| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Gaming | VB Image Host | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Hot Products! | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #1 |
| Seasoned Activist ![]() Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,401
Grams: 5,918.40 Thanks: 7
Thanked 33 Times in 15 Posts
| Are fluids already illegal in Massachusetts? Arguably so. I found two definitions that allude to this: Chapter 94c, Section 1It appears to me that the Marijuana Policy Project hasn't created any new penalties. It looks like internal possession of marijuana in your fluids or anywhere on your body already was illegal in Massachusetts (which makes me wonder how many other states define marijuana like this). The MPP probably included the language for the reasons they already cited in their Reason interview. This means there is absolutely no worthwhile reason not to support the Massachusetts initiative. Here are your options: Option #1: Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana or of any amount of marijuana in your bodily fluids or on your skin constitutes a criminal misdemeanor, a $500 fine, forfeiture of the marijuana, and up to 6 months in jail. Best case scenario is probation with records being sealed upon your first offense. You only have a possibility of probation on your second offense and will have a criminal record (you could be jailed, and probation may not happen at all if you don't plead guilty). With the criminal misdemeanor comes collateral sanctions for the convicted such as: suspension of their driver's licenses, forfeiture of their professional licenses, loss of their right to own a firearm, and ineligibility for adoption, student aid, and unemployment benefits. Option #2: Possession of one ounce or less of marijuana or any amount of marijuana in your bodily fluids or on your skin constitutes a civil fine of $100 that you simply send through the mail and forfeiture of the marijuana. Since it is a civil fine, there are no collateral sanctions for the convicted. I choose Option #2 hands down. This isn't rocket science people. If the initiative could have been written better, we should be disappointed, but that isn't a reason to not vote for a huge step forward. In fact, if someone is willing to vote against this initiative and says they favor decriminalization at the same time, I have to question their sincerity and their motives. Libertyindex: Is it already considered possession in Massachusetts to have marijuana and its by-products in your bodily fluids or anywhere on you?
__________________ Donate. Write. Make a difference.. Posting Guidelines | Marijuana Policy Project | NORML | DPA | Drug WarRant | Media Awareness Project |
| | |
| The Following User Says Thank You to Lothar121 For This Useful Post: | Trocisp (11-28-2007) |
| Marijuana.com Sponsor | |||
| | |||
| | #2 |
| Banned ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,214
Grams: 49,800.58 Thanks: 783
Thanked 1,451 Times in 889 Posts
| A step forward is a step in the right direction. It might not be a leap, but the longest journeys begin with a single step. |
| | |
| | #3 | |
| sailor dog... ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,933
Grams: 31,271.02 Thanks: 3,671
Thanked 4,235 Times in 1,911 Posts
| Quote:
not just a scholar. Good one mate...
__________________ | |
| | |
| The Following User Says Thank You to sterbo For This Useful Post: | Trocisp (11-28-2007) |
| | #4 | |
| Banned Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 209
Grams: 3,081.39 Thanks: 9
Thanked 25 Times in 17 Posts
| Quote:
The question was not whether it was law but whether it would ever be enforced because today in Mass it isn't. I know not one person that has ever been arrested her for internal possession. I challenge anybody to find one that ever has in the state of Massachusetts. Some local people thought it would be smarter just to decriminalize which politically ends the war on marijuana users. While the other side thought put in the lengthier language with internal thc which will stop it from being thrown out by the supreme court or maybe the police trying to do an end run because it is an initiative and more likely to happen that way than through the legislature...I understand the differences. I'm not sure who is right, I was just personally getting sick of hearing and seeing the dissension and I would much rather see the dirty laundry come out on here or myspace versus the Boston Globe and Boston Herald like I saw starting to happen and then the attacks back from that. I'm glad they came and hashed it out and asked for masscann's membership to endorse it. And I will be voting for it and telling all my friends to as well, Last edited by Mike C : 12-15-2007 at 11:54 AM. Reason: bad grammar, sorry | |
| | |
| The Following User Says Thank You to Mike C For This Useful Post: | sterbo (12-15-2007) |
| Marijuana.com Sponsor | |||
| | |||