cannabisnews.com: Council Thwarts Marijuana Proposal





Council Thwarts Marijuana Proposal
Posted by CN Staff on January 14, 2009 at 08:16:31 PT
By Nick Kotsopoulos, Telegram & Gazette Staff
Source: Worcester Telegram & Gazette 
Worcester, MA -- 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 ordinance in response to the passage of Question 2 on the November ballot that decriminalized the possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana.
The vote to file is the parliamentary equivalent of placing an item in the wastebasket. A majority of councilors simply felt it was not necessary or appropriate to have the city alter what the voters approved. “We would be making a mountain out of a molehill,” said Councilor-at-Large Gary Rosen. “Right now, I don’t see any problems with the law. We would be looking for trouble. These (proposed ordinances) are not needed at this time. The voters have spoken and let’s see what happens.” In addition to Mr. Rosen, those who voted to file the two orders were: District 3 Councilor Paul P. Clancy Jr., District 5 Councilor William J. Eddy, Councilor-at-Large Michael J. Germain, District 2 Councilor Philip P. Palmieri, Councilor-at-Large Frederick C. Rushton and District 1 Councilor Joffrey A. Smith. The passage of Question 2 reduced the penalty for less than an ounce of marijuana to a $100 civil fine. But Councilor-at-Large Joseph M. Petty, District 4 Councilor Barbara G. Haller and Councilor-at-Large Kathleen M. Toomey wanted to see the city at least be able to assess an additional $300 fine to those using marijuana on city property. They said they were not looking to overturn the law passed by voters in November when they approved Question 2, but instead felt some standards need to be set regarding the use of marijuana on public property. Under the ordinance sought by the councilors, the use of marijuana would not have been allowed on city streets, sidewalks, public ways, parks, playgrounds, public buildings, school grounds, parking lots, and any other area under control of the city. Mr. Petty said the use of marijuana on public property should not be allowed, similar to the restrictions that are in place for the consumption of alcohol on public property. He asked to have his order, and a similar one filed by Mayor Konstantina B. Lukes, referred to the council’s Public Safety Committee for further study and discussion. “There needs to be some consistent rules on this,” Mr. Petty said. “Other cities and towns are moving forward in this same direction. I’m willing to have this held in the Public Safety Committee for a while so we can see whether the state steps up and addresses some of the issues that have been raised about (Question 2). If the state does nothing, then I’d be willing to move forward on this.” But Mr. Germain argued against even having the item referred to committee, saying the council should not be tinkering with a law that has been approved by the voters. “We would be heading down a dangerous path,” Mr. Germain said. “The voters have spoken and we have to adhere to what the voters’ wishes are.” The effort to establish an additional civil penalty and possible criminal indictment was also opposed by the Worcester County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. Ronal C. Madnick, head of the local ACLU chapter, pointed out that Question 2 was overwhelmingly approved by 65 percent of the voters. He argued that there is no need for a city ordinance governing the use of marijuana because its use remains illegal and laws on selling, trafficking or growing marijuana remain unchanged. “The people of Massachusetts and of Worcester are not misinformed; they knew what they were voting for,” Mr. Madnick said. “Frankly, as far as I know, there have been no serious problems with the new law. There is no need for this concern.” Source: Worcester Telegram & Gazette (MA)Author: Nick Kotsopoulos, Telegram & Gazette StaffPublished: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 Copyright: 2009 Worcester Telegram & GazetteContact: letters telegram.comWebsite: http://www.telegram.com/URL: http://drugsense.org/url/gF9CBDtHRelated Articles: City Attempts To Strengthen Pot Penaltieshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread24415.shtmlSmoking Herb Not Necessarily a Road To Ruinhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread24411.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #15 posted by Hope on January 15, 2009 at 15:57:38 PT
I'm not sure that makes good sense....
"... and confidence in anything they say is met with what it deserves."It means we see through the lies. We see through the exaggerations and we see through the way they want to handle it and I think a lot of us are through with it.It means we are, all of us, not so easily fooled by everything they say and want. They want people in jail and controlled by the state and institutions and lots of other "not really good things" when it comes to freedom and natural human dignity and liberty. That's not good and it's not helpful. A lot of people see that now, surely.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by Hope on January 15, 2009 at 15:48:47 PT
While the "Old Guard" is obviously
diminishing and the "New Old Guard" is coming on duty, Old Guard prohibitionists won't last as long as one might think without support for their agenda, which is diminishing seriously, and confidence in anything they say is met with what it deserves.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by Hope on January 15, 2009 at 15:44:34 PT
Comment 9 Some did their duty.
