cannabisnews.com: South Shore Voters Back Decriminalizing Marijuana





South Shore Voters Back Decriminalizing Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on November 07, 2002 at 10:34:59 PT
By The Patriot Ledger Staff and News Services 
Source: Patriot Ledger 
Voters in 12 legislative districts, including three on the South Shore, approved a non-binding ballot question in support of decriminalizing possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.With 61 percent of the precincts counted, the measure appeared to pass by a vote of 63,074 to 41,200, 61 percent to 39 percent. The margin on the South Shore fell in the range of 58 percent to 61 percent.
The question was on the ballot in the 1st Norfolk District, which includes Randolph and Quincy; the 2nd Norfolk District, which includes parts of Quincy; and the 5th Plymouth District, which includes Rockland, Hanover and Norwell.Advisory questions such as the marijuana issue are placed on the ballot in districts where proponents have gathered at least 200 signatures of registered voters.Voters in Nevada defeated a measure to legalize the possession of up to 3 ounces of marijuana. In Arizona, residents rejected an initiative that would have likened marijuana possession to a traffic violation. Ohio defeated a proposal that would have required judges to order treatment instead of jail for some drug offenders. Wealthy backers who had succeeded in easing access to marijuana for medical uses sought to go a step further and lessen the penalties for its use in general. The measures were heavily financed by billionaire philanthropists George Soros, John Sperling and Peter Lewis - as part of a broader effort to roll back the federal war on drugs. In San Francisco, officials received approval to explore establishing a distribution program for medical marijuana; and voters in the District of Columbia approved a treatment-instead-of-jail measure for marijuana possession. Source: The Patriot Ledger (MA)Published: November 06, 2002Copyright: 2002 The Patriot LedgerContact: editpage ledger.comWebsite: http://ledger.southofboston.com/Related Articles & Web Site:MassCannhttp://www.masscann.org/Voters Send Messages on Pot, Finneran & Casinos http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14686.shtmlVoters to Weigh in on Decriminalizing Pot http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread14642.shtmlMarijuana Questions On Ballothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread13760.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #5 posted by p4me on November 07, 2002 at 13:02:30 PT
Excellent article puff_tuff
The link to the article at the Ottawa Citizen is http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/editorials/story.asp?id={D0E2FF86-0CF3-4831-AD60-0B4F51321D92}I am going to have to craft a commendable response. In the battle of common sense against Walter's and Company nonsense, who will prevail.The Dayton Daily News that is also up on the board quoted Walter's stupid response to the elections as, "These failed initiatives represent the high-water mark of the drug legalization movement," John Walters, director of National Drug Control Policy said in a statement Wednesday. "Common sense has prevailed."Quoteaday.com has a quote from October 30th: "The stupid speak of the past, the wise of the present, fools of the future." -- Napoleon BonaparteThe quote of note though comes from Oct. 23,2002: 
Fere libenter homines id quod volunt, credunt."Men willingly believe what they wish." -- Caius Julius Caeser1
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by FoM on November 07, 2002 at 12:38:22 PT
Thanks puff_tuff 
I wasn't sure about being able to post this paper even though they are posted in newsgroups I think. Aren't they?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by puff_tuff on November 07, 2002 at 12:32:44 PT
Canadian Editorial
Pubdate: Thursday, November 07, 2002 Source: Ottawa Citizen (CN ON)Reefer madness, Runciman styleWhat on Earth can have motivated Ontario's minister of public safety and security, Bob Runciman, to call for mandatory minimum sentences for people who grow marijuana? As Toronto crackles with the sound of gunfire, as car thieves on parole make the roads deadly, and as terrorists send shopping lists to their colleagues in Canada, is marijuana really public issue number one? No, and to be fair, Mr. Runciman never said that it was. He has even suggested decriminalizing small amounts of it. Permit us to encourage him to follow this latter train of thought all the way to the station. His first comment has the virtue of consistency. Mr. Runciman has long favoured harsher sentences, and more meaningful ones, on a wide variety of issues. So when a reporter asked him on the weekend about marijuana growers, he replied that he wanted them punished more severely also. But rather than seeking harsher sentences for every offence under the sun, Mr. Runciman must prioritize. Like everything else, prison space is a scarce resource, so turning a rapist loose early in order to lock up a toker is an irrational use of it. Having SWAT teams swoop down on paraplegic, middle-aged businesspeople who grow and smoke marijuana to relieve muscle spasms is both shameful and absurd. These people are not primary threats to society, and distinctions should be drawn by rational people. Speaking of rationality, the unanswered question for Mr. Runciman is why, if it's not a big deal to have a small amount of weed, it is a big deal to have a large amount that you're going to divide into small amounts and give to people who want it. After all, mass murder is bad because individual murders are bad. But while people have been murdered, or robbed, or raped, no one has ever been marijuana-ed. Marijuana is something you do to yourself; it's a non-coerced choice that you make. A typical drug deal involves two happy parties. Go to any liquor store and see for yourself. Buyer and seller smiling, exchanging money for a psychoactive substance and wishing one another a pleasant evening. Government sours this sort of simple business proceeding in the case of marijuana. The minister's spokesperson does note that growers are involved with hard-core violent criminal enterprises. We concede this. But busting drug dealers because they're involved in organized crime is nevertheless irrational. It is painful to have to say it again, but unlike murder, rape or terrorism, the drug trade only acquires victims and becomes violent once it is made illegal, because dealers need some way of enforcing contracts since they can't call the cops and the lawyers if a business arrangement goes sour. So they use private violence instead of state coercion. When this happens, rather than repealing a policy with consequences far more antisocial than the problem it was created to deal with, politicians try to increase the period (and cost) of incarceration. Furthermore, if people are committing acts of violence in connection with the drug trade, what's wrong with punishing them severely for the acts of violence? Why punish everyone for the presence of drugs? We're happy to get tough on real crime. But buying, selling or using marijuana doesn't fit the definition. Now that Mr. Runciman has conceded that it's not a serious offence, he should save his limited prison cells for the real bad guys. Contact: letters thecitizen.southam.ca
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by FoM on November 07, 2002 at 11:14:30 PT
Simple Idea
Why not the right to do what you want in your own home or property? Very basic. Very simple. Eliminate forfeiture laws too. Outside those boundaries wouldn't apply but I don't have an answer for that problem.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on November 07, 2002 at 10:44:00 PT
Question
I'm so happy for MassCann's win. Who decides what is put into an Initiative? 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment