Mass. says new pot law allows other THC drugs, too

By GLEN JOHNSON – 1 day ago

BOSTON (AP) — Guidelines for a new Massachusetts law that ends minor marijuana arrests say the law may also apply to other drugs with the same psychoactive ingredient, such as hashish.

The guidelines obtained Monday by The Associated Press say the law that takes effect Friday ends criminal penalties for possession of an ounce or less of THC — the primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, hashish or hash oil.

Voters passed a referendum in November that instead imposes a civil penalty of a $100 fine and forfeiture of the drug.

The guidelines from the state Executive Office of Public Safety and Security advise law enforcement agencies on the law's practical enforcement, but courts eventually are expected to have to settle questions on its scope.

The guidelines make clear that the law doesn't change existing regulations against drug distribution or driving under the influence, for example. In addition, all law enforcement officers with civil powers — including campus officers — have the authority to issue tickets.

The guidelines also recommend that cities and towns pass ordinances banning public use of such drugs.

Massachusetts Bid to ban dog racing succeeds on 2nd try

Adam Johndrow (left) and Anthony Cutillo, track employees, petted Zane, Cutillo's pet, at Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park. (Jim Davis/Globe Staff)

By Stephanie Ebbert Globe Staff / November 5, 2008

The contentious ballot question passed amid emotional ad campaigns by both sides. Proponents used images of sad-eyed greyhounds that they say are caged inhumanely and raced to injury, while opponents put the spotlight on the employees who would be out of work if the ballot passed. A similar ballot question was narrowly defeated in 2000.

The ban, which takes effect in 2010, passed by a vote of about 56 percent to 44 percent, with more than two-thirds of the precincts reporting.

"We did it. We did it for the dogs," a victorious Carey Thiel, executive director of Grey2K SA, said at a postelection party of some 60 supporters at Jillian's Billiards Club.

"For 75 years, greyhounds in our state have endured terrible confinement and suffered serious injuries," Thiel added. "We're better than that."

After the speeches, campaign supporters Jeff and Sandy Bigelow of Boylston embraced for a full minute, gripping the backs of one another's blue T-shirts that read, "Support the Greyhound Protection Act."

"It means everything. We've worked so hard for the dogs and they heard us," Sandy Bigelow, 40, said with tears streaming down her face. "It feels so good. Oh, God, it feels so good."

It was a far different mood at Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park in Raynham, where track employees gathered to watch the results. George Carney, owner of the track, said voters had been misled by "bad information" from the proponents.

"It's not a very pleasant thing right now. Some of these people have been here 40 years," Carney said. "Here's a company that did nothing wrong, paid their federal taxes on time, paid the town on time. The town is going to be a severe loser, and a lot of people here dedicated their life to the company."

The Massachusetts Animal Interest Coalition - funded by the Raynham track - had argued that the ballot question would put the needs of dogs before the needs of people - among them, some 1,000 employees of the state's two dog tracks who would lose their jobs.

It said the dogs are treated well, that the injuries reported include minor ones, and that the dog tracks are following the regulations passed by the State Racing Commission after the last ballot question failed.

Those arguments resonated with many voters. Raynham defeated the question 79 percent to 21 percent, Fall River defeated the ballot question 56 percent to 44 percent, and the vote was divided almost precisely in Dedham, Dracut, and Danvers.

"I think that it's trying to regulate an industry that's already highly regulated," said Maria P. Marotta, 32, a Suffolk law student from Jamaica Plain who voted against the ban. "It's a deeper issue."

But the argument was not enough to stem the tide in other communities. Newton and Boxborough voted 2 to 1 for the ballot question, Concord 70 percent to 30 percent, and Dover 65 percent to 35 percent.

The Committee to Protect Dogs used data kept by the State Racing Commission since mid-2002 showing injuries to more than 800 greyhounds. Formed by Grey2K USA, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals-Angell Medical Center, the committee spent nearly $500,000 through Oct. 15, campaign finance reports show, and received about $144,000 in in-kind contributions.

"This is a victory for everyone in Massachusetts who cares about dogs," said Christine Dorchak, cochairwoman of the Committee to Protect Dogs.

