What's new

Massachusetts; 13th state to decriminilize small amounts of pot?

bentom187

Active member
Veteran
yea boi, i voted for it.i hope we pass something about growing ,i think RI has some some kind of MMJ program i wounder how long it will take us to catch up
 

stinkyattic

her dankness
Veteran
Yup! MMJ is next on the to-do list. Of the people with whom I spoke before the vote, most did mention at one point in the conversation that one of the reasons was because they supported the use of MMJ and that voting for decrim would send the 'pot is not the devils weed' message to our government officials and get the ball rolling.
But in the meantime, I'm puffin tough and enjoying it 100%~ lol

Also we kept our income tax- phew, not like I enjoy it but heck, you ever see PROPERTY tax numbers in states with no income tax? I make very little money and own a home- already my property tax bill on a modest home is over $3000/year. That's TEN PERCENT of my annual salary! Those who profit by no income tax are the ones who make a lot of money and are taxed in a higher bracket. If your income sucks, you're not paying a lot of tax as it is. We can't be losing what social services we have left.

And way to go on banning greyhound racing. That's an antiquated, at best, 'sport' with no value to the people of MA.

I'm happy to see us showing some good sense at the polls!
 

the_man

Member
Crazy~Lazy said:
This is a BAD law. It looks good until you read the part that says it applies to any metabolized thc in any part of the body, hair, sweat, urine, nails, skin, or any other body tissue. So now it's a $100 tax if they find out we've ever smoked within the years that our hair holds the history of. I'm willing to bet they're going to pass another law making it far easier to drug test, especially on the spot at a traffic stop. Never think that laws which appear good are completely good, you have to read every part of it.

you can always decline the drug test they can not force you to take one. just like a DUI if you get poped for a DUI and you know your drunk your better off declining the tests. but they could give you a penlty for not taking it like in a DUI case automatic 1 year supsion of your license
 

thekingofNY

Cannasseur
Wow stinky.... we have much much different political views, but that doesn't surprise me and its cool cause that's what makes this country great. Without revenue from the greyhound tracks.... it gonna have to go up(taxes) a bit somewhere else... also, i am no scientist, but I am willing to bet that a happy greyhounds runs much faster/often than a miserable one, but that's just me. I do however know that a loosing greyhound doesn't make any money. Furthermore the tracks don't even own the dogs :(

Man I hate bad Fundie politcal advertisements weeks before the election, they did they same thing 2 years ago with Should alcohol be sold everywhere. And people actually believed those lies too and voted against it :(

And for the record, tax bills in other states are no where near as high as New England.... and i am talking states with no state income tax. The lower to middle class generally is not paying property tax, so i have to disagree with u alot on this point....

There is a reason this state is also know as 'taxachusetts'... although ill take my decriminalized weed and gay people I guess. If we could just decriminalize fireworks n guns id be pretty content.

And yes we can loose the social services we waste money on, the governments job isn't to take care of the people.
 

stinkyattic

her dankness
Veteran
I don't see how taxes and dog racing have anything to do with fundamentalism.

The revenue from the tracks is a miniscule part of the economic landscape, and gamblers will ALWAYS find a place to gamble. *cough Keno *cough And the state Lottery and gambling commissions are already top-heavy enough as it is. Losing greyhounds don't make money. They get put down. The rescue agencies can only handle so many. They do make good pets, people should adopt one if they really care about the continued existence of greyhound racing. Seriously, they're sweet animals. There's no reason to continue breeding excessive numbers of these dogs only for a racing career of 1-3 years when they have a lifespan over a decade. It's just wasteful.

Middle class not paying property tax? That statement is out of touch and shows that you have not spent very long in the work force yet. That's not a bad thing, but simply youthful. What do you consider to be a middle class household income for a family with no children? The lower to middle class who you speak of- the ones who don't pay property tax anyway- is not paying property tax because it cannot afford homes. Particularly in urban areas , such as yours, where property values are quite high and the land itself is 'built-out', meaning that new affordable housing cannot be constructed. I live in an area where the lower/middle working class actually can afford small homes, and do NOT believe that home ownership should be a privilege enjoyed by the wealthy, but by anyone with a work ethic and self discipline in fiscal matters.
Other states' tax rates- Other regions of the country do not really compare to MA because there are other variables to consider. Let's stay within New England for a demonstration. Here's a link to the New Hampshire tax rates town by town. Despite the lack of state income tax, there are still enough taxes to bring the average tax burden (by town) close to 20%. http://www.jacksonteamre.com/images/2007taxrates.pdf The money always comes from somewhere, even if the towns have to get it themselves. Their average personal property tax burden in 2007 was over 1,900 per capita, the thrid highest in the nation. And that is averaging in people who rent and therefore are not contributing to the real estate tax coffers. (source: taxfoundation.org).
Ah well.

Edit: The government's job IS to take care of the people. We can just lose the social services? Sounds like a statement of someone who has never been among the ranks of the working poor. The poor can just work harder and send their kids to private school since the public schools will have crappy funding? Let them eat cake, since they have no bread...
 
Last edited:

Deft

Get two birds stoned at once
Veteran
A dude on fox 25 said "smok'em if ya got'em" in the lead in to the clips segment of his report, hilarious.

He said that lawmakers get to rewrite this law within 30 days though.. Is that true? What can we do?
 

stinkyattic

her dankness
Veteran
Spend the next month writing your representatives and telling them EXACTLY how you feel the law should be worded.

I got a spam text from the MPP (I assume?) that reads:

Spark it for freedom!
Thanks Mass for ques 2!


Will do.
You're welcome ;)
 

bentom187

Active member
Veteran
yeah a cop said on fox last night that all the drug dealers are going to just pick up Oz's now.so this fight isnt over yet.
 

Deft

Get two birds stoned at once
Veteran
I'll go drop a letter on my reps steps and tell him how many potheads are in his district and voting!
 

thekingofNY

Cannasseur
I read a great news article on question 2 yesterday quoting Duval.... even though he personally voted NO, he said "the people have voted", ...while he instructed some chic (head of something) to look into what needs to be done to implement it. The cops are trying to say they don't know what to do... Hello morons, i know for a FACT this state uses tickets where they can write in the amount/offense. "marijuana" and "$100".... if our elected officials can't get that correct, I think we need to do something about said officials. I think the city counsel said they had not heard of anyone trying to block it from passing. Let me go see if i can find the article.... since it really goes with this thread. I should also post results by town, good stuff.

Deft, the officials already know our stance on MJ, I hope u wrote for MMJ or legalization in general. I know this state wants to get there hands on more possible tax dollars, as long as u don't have to give a limb, pretty much anything else is okay. Hell if u tried to give a limb, they probably have some sort of tax on that.

edit sorry but my google skills fail me.... maybe someone else could find it... i coulda swore it was a boston.com or some sort of local news site... I want Duvals exact quote.

in other news i found this article from 2005:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8248127/
"A government survey found that 12.2 percent of people in Boston and 10.3 percent in Boulder, Colo., had used marijuana in the previous 30 days."

god damn hippies, thats almost one in 7

haha look at there map:
MARIJUANA_USE.jpg
 
Last edited:

stinkyattic

her dankness
Veteran
So people living in states dominated by mountain/wilderness areas, or very urban ... that's a COOL map.
I love the breakdown for Texas, lol.
 

HuffAndPuff

Active member
Stinky, King- Whattup guys?! Long time! Sorry for my recent absenteeism... My life has gotten incredibly busy, but in the best of ways. I recently got back from a trip to Europa and have been doing a lot of state-to-state commuting since I've been back. Unfortunately, this has left very little time for our beloved IC! Stinky, I haven't forgotten about our convo before I left, I still plan on following through.

Now, on to the topic at hand.... FUCK YEAH, TAXASSTWOSHITS! WOOT WOOT! As someone who frequently has to pass through the state, and does so with personal use amounts in his trunk, I am incredibly relieved/thrilled by this news. Think about this...

Had I been pulled over for ANYthing (tail light, brake light, etc.) an overzealous cop could have asked to search my car, on a fishing expedition. Let's not forget that the Mass Staties are NOT Boston PD. Obviously I'd say no and let's say he'd get a dog. The dog hits on my car, my car gets searched.

My car gets towed (say $200 for tow and 1 night storage), I get hauled in for a few hours, and have to post bond. (I know its $700 in a neighboring state). There will be a court date, lawyers fees (say $3,000 total) possibly fines (say $500) and say the cops liked my car.... Maybe they try to seize that. I'm not positive on MA, but I know that in a lot of states, if you're in a car, have cash, and any amount of drugs, cops can seize your car without ever bringing you up on charges. Even if they don't seize my car, and I'm found NOT guilty or they continue the charges without a finding (MA only), I'm still out $$$ for a lawyer, time off work for court, and still potentially face probation/drug testing. The whole process was a HUGE pain in the ass.

Now assume the same thing happens today. The cop finds the 1/4-1/2oz that I'll most likely have in my trunk, confiscates it, writes me a $100 ticket, and I'm back on my merry way... If I wasn't smoking when he nabbed me. How awesome, and just, is that?

RE: Decrim and income tax.... I'm not saying this will be a case for many people, but it was for me. In a state like NH, which has no income tax, there is THEORETICALLY the opportunity to keep more of what you make. Unfortunately, the state has draconian drug laws, AND makes up for the decreased state revenue by policing and fining the ever-loving shit out of the citizenry. You cannot put a price on personal freedoms, IMHO. So I peaced the fuck out of the land of "Live Free or Die" and moved to a land with decrim. I have been much happier and less paranoid ever since. Is that worth paying for? I think so. Just wait for the MASS exodus from NH!

One last thing..... Take a look at the map above, and compare it to a map of our politically Red/Blue states. (Texas being a notable rift)I'm just basing it on memory, and even though I'm no Cam Jansen, I am pretty sure that all the heavy-use states are blue states. One might also argue the "more intelligent" states. I'm just saying.....

Stay Safe, (easier now, in MA!)

HuffAndPuff
 

stinkyattic

her dankness
Veteran
Hey man! Right on. Especially with lots of young professional Massholes living in NH in apartments while they establish themselves in their career, before buying a house. It's quite common for renters to commute across the border. With decrim, plus the housing market getting lower, and people whose finances are and have been based on solid savings and not credit being able to afford houses at a younger age, I think that Exodus is coming.
 

thekingofNY

Cannasseur
http://www.mapinc.org/newsnorml/v08/n1005/a08.html

Boston Globe said:
Massachusetts
-------
How will a police officer know whether someone is carrying more than an ounce of marijuana?

Will those caught smoking it present sufficient probable cause for an officer to search them or their car?

How will officers cite people for possessing small amounts of marijuana, and will there be an appeals process?

A day after voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, law enforcement officials around the state wondered how they would implement the new law and how it would change their work.

"This is certainly going to make the work of many police officers a lot more complicated," said Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. "We're going to need guidance from the attorney general and district attorneys. There are a lot of things to work out."

The passage of Question 2 will make getting caught with less than an ounce of pot punishable by a civil fine of $100. It also means the offense will no longer be reported to the state's criminal history board. The law will require those younger than 18 to complete a drug awareness program and community service, and for those who don't, the fine will increase to as much as $1,000.

In a statement yesterday, Attorney General Martha Coakley said the proposition will become law 30 days after the secretary of state presents the official results to the Governor's Council, which usually meets in late November or early December. Until that time, existing law remains in effect.

State officials are going to discuss how to implement the law with "a parallel civil regulatory structure," she said. "We are reviewing all of the implications of the new law and whether further clarification or guidance is needed."

Lawmakers could also seek to amend or repeal the new law, but that does not appear likely, given that 65 percent of voters approved the proposition.

"The voters have voted," Governor Deval Patrick said at a press conference. He directed Public Safety and Security Secretary Kevin Burke "to confer with the attorney general and district attorneys on what the implications are for implementation."

Afterward, Joe Landolfi, a spokesman for Patrick, said there are no plans to try to repeal the law. Spokesmen for Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi added that they have not heard of any effort to block the initiative from becoming law.

But police and prosecutors - most of whom opposed the proposition because, they contended, it would send the wrong message and boost crime - said they will have to reexamine a range of standard operating procedures.

Chief Brian Kyes of the Chelsea Police Department worries about what will constitute probable cause for searching someone found with marijuana. "If it's a civil infraction, not a crime, can police officers search for more evidence?" Kyes asked. "Now that might constitute a bad search, and that definitely will require significant changes."

Chief Frederick Ryan of the Arlington Police Department worried that it will be harder to arrest drug dealers, because people caught with small amounts of marijuana might not act as informants. "Now, one of our tools in our tool chest to identify drug traffickers has been taken away."

Frank Pasquerello, a spokesman for the Cambridge Police Department, wondered whether officers will have to carry scales.

"Now, we're going to have to figure out how much they had, not whether they were carrying it, and that's a lot more difficult."

He also wondered whether there would be increased penalties for those caught repeatedly with marijuana, as happens for those violating speeding laws. "If someone is stopped six times, does it then become arrestable?" Pasquerello said. "There are a lot of questions for everyone."

Michael O'Keefe, district attorney for the Cape and Islands, said he and other law enforcement officials plan to discuss many of the issues at a meeting tomorrow. He said the state must create a way to collect fines and enforce the collection. It also will need a new system for counseling and community service.

"For motor vehicle offenses, we have a Registry of Motor Vehicles. . . . Are we going to have a Registry of Marijuana Smokers?" he asked.

One of the concerns of opponents was what they described as the increased potency of the drug. "I remain very concerned about the effects of this on kids," O'Keefe said.

Edward F. Davis - Boston's police commissioner, who also opposed the initiative - said the law should not be harder to enforce than others on the books.

While he remains concerned that more people will drive under the influence, he said the new law "won't drastically affect how we do business."

He pointed out that fines issued to those caught with the drug at the city's annual HempFest would be doubled under the new law. And he said his officers rarely turned those arrested for possession into informants and routinely made judgments about weight without a scale.

"I'm disappointed that it went through . . . but I don't think the sky is falling by any stretch of the imagination," Davis said.

hehe Registry of Marijuana smokers....
 

Mr. Pat

New member
Deft said:
A dude on fox 25 said "smok'em if ya got'em" in the lead in to the clips segment of his report, hilarious.

He said that lawmakers get to rewrite this law within 30 days though.. Is that true? What can we do?

so wat this basically means is that within thirty days the state law makers and the DA's will probably meet a bunch and talk about wats goin to hapen with this law over the coming years and hopefully they will decide that it will make them a considerable amount of dough so hopefully we wont habe anything to worry about thats wat a lawer friend told me
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top