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.

Related posts

• Worcester, Massachusetts, wants bigger pot penalties than Question 2 allows (5)
• What is law enforcement smoking to oppose Massachusetts Question 2? (1)
• Stash for Thu, Jan 29, 2009 (0)

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.

Read the rest of this entry by clicking here

Related posts

• 2008 Election Results – The Winner is… Marijuana Reform! (1)
• DRCNet: Drug Policy Reform and Sentencing Initiatives on the November Ballot (0)
• On appeal, Idaho judge guts twice-passed Hailey marijuana initiatives (1)