Massachusetts Marijuana Vote Has Cops in a Tizzy

[Ganjarden]

I'm not sure that law enforcement officials in the Bay State really anticipated that Question 2 was actually going to pass, reducing penalties for simple possession of less than an ounce of marijuana to a $100 fine.

From the Boston Globe:

"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."
Well, yes, I suppose so. But decriminalization didn't come out of the blue. The measure was much-anticipated and heavily debated. It ultimately passed with the support of almost two-thirds of voters. A little just-in-case prep work may have been in order.

Instead, we're getting a bit of a frenzy of ... whining. Chief Brian Kyes of the Chelsea Police Department drags his feet with what sounds like an Intro to Police Procedure question. "If it's a civil infraction, not a crime, can police officers search for more evidence? Now that might constitute a bad search, and that definitely will require significant changes."

Well, yes, it might. But there are actually a few items in Massachusetts, possession of which is punishable only by fines, despite the best efforts of the state legislature. If I remember right, pocket knives with blades longer than 2.5 inches fall into this category in Boston. So deciding whether or not a search is permissible after discovery of a decriminalized substance should be a more or less settled matter of law.

And Frank Pasquerello, a spokesman for the Cambridge Police Department, complains, "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."

Well, I sympathize. It would have been better if marijuana were fully legalized, but there you have it. We all have our crosses to bear.

Of course, all institutions are inherently conservative. They don't like to change their ways, and they don't like to approach old challenges from a new direction.

But, in time, I'm sure that Massachusetts police officers can learn to get along without hustling casual pot smokers off to jail.


News Hawk- Ganjarden http://www.420Magazine.com
Source: Examiner.com
Author: J.D. Tuccille
Contact: Examiner.com
Copyright: 2008 Examiner.com
Website: Massachusetts Marijuana Vote Has Cops in a Tizzy

[Soniq420]

"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.

Oh, I don't know

I'd say it's pretty simple.

We need way less police officers now, and those that remain can focus on serious crime.

rather than gloat we should give them a few days to mourn their old lifestyle before they have to start adjusting

1) No more targeting minorities for victimless crimes
2) No more easy busts to pump the stats
3) Find another way to break in the rookies, the passive pot smoker is now off limits for you
4) Take comfort that the this is the will of the people

[Trichrome]

I think that the cops, when giving out the $100 fine should staple a piece of paper to the back of it which directs people to places where they can get drug help if they so desire. In this way the cops could still protect the public (ultimately from themselves) without having to go through heavy enforcement procedures and jail time.

Other than that they leave them alone. If driving that is a different story though - and in that case methinks the issue should be as it is with alcohol - if in a car one should have the baggie SEALED (not just shut) and should not drive intoxicated. Jes my spin on this.

[FreakNature]

^^ I'm so tired of the implication that driving under the influence of Cannabis is driving impaired. Driving carelessly or inattentively is, I think, a personal style or choice. Nothing about the affects of Cannabis, from my experience, impairs the ability to drive safely.

[hood1]

If these guys cannot stand the withdrawal of putting non-violent people in jail. I say fire them and get some better cops..

[Trichrome]

I disagree, sorry, but driving while impaired puts other people's lives at risk and for that reason I don't think that people should drive when they're high. Even though most people drive better that way, it would look horrible if somebody smoked, then drove somewhere and killed somebody in a car accident.

This might not be the most likely way things work out but not driving while impaired on ANYthing helps to give drugs a better name. Don't drive on pot people, just like you shouldn't drive drunk. Wait till ya get home :)

[Rock1]

You don't have to be a liberal to smoke marijuana, conservatives smoke marijuana too. Not every issue is divided along party lines as the news post on this site may suggest.

[Soniq420]

[QUOTE=Rock1;721937]

Not every issue is divided along party lines as the news post on this site may suggest.

Hi Rock1, I went back and reread this new story after reading your comment.

I see the quote was from the writer of an opinion piece on a civil libertarian magazine. I'm not sure he meant the term conservative in the political sense. I took it as the connotation meaning "inherently resistant to change by nature"

You may be right in your interpretation though

I completely agree with your point that there are many political conservatives that enjoy the herb as well.

Anyway, nice to meet you