Marijuana Legalization Bills Introduced In Massachusetts
 

Brief quote from the article:
http://blog.norml.org/2009/03/23/nor...massachusetts/

Now, when this was first mentioned in California, I said that it was only a matter of time before we saw similar proposals in MA. It seems every Against-the-grain law CA passes, MA is shortly behind. I thought it would be at least a year or so.

Peter Tosh was/is great. Probably didn't get as much recognition as he deserved because of his crappy disposition and problems with authority.

he also had this "Marley" complex where he thought he deserved the recognition Bob received.

It seems the new drug tsar Norm Stamper and new attorney general have positive views of medical use and decriminalization too. The attorney general recently said the feds would no longer go after medical clinics/users of marijuana. The new drug Tsar when asked which drugs hed legalize , he answered "All of them, every last one.I bet other states will soon follow.Two recent studies by academics at Harvard and Virginia's George Mason University suggest the U.S. government could see a windfall of anywhere from $14 to $40 billion annually through decriminalization of marijuana. The figures combine law enforcement savings and potential marijuana tax revenues.

Iam all for the legalization of all drugs, hard and soft. Take the money away from all the drug dealers and criminals selling and smuggling it. Have the drugs sold and taxed by the goverment, who use the money for treatment and health care. Make drugs cheap so no one needs to rob to support their habit. Nurses could be at distrubution centers to help with health care and to offer rehab to anyone who needs it , for as long as it takes for them to recover. Its much cheaper to have someone in rehab , then locked up in jail. If we cant keep drugs out of the prison system , where people are under 24 hour supervision. How do they ever expect to keep them out of a free society????

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNu9xjUwPEk

i hope some day people do not judge others for their choices.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryLqfNwSSFE

Bongs!! Everyone will need bongs!!!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd hope I was that composed answering tough questions as the leader of the free world.

You, I'd guess wouldn't do so well.

-spence

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

it's about time
 

it's about space

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

WTF Spence. Tough questions???

If that was Bush you would laugh your ass off.

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

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.”

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

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).

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.

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.

Decriminilization maybe, Tax it never. That would condone it. That's not the intent of decriminilizing it.

Government agreed to tax it
 

but to continue to hide their collective heads in the sand

they never created the tax stamp on purpose

and that was 62 years ago

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c6...nob1/smile.png

Could make a lot of revenues from taxing hemp.

-spence

Cigarettes are taxed. I guess that means even with all the funding the government provides to non-profits that help people quit, the government condones smoking?

Alcohol is taxed. Even though they provide funding for AA and rehab clinics, they must condone drinking alcohol as well.

but alcohol and cigarettes are legal.:rolleyes:

and both are more harmful to society

i agree with you 100%. sarcasm doesn't work well online.i figured it would be the next excuse against legalization.

Herb is harmful to society. there is no denying that fact..

That would be cool we could have a bong building forum,not only that fast food restaurant sales would increase state revenues.

true, but, much less so than alcohol

absolutely.