Marijuana Legalization Bills Introduced In Massachusetts

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

I hope I don't see the day when everyone acts this dopey!

Now you're recycling videos? Come on, at least get back to being creative.

[Raven]

it's about space

it's time to join the human Race.... la la la

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Now you're recycling videos? Come on, at least get back to being creative.

I thought that was funny, Sorry JD. I need a little sensitivity training. I forget how on edge the Obamarites are.

[cheferson]

Little opposition seen to decriminalization of marijuana
March 24, 2009 - projo.com

PROVIDENCE — No one seems to be getting worked up about a bill before the General Assembly that would decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana, making it a civil violation punishable by fine rather than jail time.

At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, only three people — a former New Jersey police detective, a spokesman for a convict assistance agency and a representative of the American Civil Liberties Union — testified about the bill. All were in favor of it.

No one from the attorney general’s office, the governor’s office or any other state agency appeared to oppose it. Nor was there anyone from the state’s law enforcement agencies to speak a negative word.

Amy Kempe, spokeswoman for Governor Carcieri, said it would be premature for the governor to comment on a bill that has not been voted on by either the House or the Senate, since it could change in any number of ways during that process. If it’s approved, she said, the governor would take a position on the bill as passed. The state Health Department, which had opposed last year’s medical marijuana bill, had no position and the state’s drug court officials declined to comment as well.

Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch’s spokesman, Michael Healey, said with literally hundreds and hundreds of bills introduced each session, Lynch had to pick the ones that most closely affected his office’s operations or legislative priorities. He said the marijuana decriminalization bill was not one of them. Healey added Lynch had supported the medical marijuana law.

Pawtucket Police Chief George L. Kelley III, president of the Rhode Island Police Chiefs’ Association, also declined to comment, either personally or on his organization’s behalf, saying the bill “is not on our radar.”

The Assembly last year overrode a Carcieri veto to legalize marijuana for medical uses. A new bill sponsored by Sen. Leo R. Blais, R-Coventry, would not make possession of an ounce or less of marijuana legal, but it would reduce penalty for such possession from up to a year of jail time to a civil violation with a maximum $100 fine and forfeiture of the marijuana. The laws concerning possession with intent to sell would not be changed.

Sen. Charles J. Levesque, D-Portsmouth, vice chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he thought that with the state facing such a difficult time with its budget, fiscal issues might shunt the Blais bill aside, at least this year.

Blais said he thought his bill had a 60-percent chance of passing this session. He attributed the lack of vocal opposition to last year’s passage of the medical marijuana law, saying it showed support for easing the penalties concerning a small amount of the drug.

“We approved medical marijuana,” Blais said. “That was the fight. That horse is already out of the barn and in the next field.”

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by cheferson

Little opposition seen to decriminalization of marijuana

For a state that has one of the highest unemployment rates in the US and is on its way to bankruptcy, I'm surprised they aren't trying to follow in California's (and now Mass') footsteps with legalizing and taxing.

It is however, interesting that *no one* showed up in opposition. There was quite the uproar here when that proposal was put on the ballet and again after it passed. The most opposition seems to come from Law Enforcement and Extreme Conservatives (yeah, a bit redundant to say). I can understand the Law Enforcement concerns, but I question why a group who's founding principle is "less government, less regulation" would be against policy that represents that principle.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

For a state that has one of the highest unemployment rates in the US and is on its way to bankruptcy, I'm surprised they aren't trying to follow in California's (and now Mass') footsteps with legalizing and taxing.

It is however, interesting that *no one* showed up in opposition. There was quite the uproar here when that proposal was put on the ballet and again after it passed. The most opposition seems to come from Law Enforcement and Extreme Conservatives (yeah, a bit redundant to say). I can understand the Law Enforcement concerns, but I question why a group who's founding principle is "less government, less regulation" would be against policy that represents that principle.

Johnny, you know which way I lean and I'm all for decriminalization. I think it's less of a government issue and more of a moral issue for the Extreme Conservatives. Keep in mind how people in the bible belt states feel about what they consider morality issues (even though they don't always practice what they preach).

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Johnny, you know which way I lean and I'm all for decriminalization. I think it's less of a government issue and more of a moral issue for the Extreme Conservatives. Keep in mind how people in the bible belt states feel about what they consider morality issues (even though they don't always practice what they preach).

I completely agree with you. The hypocrisy of the opinion is what is astounding to me. This country was founded by what could be declared as "Extreme Conservatives." People that wanted the minimum amount of government and felt that as long as their personal liberties did not encroach on those of another person, they should be left to do as they please.

Given that, many people with the same "moral standards" that state pot should be illegal, have no issues going home and having a beer after work. If you take the government declared legality/illegality out of the discussion and put both pot and alcohol at the same level for comparison, any moral argument against pot can be directly transferred over as an argument against alcohol.

The flourishing of the Mob and gangs in this country is often attributed to Prohibition in the 1920s. In the 1930s when Prohibition was repealed, many mobsters were forced to "play it straight" because their source of revenue had been removed.

We're living that same scenario right now. I would much rather the pot head, who's going to buy dope anyway, go down the street and pay a clerk or grow his own stash - then for that same pot head to go down the street and put more money in some gang member's pocket.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

For a state that has one of the highest unemployment rates in the US and is on its way to bankruptcy, I'm surprised they aren't trying to follow in California's (and now Mass') footsteps with legalizing and taxing.

It is however, interesting that *no one* showed up in opposition. There was quite the uproar here when that proposal was put on the ballet and again after it passed. The most opposition seems to come from Law Enforcement and Extreme Conservatives (yeah, a bit redundant to say). I can understand the Law Enforcement concerns, but I question why a group who's founding principle is "less government, less regulation" would be against policy that represents that principle.

Many thoughtful Conservatives (I'm not sure if they are extreme) who adhere to founding principles DO favor decriminilization of Marijuana. William F. Buckley Jr. (I guess he'd qualify as an Extreme Conservative) was for decriminalization long before even most Liberals were. On the other hand, you have liberals, even Extreme Liberals like Charles Rangle, who are against legalization. Even Obama has waffled back and forth on the issue. And the public has always been, statistically against, though the numbers for are growing. It's a bit muddy to say, on a conservative/liberal basis, who is for and who is against . . .stereotypes not withstanding.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

I thought that was funny, Sorry JD. I need a little sensitivity training. I forget how on edge the Obamarites are.

I'm not on edge. I just expect a little bit of effort and originality.
That video has already been discussed.