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.
digg
redditIgnorance of the Law is No Excuse
Comment posted by Giordano on Sun, 12/07/2008 - 1:41pmAgawam Police Chief Robert D. Campbell; Geline W. Williams, Executive Director of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association; and Berkshire District Attorney David F. Capeless, all seem to think cops are so incredibly dumb as to be totally incapable of taking on some simple verbal instructions and changes in paperwork. Police officers should feel insulted when public officials speak this way because, in effect, cops as a whole are truly being insulted.
The identical lame excuse is used in the U.S. debate on legalizing commercial hemp production that would produce useful, domestic, THC-free fiber and hemp seed products. According to the Feds in Washington, cops are plainly too stupid to distinguish hemp plants from marijuana—this despite the fact that police in Canada and everywhere else hemp is grown have no discernible problems regulating large scale hemp production while enforcing conventional marijuana prohibition.
It is not our job as drug law reformers to make the police look good. Quite obviously, we don't. Rather it’s the job of law enforcement personnel to take it upon themselves when they hear crap like this to let the guilty public officials know in no uncertain terms that they will not tolerate civil servants who use negative, prejudicial and destructive police stereotypes to justify utterly ridiculous drug laws.
Giordano
represent?
Comment posted by mlang52 on Sat, 12/06/2008 - 4:21pmMaybe the worst form of a police state is represented by these bullies! The real question is; How and when did they become the final word? I hope the behavior finally exposes these legal hoods for the criminal behaviors they seem to want to follow and gets us back to some sanity!