The Phoenix Network:
 
 
 
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
 
Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Stark Ravings  |  Talking Politics
bmp_2009

Question 2 backlash heats up

Rolling the Genie Back in the Bag
By CHRIS FARAONE  |  January 28, 2009

090130_prop2_main

Since Question 2 was activated on January 2, it's been difficult to walk the streets of Massachusetts without encountering red-eyed hordes of marijuana-blazing vagrants. Hippies are puffing bowls at restaurants, hip-hop kids are clam-baking public buses, and high-school students everywhere are dropping out to sling decriminalized bags. But a series of reactionary ordinances proposed by local bureaucrats and law-enforcement officers across the Commonwealth may crush any further ensuing pothead pandemonium.

Watertown Town Council members have suggested leveling a $300 fine — on top of the $100 civil penalty that Question 2 specifies — against people caught possessing less than one ounce of weed. In Revere, Police Chief Terence Reardon has pitched a similar measure, as have Melrose Police Chief Mike Lyle, Wakefield Police Chief Richard Smith, the majority of Everett aldermen, and Braintree district councilor Ronald DeNapoli, who is pushing for a $500 public-smoking ordinance.

"It certainly is the right of localities to enhance the penalties for marijuana possession," says Marijuana Policy Project Spokesman Dan Bernath, who helped shepherd the ballot question through this past November. "But it still might be good for them to sit back and see how this works as it was written — see if the $100 penalty is enough of a deterrent."

Efforts to "re-criminalize," as marijuana-reform advocates have termed the municipal scramble to enact supplementary slaps, were mostly spurred by Question 2's failure to address public consumption. As the law stands now, provocateurs can't burn in places designated off-limits by Massachusetts statutes that prohibit smoking anything — spaces such as trains and workplaces — but people can toke outside with little recourse. Furthermore, since Commonwealth residents are required to carry identification only when driving, folks can lie about their identity to cops issuing fines.

In an attempt to plug the gap in Question 2, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley — who publicly opposed the measure — has recommended "enforcement mechanisms" to local lawmakers who might also be reluctant to back the current statute. Coakley's solution: a $300 tandem penalty and a clause that would allow authorities to prosecute the civil violation with criminal indictments.

While officials in Worcester and West Newbury shot down bills to increase penalties — and there's no sign that the Boston City Council has a proposal in the pipeline — some locales are lining up behind Coakley's suggestions. Plymouth Police Chief Michael Botieri is reportedly considering criminalizing public marijuana use, as are Lynn city councilors and Medway selectmen. In Quincy, Mayor Tom Koch announced a plan to authorize an additional $600 in fines, for which violators would become criminally liable should they neglect to pay on time.

"This is in direct contradiction to the will of voters and a violation of the spirit of democracy," says Socialist Alternative Spokesman Nick Giannone, who joined about 60 other savage burnouts to protest a January 20 Quincy City Council meeting, and who is enjoying his full-fledged freedom while it lasts. "For now I'm not exactly trying to get fined, but I've definitely been a bit more open than I used to be. We'll see how long that lasts, though."

Related: Time for a big change, Hemp — the law, the musical, Legalize pot now, More more >
  Topics: News Features , Boston City Council, Illegal Drugs, Local Politics,  More more >
  • Share:
  • RSS feed Rss
  • Email this article to a friend Email
  • Print this article Print
Comments
Re: Question 2 backlash heats up
WWW.MASSCANN.ORG
By HumphreyPloughjogger on 01/28/2009 at 3:42:25
Re: Question 2 backlash heats up
"Since Question 2 was activated on January 2, it's been difficult to walk the streets of Massachusetts without encountering red-eyed hordes of marijuana-blazing vagrants. Hippies are puffing bowls at restaurants, hip-hop kids are clam-baking public buses, and high-school students everywhere are dropping out to sling decriminalized bags. But a series of reactionary ordinances proposed by local bureaucrats and law-enforcement officers across the Commonwealth may crush any further ensuing pothead pandemonium." I've yet to see this. How many citations have been handed out?   "Question 2's failure to address public consumption" Wow. 65% of voters said $100 fine. That's a bigger fine than one gets for drinking in public which is $50. How is a $100 fine not addressing the situation?And why is it, that police have no problem getting ID from people caught drinking in the street?Has there been one case of anybody caught smoking in public where the police couldn't get their name? I suspect not.I know if it happens to me, I'll give them my drivers license and suspect most will do the same. //bostonfreedomrally.com     
By bostonfreedomrally on 01/29/2009 at 9:01:53
Re: Question 2 backlash heats up
If I were to be caught in Quincy, which won't happen, because I don't smoke in public, I would definitely be less likely to give the police officer my name, if they passed an additional $600 fine on top of what 65% of voters voted for. How does a bigger fine get people to give police their names? $100 ok, $700 and even I would have second thoughts. This isn't about people smoking in public. It is about two things:1. What do we do to the few who are caught in public smoking? The voters, 65% said $100 fine. If a kid is caught smoking and gets the $100 fine, most parents will make the kid pay the fine. If it's $700 the parents pay and the kid never takes the economic hit. And some of those parents might be out of rent and food money for other siblings. Defeats the purpose of what I voted for. $100 is plenty of deterrant for me and most people. $50 works for drinking in public, why is $100 voted by 65% not enough? What evidence is there, that there is a new problem? ZERO. 2. The sore losers (Martha Coakley, the DA's, some police chiefs and a few mayors) don't like when the people decide their own fate.To bad many are falling for it. 
By bostonfreedomrally on 01/29/2009 at 10:59:30
Re: Question 2 backlash heats up
What happens to a 16-19 year old kid that is having a tough time with no parental support that gets a $700 fine he can't pay? For smoking a joint? A criminal record for life. Who's going to pay for this kid when he can't get a job and gets in to dealing, worse drugs or in jail? 65% said not us. A kid makes a mistake smoking a joint, take the weed, $100 fine, if they are under 18, they take a drug education course. End of story. Mandate 65%. Marijuana was already defacto decriminalized in the home. The only thing that Question 2 did was make it non criminal to protect people from a criminal record for life for a few types of offenses that occur. 1. Pulled over for speeding or something like that and a search turns up pot.  2.  A person is smoking in public and the police actually decide to arrest.  3. A person is smoking in their house and answers the door and let police in their house. (Almost never, ever happens) The media is pretending and campaigning for the sore loser reefer mad. The public sees and knows this. Many of the city councilors do as well. West Newbury (hometown of John Cena, what up Cena family!), Worcester, Boston, Cambridge these cities and 90% of MA cities and towns are not trying to overturn Question 2. 
But for a few police chiefs and mayors pushed by the AG and DA's and supported by the media. But the media knows the score and in the end always reports the results. And so far they are losing big!In Methuen a rock band Prospect Hill and bostonfreedomrally spoke out. The mayor of Methuen Bill Manzi, offered a slim down big concessions, a compromise and that looks to be in doubt from today's Boston Globe.  -----------------------
While voting yes for the amended penalty the first time, council president Quinn said she is now up in the air. "On the one hand, you don't want a bunch of kids or adults smoking pot in parks and lakes and recreational spots, if you're standing there with your family," she said. "On the other hand, I don't want to see a kid 15 years old that has a joint be arrested and have it be a felony and [have his record] follow him for life. I really don't know what I'm going to do."They tabled in Quincy. Braintree a march is planned at 6PM on tuesday night from the Braintree T station to city hall.  A leaderless movement of young people who want a future for themselves and their communities. In Everett, Scott Mortimer, a medical marijuana user and a longtime lobbyist working and winning over key legislator supporters up on Beacon Hill for marijuana reform will be speaking on Monday night to the city council with the Everett police chief on the other side.  Everett city council is not decided. Not by a longshot.Newburyport's police officers were quoted as saying that the felt the city council would be sure to pass the new ordinances. So far from our lobbying and polling, that is turning out not to be true. Newburyport like West Newbury is cool. I know the police officers quoted, they are good guys, just wrong on this. 
The sore losers do not have the power to pass these like they thunder. They might win one or two but most of the state knows, 65% was a mandate, a message. Let the new law work. If we have to enforce the person has to identify themselves for the $100 fine, so be it. It can be done. But no $700-1000 fines and criminal records. The voters said no more, $100 fine.    
By bostonfreedomrally on 01/29/2009 at 2:33:56
Re: Question 2 backlash heats up
What happens to a 16-19 year old kid that is having a tough time with no parental support that gets a $700 fine he can't pay? For smoking a joint? A criminal record for life. Who's going to pay for this kid when he can't get a job and gets in to dealing, worse drugs or in jail? 65% said not us. A kid makes a mistake smoking a joint, take the weed, $100 fine, if they are under 18, they take a drug education course. End of story. Mandate 65%. Marijuana was already defacto decriminalized in the home. The only thing that Question 2 did was make it non criminal to protect people from a criminal record for life for a few types of offenses that occur. 1. Pulled over for speeding or something like that and a search turns up pot.  2.  A person is smoking in public and the police actually decide to arrest.  3. A person is smoking in their house and answers the door and let police in their house. (Almost never, ever happens) The media is pretending and campaigning for the sore loser reefer mad. The public sees and knows this. Many of the city councilors do as well. West Newbury (hometown of John Cena, what up Cena family!), Worcester, Boston, Cambridge these cities and 90% of MA cities and towns are not trying to overturn Question 2. 
But for a few police chiefs and mayors pushed by the AG and DA's and supported by the media. But the media knows the score and in the end always reports the results. And so far they are losing big!In Methuen a rock band Prospect Hill and bostonfreedomrally spoke out. The mayor of Methuen Bill Manzi, offered a slim down big concessions, a compromise and that looks to be in doubt from today's Boston Globe.  -----------------------
While voting yes for the amended penalty the first time, council president Quinn said she is now up in the air. "On the one hand, you don't want a bunch of kids or adults smoking pot in parks and lakes and recreational spots, if you're standing there with your family," she said. "On the other hand, I don't want to see a kid 15 years old that has a joint be arrested and have it be a felony and [have his record] follow him for life. I really don't know what I'm going to do."They tabled in Quincy. Braintree a march is planned at 6PM on tuesday night from the Braintree T station to city hall.  A leaderless movement of young people who want a future for themselves and their communities. In Everett, Scott Mortimer, a medical marijuana user and a longtime lobbyist working and winning over key legislator supporters up on Beacon Hill for marijuana reform will be speaking on Monday night to the city council with the Everett police chief on the other side.  Everett city council is not decided. Not by a longshot.Newburyport's police officers were quoted as saying that the felt the city council would be sure to pass the new ordinances. So far from our lobbying and polling, that is turning out not to be true. Newburyport like West Newbury is cool. I know the police officers quoted, they are good guys, just wrong on this. 
The sore losers do not have the power to pass these like they thunder. They might win one or two but most of the state knows, 65% was a mandate, a message. Let the new law work. If we have to enforce the person has to identify themselves for the $100 fine, so be it. It can be done. But no $700-1000 fines and criminal records. The voters said no more, $100 fine.    
By bostonfreedomrally on 01/29/2009 at 2:34:02

ARTICLES BY CHRIS FARAONE
Share this entry with Delicious

 See all articles by: CHRIS FARAONE

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2009 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group