on Question 2 because they know popping young people with a baggie of weed is a ridiculous waste of law enforcement time in the age of drive-bys, identity theft, and potential terrorist attack.  I hope many of them will join Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, too.

DAs fight bid to ease penalty for marijuana – The Boston Globe
As a student at Stonehill College, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley found himself in a room with guys passing around a bong. “When it came to me, I inhaled so hard that it burned my lungs,” he says. “I don’t want to sound Clintonesque; I inhaled, but I couldn’t handle it.”

Gerry Leone, Middlesex district attorney, also admits to smoking pot. “It was years ago, when I was a young man,” he said. “I tried it once, and it wasn’t something I was ever into.”

Michael O’Keefe, district attorney for the Cape and Islands, would only hint at his past: “Like a lot of people in my generation, we did a lot of things that were unwise, unhealthy, and illegal,” he says.

The prosecutors – who would have faced obstacles to attaining their law enforcement positions had they been caught – are now among the leading opponents of a proposition on the Nov. 4 ballot that would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. They argue that the initiative would send the wrong message and lead to a host of social problems.

Proponents argue, however, that if the question passed, possession of small amounts would remain illegal but would no longer tarnish someone’s future.

Under state law, those convicted of possessing even a small amount of marijuana now face up to six months in jail, a fine of $500, and a lifelong criminal record that may be available to potential employers, housing agencies, and student loan providers. In 2006, 6,902 people were arrested in Massachusetts for marijuana possession – more than 38 percent of all the drug arrests in the state that year, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports.

All arrests for marijuana possession are archived by the state’s Criminal History Systems Board – even when there isn’t a conviction. The board is obliged to disclose such Criminal Offender Record Information, known as CORI, to any employer seeking to hire a teacher, police officer, day-care center employee, school bus driver, or nursing home worker, as well as prosecutors.

The proposed change in the law – Question 2 on the ballot – would make possession of less than an ounce of marijuana punishable by a civil fine of $100, the equivalent of getting a speeding ticket. Nothing would be reported to the criminal history board.

It was one thing when the World War II generation was punishing the rest of us for using a little cannabis, but when it is these hypocritical Baby Boomers who tried it themselves, it makes me sad.  Do you really think those kids you passed a bong with in college deserved to labeled as criminals?  Did you always hang out with criminals while in college?  Of course not; they weren’t criminals, you weren’t criminals, and the kids using weed today aren’t criminals, either.  The message you’re sending is “Do as I say, not as I do.”

The “Coalition for Safe Streets”, the nascent cops-n-prosecutors group fighting Massachusetts Question 2, has a website chock full of Reefer Madness.  (Question 2 would decriminalize an ounce or less possession by adults.)

It’s also funny to me, because I’m trying to imagine who exactly is against safe streets?  Oh, I know, they’re trying to paint marijuana reform as danger in the streets, I guess.  Notice they don’t tell you what they’re actually for.  The pro-Question 2 group is “Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy” – they’re coming right out and telling you what they’re about: marijuana.  But the anti-Question 2 group doesn’t call themselves “Coalition for Prohibiting Marijuana”, they’ve got to fool you with “Safe Streets”.

Coalition for Safe Streets Launches Ad!
Question 2 benefits drug dealers and dangerous criminals. Question 2 provides for the retailing of marijuana in our communities and enabling drug dealers to operate free from the threat of criminal prosecution. One ounce of marijuana has a street value of $600 and equates to approximately 60 individual sales.

Let’s see, an ounce is 28 grams, divide by sixty… So Massachusetts is overrun by dealers carrying only a bag of sixty half-gram joints (if you generously count the weight of the paper), selling them for ten bucks apiece?  Really?  And tokers are buying them one at a time, not getting bulk eighths or quarters?  Hmmm.  I’m from Idaho originally, so I don’t know how y’all roll on the East Coast, but all the drug dealers and dangerous criminals I’ve known (a few) laugh at the word “ounces”.

Today’s marijuana poses a serious public health threat and is dramatically more potent than the drug used by baby boomers 30 years ago.

Wait for it…

Marijuana contains nine times the mind-altering THC as 30 years ago; is more carcinogenic than cigarette tobacco; is a primary factor in juvenile hospital admissions; and is more strongly associated with juvenile crime than alcohol. Marijuana users are 10 times more likely to be injured, or injure others, in automobile crashes, and a large percentage of arrestees (30-40%) test positive for marijuana.

Wow!  Ladies and Gentlemen, a full triple-reverse Anslinger with a one-and-a-half twist in the McCaffrey position!  Let’s go to the tape:

Nine times the THC?  Government says today’s weed is 9.6% THC, which is questionable, but let’s work with it, 9.6% divide by nine… that’s a tiny bit over 1% THC… so when my folks were digging Saturday Night Fever, everyone was smoking industrial hemp?

Marijuana smokers, even chronic heavy users, show no more risk of head, neck, and lung cancers than their non-smoking counterparts.

Hospital admissions only prove someone used marijuana, not that marijuana caused the admission.

When you count possession of marijuana as a crime, of course people who use marijuana will have higher crime stats.

Studies do not show that using cannabis increases any severity of auto crashes.  But since marijuana is the most popular illicit substance and it shows up the longest in screening, a person who crashes has a good chance of having detectable marijuana in her system, even if she wasn’t impaired when she crashed.

And since, again, marijuana’s popular, and, again, having it is a crime, and, again, it stays in your system for weeks, it stands to reason that a large percentage of arrestees would test positive for marijuana.

Massachusetts is best served by preserving our current laws that help keep drugs away from our children, drug dealers off the streets and those under the influence of drugs out from behind the wheel of a car. And current law is fair to first-time offenders by requiring judges to dismiss charges and seal their records following a probationary period.

Because no potential employer looks twice at someone who has a sealed criminal record.  And if you’re a second-time offender, you deserve that criminal records stain in the Massachusetts CORI database.

By the way, your current laws aren’t keeping drugs away from your children.  83.9% of high school seniors say marijuana is easy or fairly easy to get and 42.4% of 12th graders have tried it at least once.