Stephanie Ebbert can be reached at ebbert@globe.com. Globe correspondents Matt Negrin and John M. Guilfoil contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Massachusetts Voters approve marijuana law change

Whitney Taylor, Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy chairwoman, and Jack A. Cole celebrated Question 2 passing. (BARRY CHIN/GLOBE STAFF)

By David Abel Globe Staff / November 5, 2008

Voters yesterday overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, making getting caught with less than an ounce of pot punishable by a civil fine of $100. The change in the law means someone found carrying dozens of joints will no longer be reported to the state's criminal history board.

One ounce of Marijuana

With about 90 percent of the state's precincts reporting last night, voters favored the Question 2 proposition 65 percent to 35 percent.

"The people were ahead of the politicians on this issue; they recognize and want a more sensible approach to our marijuana policy," said Whitney Taylor, chairwoman of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which campaigned for the ballot initiative. "They want to focus our limited law enforcement resources on serious and violent crimes. They recognize under the new law that the punishment will fit the offense."

The proposition will become law 30 days after it is reported to the Governor's Council, which usually meets in late November or early December. But the Legislature could amend or repeal the new law, as they have done with prior initiatives passed by the voters, said Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Opponents of the proposition said they are concerned about the potential consequences of the vote. "The administration is clear in its opposition to the decriminalization of marijuana, and we are concerned about the effects of ballot Question 2's passage," Kevin Burke, secretary of the state's Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, said in a statement.

He would not comment on whether the administration will try to repeal the law, which will require violators younger than 18 to complete a drug awareness program and community service. The fine would increase to as much as $1,000 for those who fail to complete the program.

Proponents of the initiative, who spent about $1 million promoting it, argued the change in the law would maintain the state's existing penalties for growing, trafficking, or driving under the influence of marijuana, while ensuring that those caught with less than an ounce of pot would avoid the taint of a criminal record.

The opponents, who include the governor, attorney general, and district attorneys around the state, argued that decriminalizing marijuana possession would promote drug use and benefit drug dealers at a time when they say marijuana has become more potent. They warned it would increase violence on the streets and safety hazards in the workplace, and cause the number of car crashes to rise as more youths drive under the influence.

In a statement, the Coalition for Safe Streets, which opposed the initiative, blamed the loss on being outspent by supporters of Question 2, which included the billionaire financier George Soros, who spent more than $400,000 in favor of decriminalizing marijuana.

"Now these pro-drug special interests will move on to another state as part of their plan to inflict a radical drug-legalization agenda on as many communities as possible," said the statement.

The Rev. Bruce Wall, pastor of Global Ministries Christian Church in Dorchester, was among several prominent black ministers in Boston who called on fellow clergy to oppose the initiative.

"I guess there are a lot of people smoking the stuff, and they don't see what we see," Wall said.

The initiative's success last night sparked loud cheers from supporters gathered at the Silvertone Bar & Grill in downtown.

"I think this points to how our Legislature is unwilling to represent their constituents on these issues," said Bill Downing, president of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition.

Globe correspondent Matt Negrin contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.

Voters reject income tax repeal

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1185071465http://www.brightcove.com/channel.jsp?channel=16988910

On ballot questions, voters answer (Boston Globe) From income taxes to dog racing, issues spark a mix of reactions at the polls. Video by Wendy Maeda; produced by Leanne Burden Seidel/Globe Staff

By Eric Moskowitz Globe Staff / November 5, 2008

By a better than 2-to-1 margin, Massachusetts voters yesterday rejected an effort to repeal the state's income tax, following an aggressive campaign by unions and other opponents who warned that eliminating the tax would gut state government.

Although they were in no mood for change on taxes, voters yesterday did upend the status quo on two other issues. They chose by a wide margin to decriminalize small amounts of marijuana, and they also ended the state's seven-decade tradition of greyhound racing.

Six years ago, a similar tax-repeal question attracted little attention and no organized opposition but nearly passed. Stunned tax supporters took no chances this time, spending millions on an aggressive campaign warning that repealing the income tax would trigger drastic cuts to government programs, damage the economy, and prompt increases to other taxes and fees.

