cannabisnews.com: Pot Decriminalizing Measure Up for Debate Today





Pot Decriminalizing Measure Up for Debate Today
Posted by CN Staff on June 26, 2005 at 22:08:22 PT
By Jon Brodkin, Daily News Staff
Source: Milford Daily News
Massachusetts -- Lawmakers on Beacon Hill today will debate a proposal to decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, a measure advocates say would save the state at least $24 million a year and prevent pot smokers from losing government student loans and scholarships.    The bill, filed in the Senate, would make marijuana possession a civil offense punishable by a $100 fine.
"As far as public opinion is concerned, this should pass," said Whitney Taylor, executive director of the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts. "Voters are way ahead of the politicians on this."    Voters in six legislative districts approved nonbinding measures in favor of marijuana decriminalization last November, according to the Drug Policy Forum. Since 2000, there have been 36 ballot questions regarding decriminalization, medical marijuana and marijuana taxation and regulation, and voters approved every one, the group said.    But the bill being debated today has been around six years without being implemented, and lawmakers are reluctant to pass it.    "I haven't signed on as a cosponsor of that bill," said state Rep. Deborah Blumer, D-Framingham. "The problem that I have is that we are having significant problems with the abuse of substances and drugs and alcohol and cigarettes, and I'm not prepared to take steps to change the laws on marijuana right now."    A recent federal study found that Boston has the highest rates of pot smoking in the country. Today's debate, taking place during an 11 a.m. State House hearing in front of the Joint Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse, comes quickly on the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing federal prosecution of people who use marijuana medically, even in states that legalized medicinal use of the drug.    Eleven states, including California, Maine, New York, Colorado and Mississippi, have passed decriminalization measures similar to the one on Beacon Hill without seeing measurable increases in marijuana use, Taylor said. But Sen. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, a former lawyer, said the Supreme Court decision could put state decriminalization laws on shaky legal ground.    "I am uncertain the state can take it out of the criminal system if the U.S. Supreme Court has stated this is a federal criminal offense and the states don't have the choice over medicinal use of marijuana, which is a stronger argument, even," Spilka said. "I think states are going to be really wary of making changes until more comes out about this decision."    Between 1995 and 2002, there were 70,794 Massachusetts residents arrested for simple marijuana possession, Taylor said. Research that will be presented today indicates the state would save at least $24.3 million in annual law enforcement and court costs by decriminalizing weed, she said.    Though possession of marijuana for personal use usually doesn't lead to jail time, those convicted can lose government student loans and scholarships and become ineligible for many forms of military service and private and public sector jobs, according to the Drug Policy Forum. They also may be at risk of losing driver's and professional licenses and custody of their children, the group said.    "Although many people don't go to prison for simple possession of drugs, a felony conviction is very harmful," Taylor said. "People think, 'Oh, they're not going to jail.' But it really does affect you."Source: Milford Daily News, The (MA)Author: Jon Brodkin, Daily News StaffPublished: Monday, June 27, 2005Copyright: 2005 The Milford Daily NewsContact: milford cnc.comWebsite: http://www.milforddailynews.comRelated Articles & Web Sites:MassCannhttp://www.masscann.org/DPFMAhttp://www.dpfma.org/Time for Serious Talk About Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20901.shtmlHub Goes To Pot - Boston Heraldhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread20876.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #7 posted by rchandar on July 02, 2005 at 18:03:54 PT:
afterburner
...it just shows us the real reason why Democrats don't win elections anymore. They just don't have the guts to accept their real consituency and fight for a real human/civil rights issue.--rchandar
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by jose melendez on June 27, 2005 at 21:36:50 PT
high crimes: stronger arguments fall on deaf ears
http://tinyurl.com/dm548Brain's Own Marijuana-like Chemicals Play Key Role with Stress-induced Pain Relief
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by runderwo on June 27, 2005 at 14:49:23 PT
bad idea
I would prefer a resolution of non-enforcement to decriminalization. The problem with decriminalization is that you aren't addressing the supply side. Decriminalization is a step toward basic human decency (i.e. not jailing people for carrying or smoking pot), but it doesn't do anything about the violence and criminal element that is associated with the black market. In fact, the violence and criminal element that already existed may become more visible, which I predict will lead to a call for going back to prosecuting users, and a bad precedent for future efforts. (As opposed to the more logical move which would be towards legalization, but something tells me the politicians are going to see cannabis as the problem that needs to be stamped out rather than prohibition itself. Regardless of the uselessness and harms of prohibition.)
