College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students

Mass weighs pros and cons of legal marijuana

By Sam Butterfield, Collegian Staff

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Updated: Thursday, April 2, 2009

U.S. Teen Drug Use

Courtesy/ MCT

Two Massachusetts legislators have introduced a bill that would make the sale of marijuana by licensed distributors legal in the state.

 House Bill 2929 and Senate Bill 1801, introduced in the statehouse March 23, was sponsored by Amherst Rep. Ellen Story, Northampton state Sen. Stan Rosenberg and petitioned for by Northampton attorney Richard Evans. The bills seek to tax and regulate the cannabis industry, stating that “previous efforts have not succeeded in eliminating or curtailing marijuana use and abuse.”

The bills would also create a regulatory board, the Cannabis Control Authority, to supervise the distribution and sale of marijuana in Massachusetts.

Under the new bill, officials would place marijuana into one of three tax classes, depending on quality. The Control Authority would be charged with testing the quality of the marijuana to determine its tax bracket, collecting excise taxes on the sale of marijuana, issuing licenses to farmers, importers and commercial distributers.

Also, the rule would apply to retailers who could potentially sell the marijuana in a store. The law would create tax stamps to issue to these purveyors to verify that the marijuana had been legally obtained. Driving under the influence of marijuana and public consumption would remain a crime.

Marijuana under the new bill would be moved from its origin point to consumers in several stages.

A farmer would hold a cultivation license, which would cost $500 annually, and could sell marijuana to a processor, who could “possess, process, package, box and crate cannabis,” into one ounce sealed bags, selling those to someone with a trade license, which would cost $3,000 a year. From there, the processor could sell the marijuana in any form to someone with a retail license, who would essentially be operating a marijuana storefront, selling marijuana to any person over 21 years-old who is not clearly intoxicated.

No one convicted of a felony, except a marijuana-related felony, within the last 10 years would be able to hold a license.

Rep. Story and Sen. Rosenberg cautioned that the bill was likely to be met with incredulousness from lawmakers, but said they hope the bill will open the door to dialogue on the potential benefits of marijuana legalization.

Rosenberg said he hopes the bill will stimulate discussion on the issue of legalizing, though he said he doubts the bill will pass for the present.

“It will take a while to get the legislature and the public’s attention on the subject,” he said. “It is not likely to move very far in this legislative term.”

Rep. Story said that she would like to see the bill pass and that she feels it could at some point in the future, but that the present political climate in Boston indicates otherwise.

“If there ever was a time that this bill should pass because of the tax revenues this would bring in, this is the time,” she said. However, she noted “the legislature will not vote for it because it does not want to be seen as soft on drugs.”

Story said lawmakers would probably like to take some time to observe the effects of the recent decriminalization plan.

“People who might even be in favor of this say ‘we just decriminalized it, let’s wait and see what that does, and then we can consider whether we can just make it altogether legal,’ but right now the mood in the legislature is not to do that, legislators are still very nervous about the legalization of currently illegal drugs,” said Story.

Though she feels the bill will not pass at this time, she said she is hopeful that this legislation will generate open discussion about legalization and its potential for revenue. She also feels that opinions on all morality issues change over time, as new generations view once shunned behaviors more tolerantly.

“The older generation, for the most part, were the ones who had such trouble with same sex marriage, and the younger generation will come along and find it astonishing that that was ever a controversial issue,” she said, “so the same thing may happen with marijuana.”

Evans said he took the initiative to introduce this legislation because “no one else was going to do it, somebody has to.”

Like the two legislators sponsoring the bill, Evans said he hopes it will create serious discussion about legalization.

“I’m trying to prompt constructive discussion,” he said.

Evans said he feels current marijuana legislation is anachronistic and represents government being out of touch with its citizens, adding that marijuana prohibition is no longer financially viable in an economic downturn.

“It’s a legacy of past generations,” he said of current laws, “we don’t need the prohibition laws, we certainly can’t afford the luxury of the prohibition laws, we’re foolish to deny ourselves the tax revenue we could be generating; it’s a question of sensible government.”

National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Law (NORML) Director and University of Massachusetts alumnus Allen St. Pierre said the legalization plan would put Massachusetts at the forefront of marijuana reform and would help save taxpayer money and extend civil rights in ways other than merely ceasing the arrest and prosecution of users and dealers.

“It would cease the arrest of approximately 10,000 people a year on cannabis charges,” he said. “But worse than that, it would stop the databases the government keeps of the DNA of marijuana users,” he explained.

“In most states, if you’re caught smoking marijuana you have your DNA swabbed and put in databases, which are expensive to keep, and hand our government our genetic code.”

St. Pierre, an Amherst native, said that prohibition has not worked to end the abuse of marijuana and that research suggests an effective way to curtail marijuana use would be to treat it in much the same way tobacco has been dealt with recently.

“We have to use public education that is credible,” he said, explaining that the Partnership for a Drug-Free America’s anti-marijuana campaign, the largest ever advertising campaign, has not been seen as credible by young people, its target audience.

By making smoking appear less desirable and by using hard statistics showing its dangers authorities have proved that it is an addictive, deadly substance, said St. Pierre.

Further, by raising taxes on it, legislators have been able to create an introductory price which makes tobacco difficult to access for first time smokers, who are presumed to be younger and therefore have less income. If the same plan were to be implemented for marijuana, St. Pierre said, authorities would have a workable recipe for reducing the instances of marijuana use but still not clogging the criminal justice system or persecuting users.

St. Pierre also explained that demography will play a role in shaping marijuana policy as the discussion on how to regulate marijuana continues.

“The baby boom generation, like them or not, their mores and values – which decidedly intersect with marijuana – are essentially leading this nation, and the generation behind them, the 40-year-olds, you can call them, are behind marijuana more, and the people behind them, the 20-year-olds, are even more behind it,” he said.

“When this gets vetted around the Commonwealth, places like Lowell, parts of Cape Cod and the islands, Cambridge, good parts of the whole Boston area and the suburbs, places in Western Mass. like Williamstown, Amherst – anywhere there’s a college – their politicians will be more inclined to support it than the bigger industrial cities like Worcester and Springfield that are more heavily swayed by the archdiocese and the Catholic church,” said St. Pierre.

“But there will be a medical marijuana bill on the ballot in 2010 or 2012 and that will likely pass by the same margin as the decriminalization bill, so Massachusetts is going to be in play on the issue of marijuana,” he added.

“Prohibition might have lasted had a major economic crisis not have confronted America,” he said. “And that is what is on the table now that is making this issue palpable.”

Sam Butterfield can be reached at sjb09@hampshire.edu.

Comments

13 comments
TJS
Thu Oct 22 2009 13:21
It is very hard to believe that such a useful plant, and I stress its only a plant, can be justified as being illegal. We the people need to step up and get our officials working on getting marijuana legal as it should be.
William
Fri Aug 21 2009 14:19
It is not, it cannot be, it never has been, it never will be an addictive or a deadly substance. The science behind claims to that effect is flawed and in some cases simply nonexistent.
Chuck Norris
Tue Apr 28 2009 10:04
you are wrong sire
allen
Fri Apr 17 2009 11:33
3 years ago i was sitting at home.... minding my own business never been in trouble with the law in my life.... When a banging on my front door happened...I opened the door and had a gun stuck to my face asking for some girl i have never heard of..... in front of my 2 kids 3 and 5....I told them i did not know who they were looking for and they were at the wrong place that just me and my family lives here and have for 2 years...they said they had a felony warrant for this girl that i do not even know....so they surrounded my house remember with guns pulled out.... scared me and my kids to death...well for years i have used medical marijuana for 3 virtibrates growed together in my back since birth... so behind my house i had 12 plants for personal use that were only 6 inches tall at the time..So of course they see them them...Remember they are at the wrong address...But all a sudden im now in trouble...Next thing u know the drug detectives of the county now show up...and the tearing apart my house begins searching everything even my kids rooms which really pissed me off ..Im not that kind of person... I told them it was my pot... showed them my crooked back and that was what it was used for....And that i did not sell pot.... the value of the pot found in my house was valued at 10 dollars they said..... and for the 12 plants in the back that were 6 inches tall they valued the at 60,000 which i would have to pay taxes on...I was then charged with maintaining a dwelling felony... manufacturing marijuana felony... and whatever the charge was for my pipe and rolling papers another felony......Now the sad part of this is my kids are scared of the police after this if they got lost they would not try to get help from them since they seen them hold a gun to daddys face...and both my boys have their lifetime hunting liense. remember they were at the wrong address.... after court and thousands of dollars later i was convicted with manufacturing a felony...And of course with that kind of charge i lost my job..And it is very hard to get a good job it will affect me for the rest of my life..Also there went my hunting rights with a gun anyway...and the law was 2 miles from the house they thought they were at how unprofessional is that.....so i quit using medical marijuana went to the doctor and now am fighting the addiction the oxycodone pain killers....which a can hardly even afford for my back pain!!!!!.....i thought we had rights against these type of things but due to the good faith law we don,t....if they think they are at the right house in good faith they can do this to everybody.....Im 37 years old and now for the first time in my life i now have a record.....How unprofessional the law was being 2 miles from the house the they were supposed to be at.... Good job hendersonville n.c P.D.... u have scared my kids to death of law enforcement..... and ruined my life and got me hooked on pain killers now....But im trying to get off the pain killers and go back to medical marijuana since it is not addicting....ya'll are the most unprofessional P.D. i have ever heard of....
chris o
Fri Apr 3 2009 17:23
there is not one good argument to be made for why marijuana remains illegal?

is there anyway to change the law at a federal level?

Your name
Thu Apr 2 2009 23:14
It is true in Arizona that you have to submit your DNA if charged with a marijuana offense. I was recently caught with 2.12 grams of cannabis and .078 grams of hash. I was charged with six felonies including four for paraphernalia (the bag it was in, the roach, rolling papers, and a pipe). I was given 18 months of probation. If I complete the probation with no violation the felonies will be dropped to misdemeanors but I was still forced to submit DNA. It's time for sensible change in this country! We must end the war on otherwise law abiding citizens.
brian
Thu Apr 2 2009 20:12
Active Component In Marijuana Targets Aggressive Brain Cancer Cells, Study Says
By Kelli Miller Stacy
WebMD Health NewsReviewed by Louise Chang, MD

Please dont ever let them Prohibition freaks use marijuana if they get cancer. let them die.... Liers

n
Thu Apr 2 2009 16:07
Your Name -

I've always been lucky to live in decrim states, so yeah feels hard to believe, but it's true. In any state where marijuana is a serious offense or carries a mandatory minimum sentence, you will be DNA swabbed. check out NORML's list of individual state laws for more info.

WhiteyBulger
Thu Apr 2 2009 16:00
With 65% approval for decriminalization, let's introduce a ballot question to legalize it in 2010!
bubbymeister
Thu Apr 2 2009 14:56
I want a job as a tester :P
Your name
Thu Apr 2 2009 12:05
Wait, what the ****...

“In most states, if you’re caught smoking marijuana you have your DNA swabbed and put in databases, which are expensive to keep, and hand our government our genetic code.”

This can't be true... is it?

Caleb
Thu Apr 2 2009 09:01
Cape Cod for the legalization of cannabis! I want to give my money to the Commonwealth, not the guy on the corner.
woostastudent
Thu Apr 2 2009 07:53
Just thought I should let you know that Worcester has more colleges per capita than Boston.






log out