"We said the proposal was reckless, and we think voters saw it just as that," said Peter Meade, chairman of the Coalition for Our Communities, which led the opposition.

About 69 percent of voters opposed the repeal, with 80 percent of precincts reporting. In 2002, the repeal prevailed in about 100 communities. As of press time early this morning, it had not carried a single city or town.

The Coalition for Our Communities outspent the supporters of Question 1 by a 10-to-1 ratio through mid-October, a gap expected to widen on finance reports that will be filed after the election. That enabled the question’s opponents to pay for a flurry of television ads and a sophisticated effort to identify likely supporters and undecided voters.

Among other tactics, they sent full-color, personalized mailers that incorporated a voter’s name and community into the imagery and warned of specific local cuts.

Carla Howell, the former Libertarian gubernatorial candidate who led the effort to repeal the tax, blamed the defeat on the fund-raising gap.

"We knew that this was a David-versus-Goliath battle," said Howell, chairwoman of the Committee for Small Government, speaking to a crowd of about 20 supporters at Ken’s Steak House in Framingham last night. "All we needed was a bigger stone."

In an interview afterward, Howell also likened her limited-government bid to the Boston Tea Party, casting the campaign "in the long tradition of little guys trying to do what's right for working men and women."

But there was more than a monetary gap at play. The Coalition for Our Communities drew on a door-to-door network of activists worried about cuts to schools, health centers, public safety, and other programs. In Dorchester and Mattapan alone, more than 100 volunteers from several nonprofits offered rides to the polls yesterday and handed out thousands of palm cards with a thumbs-down icon and the words, "Times are hard enough. Let's not make them worse."

"We know how important Question 1 is to many services that are important to working families across the state," said Cortina Vann, a community organizer with the Dorchester-based Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, where a classroom normally used for a low- and moderate-income home-buyer course had been converted into a war room, the walls covered with charts detailing precinct locations and volunteer schedules.

On the other side, the Committee for Small Government, invested a chunk of its limited resources, which totaled $431,000 through mid-October, early in the campaign, on the signature drive to get the question on the ballot.

After that, Question 1 advocates hoped that frustration with government waste as well as fatigue from strained family budgets would lead many of the state's 3.4 million workers to strike a blow against the 5.3 percent income tax.

"We’re getting taxed to death in Massachusetts," said Bernie Friesecke, a North Reading voter who contributed $85 to the Committee for Small Government.

"You get these television ads that tell you we're going to lose this, that, and the other thing," said Friesecke, a 78-year-old retired aeronautical engineer. "No one’s ever telling you that we've got corruption and spending on stuff we don’t need, in huge quantities."

The question called for cutting the income tax to 2.65 percent on or after Jan. 1 and for eliminating it entirely a year later. That would have returned an average of about $3,700 per worker but stripped the state of roughly $12.5 billion a year, or about 40 percent of funding for the current budget.

Opponents warned that the question would also harm the state’s credit rating and destabilize its economy, in addition to forcing cuts to the myriad services that rely on the tax. The coalition received heavy funding from public labor unions but also attracted outspoken allies in the state's leading business groups and from a wide range of government officials.

Some of those who voted for the question thought it had no chance of taking effect. Andrew Gray, a microbiology graduate student from Somerville, said he knew some supporters who just wanted to tweak government and send a message, thinking it would either lose or be immediately repealed by lawmakers if it passed.

"I don't want to play that sort of gambling game," said Gray, 29, who voted no.

Still, the question won some repeat supporters, such as George Bloom, a 47-year-old engineer from Lynnfield, a town that had widely supported the tax repeal in 2002.

"I agree with virtually nothing the Legislature does. I think they're the biggest bunch of hacks in the world," said Bloom, citing what he considered mismanagement of funds, outsized public-employee pensions, inefficient road projects, and an inhospitable business climate, among other things. "Tell me if I should stop. ... I'm just basically a disgruntled and beaten down voter."

But others in Lynnfield yesterday echoed the message of the Coalition for Our Communities.

"I just think it's kind of reckless," said Christine Noonan, 55, who works as a planner for GE. "And I really don't want to see my property taxes go up."

Globe correspondents John S. Forrester and Jillian Jorgensen contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.