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by jose melendez on June 27, 2005 at 09:43:57 PT
communications are the key
Prior to high school, I was in the Framingham Sharpshooters, a Massachussetts drum and bugle corps competition team. My girlfriend at the time chose to purchase cigarettes from stores across the street from our practice sessions.Almost certainly, if Ms. Blumer grew up in Framingham, many if not most of her friends used cannabis with none of the health problems associated with legal intoxicants or medications.Perhaps she has no time because her constituents feel that contacting her on this concededly contentious but important historical issue will fall on deaf ears.Apparently, cliques extend long beyond our youth. I strongly encourage her constituents to speak up and alert her to how much time and public funds have already been wasted in trampling on your rights:STATE REPRESENTATIVEDEBORAH D. BLUMERState House 	District OfficeRoom 134 	7 Ledgewood RoadState House 	Framingham, MA 01701Boston, MA 02133 	 Telephone: 617-722-2400 	508-879-0658Facsimile: 617-626-0114 	 Email: Deborah.Blumer state.ma.us 	Debby DebbyBlumer.orgParty Affiliation - DEMOCRATDISTRICT REPRESENTED: Sixth Middlesex. - Consisting of precincts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14 and 17, of the town of Framingham, in the county of Middlesex.
EDUCATION: Framingham State College, B.S. (Magna Cum Laude); Simmons College Graduate School of Management, M.B.A. (with distinctions).PROFESSION: Legislator.
ORGANIZATIONS: Metrowest Community Health Care Foundation (Trustee and former Chairperson); Framingham League of Women Voters (former Director); Framingham Civic League; Friends of Saxonville; Framingham Education Foundation; Danforth Museum of Art (former Trustee); Pheasant Hill Civic Club.PUBLIC OFFICE: Framingham Finance Committee (11 years)(Chairperson); Town Meeting Member (Chairperson); Ways & Means Committee (3 years)(Chairperson); Personnel Board; Community Development Block Grant Committee; School Capital Planning Committee; Mass. House (2001-2002).Committees on which the legislator serves:
Joint Committee on Higher Education
Joint Committee on Children and Families
Joint Committee on Public Health
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by afterburner on June 27, 2005 at 09:08:08 PT
Living in a Dream World
"I haven't signed on as a cosponsor of that bill," said state Rep. Deborah Blumer, D-Framingham. "The problem that I have is that we are having significant problems with the abuse of substances and drugs and alcohol and cigarettes, and I'm not prepared to take steps to change the laws on marijuana right now." Oh, no! Let's continue to arrest, jail, confiscate property, break-up families, and prevent people from getting student aid. That's far less harmful than decriminalizing cannabis, NOT!Listen to your constituents: they have consistently voted to support liberalizing cannabis laws. Who do *you* represent?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by ekim on June 27, 2005 at 08:32:20 PT
Ann Arbor MI has had a simular law for over 32 yrs
But the bill being debated today has been around six years without being implemented, and lawmakers are reluctant to pass it. Just think 6 years----------how much could the State have saved --how many lives have been branded as criminals. How many familys have been broken -- how many jobs have been lost --what has become of these poor souls.Just for the Record Ann Arbor MI is one of the 10 best Cities to bring a family up in ---- in the whole USA.
http://www.minorml.org
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by Jim Lunsford on June 27, 2005 at 07:17:32 PT
26 million
I wonder how much money the states would save if they just refused to enforce prohibition? If the feds had to actually do the work instead of the states, would the money saved be greater than the revenue the feds always hang over the states. Since it is obvious the feds are not going to pay attention to popular opinion, then what is the solution? It would have to lay with the states. Or lower. 
  Also, while it always appears that everyone is for weed legalization, how many of us go outside of the choir to preach? I've noticed quite a bit of ignorance about the entire war when it's discussed outside of pro-active groups such as this one.
   It is amazing how we can live in a world in which all of your commerce and property rights are controlled by the feds, and you can be arrested and held without charge for apparantly unlimited amount of time in inhumane conditions, and yet, people remain unconcerned. In fact, many seem to believe that this is a free society. Just ranting, thanks, Jim
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment