<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The NORML Stash Blog &#187; worcester city council</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stash.norml.org/tag/worcester-city-council/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stash.norml.org</link>
	<description>The Growing Truth About Cannabis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 03:15:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Worcester City Council rejects pot penalties greater than Question 2</title>
		<link>http://stash.norml.org/worcester-city-council-rejects-pot-penalties-greater-than-question-2</link>
		<comments>http://stash.norml.org/worcester-city-council-rejects-pot-penalties-greater-than-question-2#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:35:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>"Radical" Russ Belville</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ACTIVISM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOVERNMENT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LEGISLATION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Question 2]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Worcester]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[worcester city council]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stash.norml.org/?p=2313</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div style="padding:5px 0 5px 0; text-align:center; ;"><a href="http://stash.norml.org/wp-content/plugins/max-banner-ads-pro/max-banner-ads-lib/include/redirect.php?id=7" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://stash.norml.org/wp-content/mbp-banner/cafe_shops2_20090214115613.gif"   /></a><br /></div><blockquote><p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The vote to file is the parliamentary equivalent of placing an item in the wastebasket.</p>
<p>A majority of councilors simply felt it was not necessary or appropriate to have the city alter what the voters approved.</p>
<p><em>via </em><a href="http://www.telegram.com/article/20090114/NEWS/901140559/1008/RSS01&amp;source=rss"><em>Worcester Telegram &amp; Gazette News</em></a><em>.</em></p></blockquote>
<p>This is a <a href="http://stash.norml.org/worcester-massachusetts-wants-bigger-pot-penalties-than-question-2-allows/">followup on our story from Friday</a> where city officials were considering creating a $300 fine and criminal complaint for use of marijuana on publicly-controlled property, despite Question 2&#8242;s limit of $100 civil fine and no criminal complaint.  It&#8217;s nice to see most of the Worcester City Council does understand the authority of state law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://stash.norml.org/worcester-city-council-rejects-pot-penalties-greater-than-question-2/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

