Marijuana.com

Mike C

Are they incompetent and uncaring or just a front that squashes real marijuana reform? I can't believe I even have these thoughts but it is not without reason. What are your thoughts on this organization, this Massachusetts fiasco and the fact they keep losing in states where marijuana reform is a no lose proposition. Massachusetts voters again and again vote for marijuana decrim. 63+% support it. Yet this initiative looks dead in the water because even marijuana reform activists will not support a bill that creates new law against marijuana users...

See these blogs for more info of what I speak about...

Myspace.com Blogs - Grinspoon- "Effort to decriminalize minor marijuana offenses in Massachusetts needs revision" - Band4MassCann MySpace Blog

Myspace.com Blogs - Calling BS on MPP’s (Marijuana Policy Project) Massachusetts Ballot Initiative - Band4MassCann MySpace Blog

Myspace.com Blogs - Whitney Taylor Defends MPP Massachusetts Initiative and Mike C’s Response - Band4MassCann MySpace Blog

 

Lothar121

I'm completely disappointed with the Marijuana Policy Project and the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy. The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body. I have strongly supported MPP's Nevada initiatives in the past, as well as their Alaskan initiative to tax and regulate marijuana, but this latest initiative has pissed me off.

When I first read it, I believed that they were trying to include metabolites with possession and it would simply count as part of the possession charge so law-makers wouldn't attempt to circumvent the initiative by criminalizing metabolites. If that was the intent, they failed miserably. I apologize for my misinterpretation, and I admit I read it in a biased way thinking that any initiative the MPP is funding would surely not be so incompetent, but alas, facts are facts.

After reading the initiative's language several times, it is fairly clear that the way it reads will qualify inactive metabolites as being guilty of possessing one ounce or less of marijuana even when no physical marijuana is present.

If I don't convince you, look at what the Massachusetts's AG said:

The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body.

Now that we know what the initiative will do, it's time to ask ourselves if we can support it. If the initiative were to pass, it would save the state millions of dollars of taxpayer money and would prevent thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens from obtaining a criminal record. It would also save police time and money by encouraging LEO's to simply issue a ticket like you would get for a traffic violation.

On the other hand, this initiative is flawed in that it would create the first ever (to my knowledge) penalty for simply having inactive metabolites of marijuana in one's system, even when not having ANY marijuana on you. Does this outweigh the positives? I don't think so because it would violate the 4th amendment to just start randomly searching people and fining them, and the penalty itself is a small fine, but it makes me extremely uneasy outright endorsing the initiative.

Libertyindex

__________________

Donate. Write. Make a difference..
Libertyindex | Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project

Viper420

Here's an idea...get it passed then let the higher courts strike down that section of the law.

troublemaker_42

I currently live in a state (SD) that has such a law. One can be found guilty of possession for having inactive metabolites in your body. It HAS been challenged in court, and HAS BEEN UPHELD....so, passing it with the idea of striking down the offending section at a later date may not be in anyone's best interest.

On another note, though, an officer can't just walk up and make you piss in a cup. If you aren't driving or on parole/probation, its all but impossible to "make" you submit to a drug test. A warrant would need to be obtained if one refuses. In SD, people aren't normally charged with possession for a positive urine test, but rather charged with "injestion of an intoxicant other than alcohol" if for some reason tested while not driving, or DUI if driving. The situation I have seen the "internal possession"
law used most in is that of someone on parole/probation who tests positive for meth or other hard drugs as a result of a normal urine screen. In these cases, the offender is charged with possession. The same thing happens when a DUI suspect is drug tested and something otyher than marijuana shows up. All in all, its a crappy law that is applied differntly depending on the circumstances allowed. I too would oppose such a law being enacted elsewhere. Its just yet another tool that law enfortcement can use to harass and prosecute us, even when we are not physically in possession of anything illegal. I guess the MPP and I are in agreement that the new law is fatally flawed in that respect

__________________
Remember you're a wreck, an accident
forget the freak, you're just nature
Keep the gun oiled and the temple clean
shit, snort and blaspheme
Let the heads cool and the engine run
Because in the end,
everything we do
is just everything we've done..."Omega" by StoneSour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ma#Gun_control
www.sportsmenforObama.org

Lothar121

I endorse the initiative as it would still be better than the current law.

From Reason Online:

According to the Marijuana Policy Project, the D.C.-based group backing the initiative, says internal possession is already arguably illegal in Massachusetts. MPP says it included internal possession to keep the initiative simple and to preclude the government from punishing a positive test result more severely than holding a bag of pot. It emphasizes that citations based on internal possession would be rare, since the government can legally obtain a urine or blood sample for testing only in limited circumstances, and that the punishment would never exceed a $100 fine.

Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > The Wrong Way to Decriminalize?

 

Mike C

There is no law in mass that punishes internal? Only a few states have it and actively go after people for it? I have lived in Mass all my life and seen many friends arrested for marijuana. Never for internal possession!

Another news article from AP that ran in today's second biggest newspaper in the state (the Boston Herald) and on local tv and radio. NORML's Keith Stroup also speaks about the faulty initiative.

MassCann/NORML is undefeated in this state with non binding initiatives that had much simpler language. Ending arrests for simple possession is all they needed to do, but they decided that they knew more than people that live here...

Myspace.com Blogs - Activists Push Ballot Question To Legalize Pot - Band4MassCann MySpace Blog

Mike C

Even if the wording is good enough to support like lothar121 said, MPP has alienated it's base in this state who are now starting to speak out against in the press. That is a collossal PR bumble on there part. Think about that.

KingDub

Would you rather be charged with possession or DUI?

That's what MPP seems to be getting at here.

Having been arrested for possession before, and having known a few former friends of mine with multiple DUI charges, I can say with certainty that I'd rather be charged with possession. Unless you enjoy jail cells, unemployment and losing your driving privilege for a year.

Mike C

Possession or DUI, not much difference here in MASS in regards to employment since they all end up on the CORI report. Interesting, I had two friends that were teachers. One was working as a teacher/coach and got convicted of drunk driving and kept his job. The other arrested for pot couldn't get hired. Like all things, it really depends on the situation.

Looking back I feel that all sides should have done more to work it out. I'm still not 100% happy with the bill but in the end it is better than the status quo and ultimately it might lead the state legislature to vote in a better bill. I'm happy to report that the local leaders of this initiative have actually started to work or at least answer some of the concerns since the bad blood on the initiative went out into the public. I only wish that had happened earlier. I now understand the concerns on all sides and really think that all had the best of intentions but just different ideas of what was the right thing to push..