Latest
Marihuana: Ya está â Iniciativa de menor prioridad de la fuerza pública de Fayetteville entra en votación de noviembre
Marihuana medicinal: Declaran culpable a Eddy Lepp, cultivador activista californiano, en caso federal de cultivo, puede recibir condena de 10 años a cadena perpetua
Policial: Las historias de policÃas corruptos de esta semana
Oferta: Nuevo libro singular e importante sobre la marihuana medicinal
Reportaje: Fondo de becas en honor a John W. Perry, héroe del 11 de septiembre, auxilia a más estudiantes que pierden ayuda financiera a causa de condenaciones por delitos de drogas
Reportaje: Pelea a causa de iniciativa por Ley de Recuperación del Infractor No Violento de California empieza a calentarse
Reportaje: Comisión de Penas de EE.UU. examinará alternativas a encarcelación
Marijuana Decriminalization Campaign Uncovers Criminal Acts by Opposition
Dear friends:
You might think that the people who are paid to uphold the law would also follow the law themselves. In Massachusetts, you'd be wrong.
The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy (CSMP) â which is running the campaign to pass a marijuana decriminalization ballot initiative in Massachusetts this Election Day â has uncovered at least 15 violations of Massachusetts campaign finance and election laws committed by the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association and other opponents of the initiative. You can read media coverage of yesterday's press conference calling for charges to be filed here.
If you support forcing marijuana policy reform opponents to follow the law, please help out the campaign today.
CSMP has filed official complaints with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance and the Office of the Attorney General, charging that opponents of the initiative participated in 14 counts of raising funds illegally, as well as one count of publishing false statements relating to the initiative, which are clear violations of the law. The campaign is calling on the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance to punish them to the fullest extent of the law. Each violation carries a penalty of up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Specifically:
- Under Massachusetts law, it is illegal to solicit, receive, or spend funds to support or oppose a ballot initiative without first forming a political committee. CSMP has from its inception followed all of these rules, but the district attorneys solicited, received, and spent donations before they were legally allowed to â blatantly ignoring state law in a cynical attempt to conceal their campaign activity for as long as they could, undermining the very laws they have sworn to uphold.
- Additionally, the district attorneys used public funds to post and house a statement urging voters to reject the decriminalization initiative on its Web site ... clear, indisputable violation of Massachusetts election law, which prohibits public officials from using public resources to advocate for or against a ballot initiative.
- What's more, this illegal statement â itself an abuse of public office and taxpayer resources â is riddled with bald-faced lies ... like the claim that the initiative would permit any person to carry and use marijuana at any time. In reality, the measure simply changes the type of penalty for possession of less than an ounce and specifically reiterates that public use remains illegal.
It's past time for prohibitionist officials to be held to the same standards and laws as everyone else. If you support these aggressive tactics to hold our opponents accountable for their lies, deception, and lawbreaking, would you please consider donating $10 or more to the campaign today?
Thank you,
Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.
P.S. If convicted, the initiative opponents would risk more than fines and jail time. They'd also face loss of their driver's licenses, suspension of their licenses to practice law or medicine; and placement in a permanent database of offenders that employers, landlords, and schools can search and use to preclude offenders from getting jobs, housing, and school loans ... the same penalties that marijuana offenders currently face in Massachusetts and which the ballot initiative would remove.
Study: Decriminalizing Marijuana Doesnât Increase Use
The issue most extensively studied has been the impact of decriminalization on the prevalence of marijuana use among youths and adults. Penalties for possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use were significantly reduced in 11 states in the 1970s (Bonnie, 1981b). All of these laws preclude incarceration for consumption-related marijuana offenses, making the offense punishable only by a fine, and most also classify the offense in a category (typically a civil infraction) that does not carry the stigmatizing consequence of having been convicted of a crimeâ hence the term âdecriminalization.â
Most cross-state comparisons in the United States (as well as in Australia; see McGeorge and Aitken, 1997) have found no significant differences in the prevalence of marijuana use in decriminalized and nondecriminalized states (e.g., Johnston et al., 1981; Single, 1989; DiNardo and Lemieux, 1992; Thies and Register, 1993). Even in the few studies that find an effect on prevalence, it is a weak one. â¦Weâve been placing marijuana users in handcuffs and taking them to jail. Weâve been stigmatizing them with criminal records and interfering with their job opportunities. Weâve been taking their children away. Weâve been revoking their financial aid for college. Weâve been taking away their hope for living a normal life and then claiming weâre trying to help them be normal.
In summary, existing research seems to indicate that there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions prescribed for drug use and prevalence or frequency of use, and that perceived legal risk explains very little in the variance of individual drug use. [NAP]
Our marijuana laws are designed to hurt people. To inflict injury. And itâs all based on the idea that less people will use marijuana if we do these horrible things to them. But if that isnât true, then weâre ruining lives for no reason. There remains no excuse for continuing this.
Happy Constitution Day!
I was driving from New York to D.C., and I was pulled over going through Baltimore. The officer asked if I knew why he pulled me over. Having recently seen Busted, I made it a point to say, "I don't know," instead of "speeding." He said he wasn't going to write me a ticket, but wanted to search the car because they "were seeing a lot of drugs going through the area." I told him I was in a hurry and really didn't feel it was necessary. He tried to get all buddy-buddy and make it seem like I should "just help him out." He said his boss really wanted them to be checking cars, so he'd "really appreciate it." At this point, I said I did not wish to consent to a search and asked if I was free to go. He said "yes" and I drove off.You can read many more of these here.
Mason T.
Denver, CO
We had a Know Your Rights training (and showed Busted) for the American Indian Community at the IndianWorks community center. One woman who attended told us that her son and his friends were being harassed by a police officer assigned to his high school. The officer stopped them repeatedly when they hung out after school and constantly demanded to search their bags. Although her son was not at the training, she was eager to show him the information and she went home and ordered Busted off the website.
She called a month later to say that when the officer stopped her son and his friends as they walked home from school and demanded to search their backpacks, her son said, "Officer, am I being detained or am I free to go and I do not consent to a search" all in one sentence. The cop turned red in the face but returned to his squad car, sped off and has not bothered them since. With such great results, the mom has been showing Busted to all of the neighborhood youth.
Michelle G,
Minneapolis, MN
Just two days ago I had an unfortunate run-in with the police. They were already in my house, to respond to an emergency that my friend was having. Due to the nature of his emergency, they requested a search of my house. Immediately, everything from Busted came rushing back. I think the only things I said (and repeated) were "I do not consent to a search", "Are we free to go to the hospital now?" and "I think I need to contact my lawyer." When I said "lawyer" the cop backed off. But I just couldn't believe how astounded he was that I refused the search. He insisted that it meant I had something to hide over and over. And, too, the use of silence really came in handy. I have never been in a situation like that before, especially with the cops already inside my house. So, thanks for Busted. That truly saved me. It was the only thing I thought of the entire interrogation. Things could have turned out differently otherwise.
Stephanie H.
The Sentencing Project: 2008 Presidential Candidatesâ Platforms on Criminal Justice
Pagination
- First page
- Previous page
- …
- 792
- 793
- 794
- 795
- 796
- …
- Next page
- Last page