Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Mass. Towns Seek Ban on Public Marijuana Use
March 27, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
News Summary

Massachusetts towns are enacting bylaws that impose fines for public smoking of marijuana -- a tactic that advocates consider an effort to subvert the will of voters who overwhelmingly approved marijuana decriminalization in the Commonwealth last fall.

The Boston Globe reported March 25 that in recent weeks at least seven communities have passed ordinances targeting public marijuana use, with more cities and towns expected to vote on similar measures.

Proponents compare the statutes to open-container laws that ban drinking alcohol in public. Police officials said they want to discourage flagrant marijuana smoking, particularly in public parks, schoolyards, and on local beaches.

"If you're smoking marijuana in front of schoolchildren, to me that's a little bit more serious than smoking a joint by yourself out in the middle of the woods," said Brian Gilligan, a captain in the Salem police department. Salem recently authorized police to fine public marijuana smokers $300 in addition to the $100 fine for possession. The bylaw also allows officers to issue a misdemeanor summons for smoking marijuana in public.

Marijuana advocates argued that the local laws are unnecessary. "This seems to be much more about people who never liked the [decriminalization] law to begin with looking for an end run around the will of the voters," said Dan Bernath, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project.

The measure approved by Massachusetts voters made possession of an ounce or less of marijuana a civil offense but also allowed each city and town to enact bylaws to ban the public use of marijuana.

A sample bylaw -- provided by state Attorney General Martha Coakley's office -- says fines can be imposed, a criminal penalty, or both, in addition to the $100 possession fine. It is being used as a blueprint for legislation by many cities and towns. 

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Donald B Parsons on 30 Mar 09 08:25 AM EDT
I TOTALLY AGREE with these ordinances, same as alcohol, is all a man can ask for. I believe that only idiots blatantly poke a finger in the eye of law enforcement.

Posted by unmoveable on 30 Mar 09 09:13 AM EDT
the voters spoke voted and won now the lawmakers are acting like sore losers by implementing all of these other fines. i don't condone open use of marijuana however this law was passed to reduce overflooding of the court system and to help those to refrain from the use of the drug and for each user to examine themselves to become productive members of society by not using at all this law was passed also to give users a second chance and to take proper advantage of positive change or else.

Posted by John on 30 Mar 09 10:46 AM EDT
ticket them and ticekt them hard if it open in public spaces - open container laws were enacted to reduce public drunk displays and abuse - they help because it is a ticket - which is delt with in a rapid manner at court - I am glad that mass has moved forward with decriminalization and now it is time to get the "bugs" out of a new law. How do I talk to someone about avoiding relapse triggers if the trigger is so flagrant?

Posted by westy on 30 Mar 09 12:00 PM EDT
I agree with John, ticket, ticket, ticket. Open smoking of pot reduces quality of life in urban settings and public parks. It leads to vagrancy and a sense of lawlessness. In Seattle, open air pot smoking is everywhere and it’s harder for those offended by smoke to stop pot smokers than cigarette smokers.

Posted by maxwood on 30 Mar 09 08:45 PM EDT
Westy: cannabis users may be more recalcitrant because they know cannabis smoke is less harmful than tobacco smoke. But that aside, I think the appropriate future law would ignore the question of which herb to use, and forbid open burning of cigarettes (which let over half the smoke escape loose full of carbon monoxide) but expressly permit vaporizer, e-cigarette, and single-toke utensils designed for user to inhale 100% of product.

Posted by John from Oceanside on 31 Mar 09 04:48 PM EDT
Once again the writers of these statewide ballet measures decieve voters. This was de-criminalization not legalization. A community has the right to put restriction of public smoking of marijuana just like it does for public drinking, and please don't bring up the poor sick people. It had nothing to do with medical issues.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines