Not Arresting Marijuana Users is Too Confusing For Police

Not Arresting Marijuana Users is Too Confusing For Police


Voters in Massachusetts have overwhelmingly voted to stop small-time marijuana arrests, but the law-enforcement community doesn’t understand what that means:

BOSTON - Amid confusion among police and prosecutors, a voter-approved law to decriminalize the possession of marijuana goes into effect on Jan. 2, according to a spokeswoman for the state attorney general.
…
Agawam Police Chief Robert D. Campbell said there is a tremendous amount of confusion about the law.
…
"Somebody has to come up with a mechanism," the chief said.

Geline W. Williams, executive director of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, said there are some "very, very significant" problems with putting the law into effect. [The Republican]

Fortunately, an apparent super-genius named Terence J. Franklin has come up with a theory:

Amherst Town Meeting member Terence J. Franklin, who supports Question 2, said the new law should be easy to put in place.

"Why not just leave people alone?" Franklin added. "What's the big deal? That will solve all the worries."

Now that’s what I’m talking about. Maybe we should let this guy write the ballot language from now on.

Seriously though, it’s understandable that police are entering into some new territory here. Still, there’s no question what the voters have in mind. Most people don’t think possessing marijuana should get you arrested and charged with a crime. There may be some details to iron out, but it’s really pretty silly to act like this is gonna turn the criminal justice system upside down. To even argue that is basically to admit that marijuana enforcement rules your world.

Opponents of Question 2 campaigned tirelessly to convince voters that marijuana enforcement was a low priority and that penalties were lenient. If there was even a shred of truth to any of that, then implementing decrim should be simple.

source





this was taken from a blog but I couldn't pass the opportunity to share. You try telling a power-hungry police officer he can't arrest those damned hippies no more!:laugh:

RaverHippie added 9 Minutes and 41 Seconds later...

Here's another article on the same topic but done in a newspaper. The blog post above quotes it partially. The whole article is nice too.

[h1]Law enforcement officials cite confusion over new Mass. marijuana law[/h1]
by The Republican Newsroom Wednesday December 03, 2008, 7:36 PM


By DAN RING

BOSTON - Amid confusion among police and prosecutors, a voter-approved law to decriminalize the possession of marijuana goes into effect on Jan. 2, according to a spokeswoman for the state attorney general.

The date was set after the Governor's Council on Wednesday voted to certify the results of the Nov. 4 election including a ballot question to decriminalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana.

The question was approved by 65 percent to 35 percent statewide and passed in every county in the state.


Emily J. LaGrassa, spokeswoman for the attorney general, said the ballot question takes effect 30 days after the officials results are presented to the Governor's Council. In an e-mail on Wednesday, she said Jan. 2 is the date the law takes effect.

Agawam Police Chief Robert D. Campbell said there is a tremendous amount of confusion about the law.

He said he had no information on how to issue fines or write citations. He said he is unsure who would conduct hearings on appeals of citations for marijuana possession.

"Somebody has to come up with a mechanism," the chief said.

Geline W. Williams, executive director of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, said there are some "very, very significant" problems with putting the law into effect.

Amherst Town Meeting member Terence J. Franklin, who supports Question 2, said the new law should be easy to put in place.

"Why not just leave people alone?" Franklin added. "What's the big deal? That will solve all the worries."

According to a legal bulletin provided by the state's Trial Court to the state's district courts, Question 2 replaces criminal penalties with civil penalties for possessing one ounce or less of marijuana.

A violator will be issued a civil citation and must either pay $100 civil penalty to a city or town clerk or request a civil hearing before a clerk or a judge.

A copy of the citation must be sent to parents of any violator younger than 18. Such teenagers are also required within one year to attend a drug awareness program, the bulletin said.

Terrell W. Harris, a spokesman for the state Executive Office of Public Safety, said official guidance on the law will be provided before it goes into effect.

Public Safety Secretary Kevin M. Burke is working on the effort with the attorney general and law enforcement agencies.

"There is nothing I can say publicly right now," Harris said.

Hampden District Attorney William M. Bennett said last month he would drop all pending charges of possessing an ounce or less of marijuana. Bennett said he would not prosecute new cases after Nov. 4.

Bennett said he would honor the spirit of the ballot question before it legally takes effect.

Berkshire District Attorney David F. Capeless said there are very serious issues that need to be resolved before the new law starts operating.

"I think that people are going to wake up to the fact that this wasn't the very simple piece of legislation it was sold to them as," Capeless said.

Material from the State House News Service was used for this report.