cannabisnews.com: Five Massachusetts Towns Favor Lenient MJ Laws





Five Massachusetts Towns Favor Lenient MJ Laws
Posted by FoM on December 11, 2000 at 21:19:55 PT
By Jaime Kobin, The Daily Free Press, Boston U.
Source: U-WIRE
People in possession of less than an ounce of marijuana could soon be subject to a mere civil violation as opposed to criminal prosecution in five Massachusetts towns, following overwhelming approval of non-binding ballot questions last month. On Election Day, Ispwich, Framingham, Winchester and Harwich voters appealed to lawmakers to back legislation making possession of less than an ounce of the drug a civil violation -- similar to a traffic ticket -- instead of a criminal offense. Fines would be no more than $100. 
The voting evidence could signal a shift in public attitude about the state's war on drugs. Boston University students, in particular, were shocked by the decision. "I am surprised that there is a push to weaken the laws," said College of Communication freshman Rebecca Zarodnansky. "However, I think marijuana use is a personal choice. Some people use it and some people don't, and it seems like the government is realizing that." Dave Blauch, a junior in the College of Arts and Sciences and School of Education, agreed that the law needs to be changed. He said because marijuana use "is so prevalent, it should be treated as a medicine and a recreational drug, similar to alcohol." With age limitations and enumerated restrictions, legalization would be a good step, he said. In March, voters in Amherst called for a similar law, and urged town police to de-emphasize enforcement of marijuana possession laws. "I am not surprised that people are trying to lessen the restrictions on marijuana because the current laws seem ineffective," said SED freshman Laura Swirsky. "If people really want marijuana, they will find ways to get it." "Marijuana smoke in its natural state is no more harmful than substances which are already legal. The fact that it's not legal now doesn't make it hard to get or hard to use. Now it's just a pointless hassle to get it," said COM sophomore Noah Mark. An additional proposal would boost the state's 1996 medical marijuana law by allowing people to grow it on their own. The law, which enables people to use the drug for certain illnesses, is on hold because people would have to register with a state Department of Health research project and federal law currently prohibits such projects. "I know someone who is suffering from cancer and if marijuana would make her feel better, I would be in favor of it," said CAS freshman Haley Olam. "If people are suffering from medical ailments, doctors should be able to use any means necessary to make them feel better." COM freshman Nicole O'Neil disagreed. "A lot of people use medical reasons as an excuse for marijuana use when there are already a lot of drugs that can be used instead," she said, adding that she thought marijuana was a gateway drug. Legalization of it "would lead to an overall increase in drug use," she said. Whether or not the laws are adopted by legislators remains to be seen. But according to Liz Bradley, an employee of Campus Convenience and senior at Bunker Hill Community College, there is no question about where the debate is headed. "Eventually marijuana is going to be legalized, because all they care about is making money," she said. "I think it would be sold everywhere." Source: U-WIREUpdated: December 11, 2000 By Jaime Kobin, The Daily Free Press, Boston U.(C) 2000 The Daily Free Press via U-WIRE Website: http://www.uwiretoday.com/Related Articles:Activists Hope Ballot Questions Signal Support http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7899.shtmlBeacon Hill Not High On Move To Decriminalize Pothttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread7660.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #1 posted by Lehder on December 19, 2000 at 06:38:13 PT
nullification
In the city where I live, voir dire begins with a prescreening when prospective jurors are questioned as a group so that anyone who is opposed in principle to the enforcement of certain disagreeable laws can be eliminated without the prosecutor having to waste his limited number of rejections just to get rid of activists. Then only the remaining prospects, those who are unfamiliar with Alexander Hamilton and agree to make a determination of fact only and not of law, are questioned by the judge ("Do you agree to answer any question?" etc.) and the opposing attorneys ("Are you certain that you are stupid?" etc.). If you fail to fess up to your objections to prohibition laws in the prescreening and then find a defendant not guilty via of nullification, you can be prosecuted too, as was Laura Kriho:http://www.fija.org/kriho/http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/fallofjustice.htmNow in towns like Framingham where a majority of the population has voted in opposition to criminal penalties for marijuana possession, it clearly makes no sense that all jurors should be selected from a pool of prospects which has been predetermined as belonging to a political minority favoring incarceration. How is a jury of peers selected exclusively from a minority group? So, is there now a *legal* argument for halting the practice of rigging juries in districts where a majority oppose criminal penalties? Of course I am arguing from common sense and a reversion to justice, concepts not applicable to modern drug wars, right?
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: