As a Main Street lawyer, I rise in defense of Martha Coakley, who is not to blame for her inglorious defeat. Instead, blame belongs to Mike Capuano, the progressive and likeable congressman from Somerville who lost to her in the Democratic primary. But for a gross political miscalculation, he might well have been the Democratic nominee, with dramatically different results for Massachusetts and the nation. Consider: . In November of 2008, slightly over a year ago, Massachusetts voters elected Barrack Obama by 62%, and passed an initiative to decriminalize marijuana by 65%. (Yes, 65%! [continues 558 words]
Odd, isn't it, that all the U.S. Senate candidates, and the people who ask them questions trying to elicit their positions on issues people care about, seem to have forgotten that in the last election, a whopping 65 percent of the voters went for marijuana decriminalization? If that many voters care about the marijuana laws, why do these candidates, who claim to have their fingers on the public pulse, ignore the subject? What happened in November of 2008 was decriminalization, meaning that now, thanks to the voters, a small amount of pot can't get you arrested and sucked into the criminal justice cybergulag. Decrim curbed the excesses of enforcement, but didn't get at the underlying situation. [continues 544 words]
In 1992, Gov. William Weld signed into law the "Controlled Substance Therapeutic Research Act." The law requires the state to contract with a federally approved supplier of medicinal cannabis for distribution to approved patients. It is a cruel joke, for no administration, including the current one, has approved a supply. Filed every session since 1991, legislation that would get the medicine into the hands of Massachusetts patients never gets out of committee. While our Legislature stalls, states comprising almost one-third of all Americans enacted laws that gets cannabis to patients without the approval of the Federal Government. The legislatures of Hawaii, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Vermont did it. This spring, over the governor's veto, the Rhode Island Legislature authorized the licensing of dispensaries where patients may purchase their medicine. Voters in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington passed laws effectively permitting qualified patients' access. These laws work. [continues 488 words]
In July 2007, Teresa Ortega stood solemnly in a field of wilting corn and pineapple crops as tears streamed down her cheeks. She had taken it upon herself to start a farm with 100 widows - women who lost their husbands and children to Colombia's war and were fighting against poverty. Together they had purchased this small farm and worked it on the weekends to make ends meet. Now - after a plane sprayed chemicals over their farm - all was lost. To bureaucrats in Washington, Teresa and her friends are simply additional collateral damage ground zero of Washington's drug war in South America. [continues 411 words]
Like the British after Yorktown, the "reefer mad's" world turned upside down after the people voted for Question 2. Sufferers are seizing every opportunity to appear on the airwaves or in print claiming proponents duped 63 percent of all voters statewide, urging local authorities to follow the lead of "Reefer Mad" Martha Coakley and to adopt bylaws or ordinances re-criminalizing public consumption, and asking the Legislature to tamper with the new law. Prior to passage of Question 2, opponents made it quite clear that police discovered most possession offenses under circumstances where the police would know the name of the offender. [continues 591 words]
HINGHAM, Mass. -- Possession of less than 1 ounce of marijuana has been decriminalized, but marijuana has not been legalized. That is the message that Hingham police want to get out there. Since the "decriminalization law" went into effect on Jan. 2 police have imposed civil fines on five individuals in four Hingham incidents. If those incidents had occurred before Jan. 2, arrests would have been made. The number of marijuana incidents is high for a time period of less than a month, police said. One incident involved two people smoking pot in a parking lot, and another involved a 17-year-old who had previously been arrested twice for possession of marijuana. [continues 494 words]
Just a couple of months ago here in Massachusetts we voted to decriminalize marijuana possession. And in Michigan they voted to legalize medical marijuana, making them the 13th state to allow medical use of marijuana. I think now is the time Massachusetts considers legalizing medicinal use of marijuana as well. It could be prescribed by a doctor if it has been decided there is a legit medical condition in which a patient could benefit from the medicinal use of marijuana. Also, states that have medical marijuana laws on the books have a state registry and issue state ID card to qualifying patients. Since the new law went into effect on January 2, anyone caught using or possessing one ounce of less, would be subject to a $100 civil fine and confiscation of the drug, even if they're using it to ease their symptoms of a debilitating medical condition, and if they possess more than one ounce they risk arrest and a criminal charge. [continues 275 words]
Bridgewater -- The chief of the Bridgewater State College Police Department would like to get the word out - marijuana has not been legalized. It's not open the floodgates time. We will be enforcing the law," Police Chief David Tillinghast said. He said he's heard from multiple students there's a widespread misperception on campus the Nov. 4 ballot initiative decriminalizing possession of up to an ounce of marijuana legalized the drug. The difference is more than just academic, Tillinghast said. [continues 729 words]
Who is Stan White from Dillon, Col., to send in a letter "DARE should change it's tune" (letter, Dec. 12) talking about our state laws re: marijauna. If you google "Stan White Dillon, CO" you'll find he's an activist writing letters to many newspapers in support of using marijauna. If I recall correctly, his was not the first out-of-state letter on this issue in a local newspaper. However, most of the folks I know who voted to de-criminalize marijauna did it because a) they bought the message that marijuana arrests were unnecessarily clogging our courts, and b) because they didn't think a kid's life should be ruined with a felony for smoking a joint. But look at what's happened since - outside interests suddenly taking a shining to Mass. schools saying they don't know what to do (if smoking in the boys room gets you in trouble, why wouldn't smoking a marijuana cigarette?). [continues 100 words]
Youth shouldn't use substances, yet one change that should occur (Will New Pot Law Mar School Drug Policies?, Dec. 9, 2008), is the way DARE discusses cannabis (marijuana) with youth. DARE-type cannabis propaganda, based on Reefer Madness lies and half-truths, will be less convincing making way for the truth concerning the plant. It will be unrealistic trying to convince youth that cannabis fries the brain when President-elect Obama's brain seems ok, and difficulty in teaching children that using cannabis will ruin someone's future, when government may no longer do so. The "new pot law" will hopefully "mar" antiquated and ineffective scare tactics, making room for policies utilizing truth which may result in helping youth better, in the future. After all, honesty is the best policy. Stan White Dillon, Colo. [end]
Re: "A Day to Remember: Prohibition Isn't Forever", Dec. 5: Richard Evans understands the problem. It is prohibition, and it began when our Beltway politicians persuaded us that illegal drugs are more dangerous than legal drugs. But if that were true, airplane glue and gasoline, dangerous to kids' nervous systems, would be illegal. Also 200-proof ethanol and tobacco. Rather than debate the harm caused by drug "A" vs drug "B" vs drug "C", we should agree that no drug is free of risk, and debate whether prohibition is the best way to manage that risk. As Mr. Evans observes, our grandparents' generation decided 75 years ago that the answer was "no" for ethanol. Why should it be different today for other drugs? John Chase Palm Harbor, Fla. [end]
I read with interest a telling missive by Norfolk County Anti-Crime Task Force Director, Deputy Chief William G. Brooks 3rd, "How weed was decriminalized" (Nov. 3), responding to a Massachusetts Election Day referendum and wonder about his outrage when ONDCP spends scarce taxpayer funds to promote his position despite what we know about the extravagances of drug war? Pointing the finger at well meaning philanthropy to help jump start what we now find is the will of your people, almost 70 percent, is the real travesty. Mr. Brooks, get used to it, the people have spoken and it is also the sentiment of America. [continues 86 words]
State education and public safety officials face a cloudy future for schools' marijuana rules in the month before a new law that decriminalizes possession of small amounts of the drug takes effect. Some state education leaders are concerned the voter-approved Question 2 may have unknown consequences for school policies that punish marijuana possession. Tom Scott, the executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents, said the measure is silent on how it would affect existing state laws that give schools the right to suspend or expel students for marijuana possession, or whether it would undermine school policies banning the drug. "That's a concern we have," said Scott, who noted the association asked for clarification from the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, where attorneys are reviewing the matter, Scott said. Scott said schools have the ability to do things differently than other agencies - for example, schools can conduct locker searches despite privacy rights - and it's possible the same thinking will apply to how Question 2 affects schools' marijuana rules. [continues 865 words]
Following an overwhelming victory for Nov. 4's "Ballot Question 2," some district attorneys, law enforcement officers and editorial writers have questioned the people's wisdom. In doing so, they reveal their own failure since 2000 to participate in the normal legislative process. They should have seen the tidal wave approaching and worked with advocates and the Legislature in passing reform sooner, saving thousands from criminal charges we now know the people do not want to impose upon the marijuana users among us. [continues 685 words]
Many observers have compared the Obama transition to FDR's in 1932-33, but the important P-word has not come up. By the summer of 1932, alcohol prohibition had been enshrined in the Constitution for 12 years, as the 18th Amendment. Alcohol-related crime, violence and poisonings were rampant. Speakeasies flourished in large cities. Annual liquor imports from Canada alone soared from the pre-Prohibition level of around 30,000 imperial gallons to more than a million after 1926, mostly smuggled from offshore mother ships frequented by an armada of smaller vessels making regular distributions to their customers. [continues 577 words]
BOSTON - If you're thinking about strolling down the street smoking a joint, better wait. The Nov. 4 ballot initiative that decriminalized marijuana won't take effect at least until January. Brian McNiff, spokesperson for the Secretary of State, has said that according to the state's Constitution, new legislation takes effect 30 days after an election. On Wednesday, the Governor's Council certified the Nov. 4 vote. McNiff said that means a Supreme Judicial Court ruling in 1972 on the 30-day clause in the state Constitution means the 30-day delay starts today. Once the law is implemented, if someone is caught with less than an ounce of marijuana, they will face a $100 fine but no criminal charges. Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz called the measure " defacto legislation, " even though marijuana is still illegal." Decriminalization is not legalization, " Cruz said. [continues 104 words]
Advertised as an effective drug control policy, America's harsh drug laws only give the illusion of progress. Two recent reports show, once again, that the arrest and incarceration of hundreds of thousands of nonviolent adult drug offenders have done little to stem the use and trafficking of illicit drugs. Drug Use. A senior fellow at the George Mason University School of Public Policy, Dr. Jon Gettman's recent study, Consistent, Persistent and Resistant, Marijuana Use in the United States - funded by the Marijuana Policy Project Foundation - finds that the "Bush Administration anti-drug policies have been unsuccessful in reducing the demand for and use of marijuana and other illegal drugs." Further, Gettman reports, the government's own Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) did not come close to reaching its recent goal: the reduction in the use of illicit drugs among adults 18 years and older by 25 percent between 2002 and 2007. After five years of effort and many millions of tax dollars, illicit drug use among adults declined by less than one percent. Of the six tax-funded programs designed by the ONDCP to reach its 25 percent reduction goal, the Bush Administration's Office of Management and Budget found that only one program rated an "adequate" grade. [continues 454 words]
re: "DA speaks out against marijuana decriminalization," (Oct. 8): Whatever positive statements DA Blodgett may have made on this subject go out the window when he starts spreading scare tactics that are simply false or outright lies. The DA says marijuana is now 30 percent THC to scare voters and trick parents. How can we trust him on other matters when we catch him in this big lie? The Feds test confiscated marijuana every year for THC content and the most recent government test of average marijuana is 10 percent THC. DA Blodgett says 30 percent THC, three times the actual Federal results. Shame on him for this fabrication. No wonder teens don't believe the politicians or prosecutors. Kim Hanna, Worcester [end]
Not much has changed since Richard Nixon declared war on drugs in 1971, including the rhetoric being used this year against Question 2, a referendum on the November ballot that would change possession of small amounts of marijuana from a criminal charge to a civil infraction and a $100 fine. Marijuana is more addictive and more potent than ever, opponents repeat with "Reefer Madness" alarm. It's a "gateway drug," they are still saying, with the same faulty logic: Almost every heroin user started by smoking pot, therefore a single puff starts you on the road to the hard stuff. Reducing the penalty for marijuana possession would "send the wrong message" to children, as if kids pay close attention to the actions of legislators and read the fine print in the drug statutes. [continues 636 words]
Mary Jane, pot, weed, ganga ?" call it what you want, but Massachusetts voters will decide on a burning issue in the Nov. 4 election that'Ts caused quite a stir between advocates and opponents of current marijuana laws in the commonwealth. Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett talked about his opposition to Question 2 " which would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana ?" at a meeting Friday morning with reporters and editors in Beverly. His opinions differ sharply with those of Georgetown's Steve Epstein, a well-known local advocate of reducing the penalties for marijuana possession. a Ballot Question 2 would undoubtedly have a negative effect on children. [continues 1232 words]