"fiduciary duty of fidelity, competence and loyalty"“We would be making a mountain out of a molehill,” said Councilor-at-Large Gary Rosen. “Right now, I don’t see any problems with the law. We would be looking for trouble. These (proposed ordinances) are not needed at this time. The voters have spoken and let’s see what happens.”In addition to Mr. Rosen, those who voted to file the two orders were: District 3 Councilor Paul P. Clancy Jr., District 5 Councilor William J. Eddy, Councilor-at-Large Michael J. Germain, District 2 Councilor Philip P. Palmieri, Councilor-at-Large Frederick C. Rushton and District 1 Councilor Joffrey A. Smith. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #12 posted by Hope on January 15, 2009 at 15:36:27 PT
Big Pharma
may be groveling on the ground for some bushes... not Bushes... in a few years.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #11 posted by Hope on January 15, 2009 at 15:35:30 PT
comment 8
Pretty soon Big Pharma isn't going to be so big. These companies that kill and maim their customers, literally, need to go out of business. Why haven't they?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #10 posted by Hope on January 15, 2009 at 15:32:05 PT
comment 7
It sounds like a movie. I'm not sure yet whether it's a comedy or a tragedy.A bit sad, too. I couldn't help but think it was caused by the banning of the natural substance. But then I realized that chemistry minded people, especially young people, and maybe even chemists that enjoy cannabis were bound to do this sooner or later. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by OverwhelmSam on January 15, 2009 at 11:14:20 PT
Ahh, Good
For a minute there, I thought the politicians would close ranks against those who they are supposed to represent. I was wondering, in the law of agency if a representative (an agent) violates his fiduciary duty of fidelity, competence and loyalty he can be sued for misrepresentation. Why can't we sue politicians for misrepresentation?
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Sam Adams on January 15, 2009 at 08:40:41 PT
Big Pharma news
As you know I always like to keep up-to-date on the latest casualties of drugs that compete with medical marijuana.Looks like Lilly ran into a bit of trouble with "Zyprexa". The usual stuff - they killed off a bunch of people by heart attack. Poor bastards were just looking for some relief from bi-polar syndrome, a problem that many claim to get relief from cannabis.In this case, Lilly had to pay $1.4 billion to the feds because they got caught "pushing" this deadly drug to people that didn't even need it! The ole' off-label racket again - whoops, looks like they gave a bunch of people diabetes, too:Lilly to settle Zyprexa probes for $1.4bLilly said Oct. 21 it was in "advanced discussions" to settle allegations the company improperly marketed Zyprexa for unapproved uses and would take a $1.42 billion charge in the third quarter.http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/01/15/lilly_to_settle_zyprexa_probes_for_14b/Study finds cardiac threats in revamped antipsychotic drugsFrom 1990 through 2005, 1,870 people died of sudden cardiac arrest. The risk was about twice as high for people taking antipsychotic drugs compared to people who weren't.http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/01/15/study_finds_cardiac_threats_in_revamped_antipsychotic_drugs/
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by FoM on January 15, 2009 at 08:37:55 PT
Synthetic Cannabis Mimic Found in Herbal Incense
January 15, 2009http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2009/January/15010901.asp
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by cvmg1969 on January 15, 2009 at 03:06:26 PT:
Marijuana, Inc.
"Marijuana, Inc." a one hour documentary will be aired on CNBC this month. It will be January 22nd and 25th, at 9:00 AM and 1:00 AM (EST). Meanwhile, it would be nice for all the marijuana friends getting this to go to the You Tube video and leave a positive comment on this subject, which you can do by going to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUQOQyNx-rU – that is of course – if you have something positive to say. 
Send this to everyone on your email list for them to add their positive comments on this subject also. 
