Regarding Attorney Cutler's Guest Opinion, "Liberty and the odor of marijuana" (May 8), I would like to point out that cannabis prohibition violates the citizens' right to liberty. We learned last Thursday night at the Republican Presidential Candidate debate that Congressman Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor, Gary Johnson understand this. Article 18 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, also derived from Otis' argument, emphasizes that part of the agreement between the people in forming government is the Governor and Legislature's duty to "an exact and constant observance" of "the fundamental principles of the constitution" when enacting only "wholesome and reasonable" laws that are "not repugnant or contrary to the constitution." This creates a presumption that we, the people, retain our natural rights and liberties except when necessary, not just convenient, to protect from the immoral exercise of force or fraud by others. The same duty is upon the Courts when called upon to determine if a legislative act is within the power to legislate. [continues 88 words]
Puritanism, H.L. Mencken wrote, is "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." In a state founded by Puritans, that spirit lives on, if not in the minds of most citizens, at least in their government. Even in the 21st century, in a land that celebrates personal freedom and the breaking of boundaries, Massachusetts police, prosecutors and pols still act like guardians of public virtue. Exhibit A: Gov. Deval Patrick is leading an effort to punish people for their snacking choices. He wants to take away the sales tax exemption for some foods - sugary drinks and candy - which, consumed in excess, make some people fat. Go for the healthy munchies and drinks - or pay. [continues 680 words]
To the editor: Unlike many pundits in the media, I found the first Republican presidential debate on May 5 interesting and refreshing. With the better known conspicuous by their absence, the five candidates in attendance exposed two significant schisms within the party. Both Congressman Dr. Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor and businessman Gary Johnson voiced libertarian ideals. They alone supported ending our imperial wars abroad, our domestic war on drugs, and Washington politicians dictating to the states on social issues. [continues 199 words]
Earlier this month on the 236th anniversary of battles of Lexington and Concord, our state supreme court released its decision in Commonwealth v. Cruz, honoring the principles of 1775. The Cruz ruling limits police power to detain and search a car passenger based only on "... the 'faint odor' of burnt marijuana." Recent editorials criticizing Cruz confuse the court's uncomplicated reasoning, disrespect the state and federal Constitutions' protection of individual liberty from unjustifiable policing, and contradict the popular will. Complaints about Cruz are unfounded from several perspectives. Contrary to claims that the court approved driving under the influence of marijuana, Cruz was a passenger ordered from a parked car where the police made no attempt to check the driver's impairment, and where the trial judge ruled that the police had no reason to believe that the driver had been "operating under the influence ... ." Critics ignored the Cruz statement that police retain the power to impound and search a car and its passengers where there is evidence of impaired operation or a risk to the officer's safety, a risk the prosecution did not argue was present on Cruz's facts. [continues 398 words]
North of Boston -- Persons who value the advantages of liberty and the principles of the constitution of Massachusetts will remember April 19 of 2011, the 236th anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord, as a little more special. It was the day that the Supreme Judicial Court released an opinion that the smell of burnt marijuana no longer empowers police to detain persons and search them or their possessions. The case of Commonwealth v. Cruz arose when police spotted a car illegally parked. Two people were in the car, Mr. Cruz in the passenger seat. According to the police officers involved, when they approached the car, they smelled the faint odor of burnt marijuana. They ordered Cruz out and, in response to an inquiry by police, he gave up a piece of crack cocaine. Police found no marijuana in the car, on the person in the driver's seat or following a full search of Mr. Cruz. [continues 486 words]
THE HEADLINE of Joan Vennochi's column, "Pot not a crime, but trade still has victims" (Op-ed, April 28), is true, in that possession of small amounts is decriminalized in Massachusetts. However, instead of blaming marijuana users for the violence inherent in a market where production and sales remain illegal, she should look toward the remaining prohibition laws themselves. Just as with the fiasco of America's experiment with banning alcohol in the 1920s and '30s, today's violence and crime result overwhelmingly from the policy of prohibition, not the consumption of substances that happen to be illegal. [continues 92 words]
In its April 24 editorial, "Court ruling helps protect drug dealers," The Standard-Times turns the state's constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures on its head, because some criminals will escape detection. The newspaper ignores the fact that the vast majority of citizens who possess marijuana are not now, and never were, deserving of criminal prosecution and punishment. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Supreme Judicial Court twice rejected constitutional challenges to marijuana prohibition, telling proponents of limiting the state's exercise of power to change the law. This they did in 2008 and the court recognized that, in voting for Question 2, the people recognized that, going forward, marijuana possessors would not be committing a crime. [continues 198 words]
The four-leaf clover won't be the only herb associated with Boston for long the hub was ranked the second most pot-friendly city in America by The Daily Beast, according to last week's edition of Newsweek, its sister publication. Smoked out only by first-ranked Tallahassee, Fla., Boston gained its spot based on arrests and usage data from federal statistics as well as an analysis of the city's "local pot culture." "That's f---- ridiculous. We're number one!" said Bill Downing, chairman of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, the state affiliate of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "Nobody smokes more pot than Massachusetts residents!" [continues 502 words]
Regarding Richard Evans' thoughtful April 29 oped ("100 years of marijuana prohibition"), the drug war is largely a war on marijuana smokers. In 2009, there were 858,405 marijuana arrests in the United States, almost 90 percent for simple possession. At a time when state and local governments are laying off police, firefighters and teachers, this country continues to spend enormous public resources criminalizing Americans who prefer marijuana to martinis. The end result of this ongoing culture war is not necessarily lower rates of use. [continues 92 words]
One hundred years ago today, Massachusetts Governor Eugene Foss signed into law Chapter 372 of the Acts of 1911, "An act relative to the issuance of search warrants for hypnotic drugs and the arrest of those present." Since then, marijuana has been illegal in Massachusetts, although the voters reduced possession of a small amount to a civil infraction in 2008. Remarkably, the 1911 law was the first state prohibition of marijuana in the United States. Despite a century of ever-zealous enforcement and thunderous propaganda at taxpayer expense, marijuana inextricably permeates our culture. [continues 511 words]
One hundred years ago today, Massachusetts Governor Eugene Foss signed into law Chapter 372 of the Acts of 1911, "An act relative to the issuance of search warrants for hypnotic drugs and the arrest of those present." Since then, marijuana has been illegal in Massachusetts, although the voters reduced possession of a small amount to a civil infraction in 2008. Remarkably, the 1911 law was the first state prohibition of marijuana in the United States. Despite a century of ever-zealous enforcement and thunderous propaganda at taxpayer expense, marijuana inextricably permeates our culture. Its cultivation, commerce and use have proven ineradicable. We have tried mightily and we have failed to extirpate it. If anyone, anywhere, believes that spending more money on marijuana enforcement will drive out pot, let that person come forward and tell us plainly what it will take to make that happen, how much it will cost, and where the money will come from. [continues 448 words]
SPRINGFIELD Hampden District Attorney Mark G. Mastroianni acknowledges that some drug investigations will be impacted by a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling preventing police from relying only the odor of marijuana to search vehicles and their occupants. But, he added, the April 19 decision by the SJC doesn't necessarily move the commonwealth closer to legalizing marijuana, possession of which was partially decriminalized more than two years ago. "I don't know if this will be a slippery slope toward legalization," Mastroianni said in an interview with The Republican, referring to the SJC decision and a November 2008 ballot measure that decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. [continues 643 words]
Today is the 100th anniversary of Massachusetts' first law interfering with free commerce in cannabis. It was the first such state law in the nation. The 1911 law required a prescription from a physician. Massachusetts' medical users would benefit from returning to the law of 1911. That is what should have happened in 1992 following then-Gov. Weld's approval of "An Act Providing for the Use of Marijuana in Therapeutic Research." Unfortunately, unlike more recent laws adopted in 15 states and the District of Columbia, our law requires a federally approved source. Federal refusal to approve a supply makes it a cruel joke. [continues 226 words]
POSSESSING LESS than one ounce of marijuana is no longer a crime in Massachusetts. But crime still flows from supplying it. To understand how far and how violently, consider again the story of Justin D. Cosby, who was murdered inside a Harvard University residence hall -- several months after the decriminalization law took effect. Cosby, 22, a Cambridge Rindge & Latin School graduate who attended Salem State College, sold marijuana on and around the Harvard campus. On May 18, 2009, he was set up by three men -- not Harvard students -- who were part of a plot to rob him. He was shot three times and died later at a hospital while his mother watched. [continues 575 words]
THE GLOBE editorial staff seems to feel that they know better than the voters when it comes to drugs ("Ruling on marijuana searches leaves behind a strange odor," Editorial, April 25). Speaking of "an ill-considered 2008 state ballot question decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana," the Globe says that we got it wrong, and that the smell of pot is still an indication of a potential crime worthy of a police stop and search. Then, reaching for the last refuge of the illogical, the editorial points out that one person searched under the pretext of pot smell was carrying cocaine - a fact, not a correlation. [continues 89 words]
IT IS not surprising that the state Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Commonwealth v. Cruz dismays police and prosecutors ("SJC limits response by police to marijuana," Page A1, April 20). That is probably because the decision will make it more difficult for them to search for evidence in violation of Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The only practical way to safeguard against unreasonable search and seizure is to make improperly gathered evidence inadmissible at trial. It is what is known as a prophylactic rule. [continues 70 words]
THE ONLY people for whom the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana in Massachusetts has proved "disorienting" are those in the dwindling minority who believe that possession of marijuana even in small amounts should still be criminal ("Ruling on marijuana searches leaves behind a strange odor," Editorial, April 25). What is truly disorienting is your assertion that our courts should ignore the people's democratic decision on this issue. Sixty-five percent of Massachusetts voters made clear in November 2008 that they wanted possession of an ounce or less of marijuana no longer to be a crime. [continues 113 words]
Last Wednesday marked the fourth year in a row in which I have attended the informal Tisch Library roof gathering on April 20, or "4/20" as it is affectionately called by those familiar with its distinguished status as the international holiday of the marijuana counterculture. Like each of the previous years, the minutes approaching 12 a.m. and 4:20 p.m. saw a massive influx of students proudly displaying their knitted ponchos, Bob Marley T-shirts and glossy red eyes. But unlike each of the previous years, also in attendance this year were various administrative deans and a large Tufts University Police Department (TUPD) contingency. IDs were taken, joints were stomped out and, in at least one instance, a student was tackled and forcibly restrained (for reasons, I may add, which entirely avoided me as I watched on in surprised disbelief). [continues 1091 words]
Local law enforcement officials are trying to figure how they will be affected by a recent Supreme Judicial Court ruling that says the odor of burnt marijuana does not give a police officer enough reason to search a motor vehicle. Some area police chiefs say the high court's April 19 decision will make their officers' jobs more difficult, though they believe that various circumstances will still arise to justify police in ordering people to exit their cars during traffic stops. [continues 605 words]
Inside Massachusetts