Marijuana, Inc.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by mykeyb420 on January 14, 2009 at 17:20:43 PT
Ed Rosenthal OT
Oakland's 'Guru Of Ganja' Appeals 2007 Conviction SAN FRANCISCO (BCN) ¯  Michael Clough, a lawyer for Ed Rosenthal, told a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, "This was not an ordinary drug case." Rosenthal, 64, the author of more than a dozen books about marijuana, was convicted in federal court in San Francisco in 2007 of growing marijuana in an Oakland warehouse and conspiring to do so. He was sentenced to one day already served in prison. He was convicted of similar charges in an earlier trial in 2003, but that conviction was thrown out by the appeals court because of juror misconduct. Rosenthal claims his second trial was unfair because he wasn't allowed to present witnesses to corroborate his claim that he believed he was helping the city of Oakland carry out its medical marijuana program. Clough has said that even though Rosenthal has served his one-day sentence, he is appealing because he wants to remove his felony record. A three-judge panel of the appeals court took the case under submission after hearing arguments and will issue a written ruling at a later date. Outside of court, Rosenthal has maintained he was growing starter plants for patients needing medical marijuana. But he was never allowed to make that argument in federal court because U.S. drug laws make no exception for California's voter-approved Compassionate Use Act, which allows seriously ill patients to use the drug with a doctor's approval. His appeal claim is that he wasn't knowingly violating the federal law and believed he was protected from prosecution because he had been deputized by the city of Oakland. Prosecutor Laurie Gray argued that claim is irrelevant because the U.S. law criminalizing marijuana cultivation requires proof only that Rosenthal knew that he was growing marijuana rather than another crop such as oregano. Prosecutors need not prove a defendant knew he was violating the law, she said. Gray told the judges, "Growing marijuana is clearly a nefarious activity." Gray said the evidence against Rosenthal was "overwhelming," since federal drug agents seized more than 3,000 plants during a 2002 raid at the Mandela Avenue warehouse in Oakland. In the 2007 trial, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said Rosenthal could testify about his beliefs concerning his actions, but said he could not bring other witnesses such as Oakland officials to the stand to corroborate his testimony. Rosenthal ended up declining to testify and presenting no defense witnesses. All three judges on the appeals panel questioned Clough about how Rosenthal could claim his trial was unfair when he was given the chance to testify, but refused to do so. Judge Sidney Thomas commented that it appeared that "Judge Breyer leaned over backwards" to say, "You may testify to any thing you wish." 
Judge David Ezra said, "It looks to me like Judge Breyer gave your client far more leeway than he was required to." But Clough argued that Rosenthal was put in an "untenable position" because he would not have been able to offer witnesses to corroborate his testimony. Thomas commented, "It's a unique case, but the policy issues are not really before us here." Rosenthal said after the hearing, "This really isn't about me as an individual. It's about protecting the rights of all Californians to use marijuana." His wife, Jane Klein, said "Ed was doing humanitarian work and shouldn't have a felony record." Rosenthal said he isn't growing marijuana these days but is continuing to write books, testify as an expert defense witness in state marijuana trials and sell an herbal pesticide he developed. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Hope on January 14, 2009 at 10:25:02 PT
Mr. Petty. Weaseling?
"Mr. Petty said the use of marijuana on public property should not be allowed, similar to the restrictions that are in place for the consumption of alcohol on public property."How does he get "allowed" out of a hundred dollar fine and confiscation of your stuff?Is he trying to do some sort of weaseling of some kind? It certainly looks to me like he is.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by Sam Adams on January 14, 2009 at 10:19:36 PT
thank you 
Great to see some other Americans standing up to authoritarian fascism!"The passage of Question 2 reduced the penalty for less than an ounce of marijuana to a $100 civil fine. But Councilor-at-Large Joseph M. Petty, District 4 Councilor Barbara G. Haller and Councilor-at-Large Kathleen M. Toomey wanted to see the city at least be able to assess an additional $300 fine to those using marijuana on city property. "Oh - city property - you mean OUR property? Who's paying your damn bills lady?"Under the ordinance sought by the councilors, the use of marijuana would not have been allowed on city streets, sidewalks, public ways, parks, playgrounds, public buildings, school grounds, parking lots, and any other area under control of the city. "Oh no - you're not trying to overrule the voters - you just want to overturn the part of the law that applies the minute anyone in Worcester steps out the front door of their house! Lying bastards got the defeat they deserved. 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by The GCW on January 14, 2009 at 10:05:36 PT
Bull
Discredited:"Mr. Petty said the use of marijuana on public property should not be allowed, similar to the restrictions that are in place for the consumption of alcohol on public property....There needs to be some consistent rules on this,” Mr. Petty, You're conveniently not telling the truth. You wish not to make the law similar to alcohol. -Public alcohol... is a $50 fine.The $300 fine is to be discriminating and mean toward actions that You simpley don't aprove of. Even though cannabis is safer.-0-I hope all the other places that are considering this bull come to the same conclusion.Chalk up another win.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by FoM on January 14, 2009 at 08:19:18 PT
I Agree
Excerpt: “We would be making a mountain out of a molehill,” said Councilor-at-Large Gary Rosen. “Right now, I don’t see any problems with the law. We would be looking for trouble. These (proposed ordinances) are not needed at this time. The voters have spoken and let’s see what happens.” 
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment