Hey, is anyone else as excited as I am? We are on the road to an end of the Federal Criminalization of Marijuana!!!!!!

Elaborate for those of us who have no idea what you're talking about?

Passed in MA, too. decriminalization for >1oz. $100 fine (like a parking ticket) for possession of up to an ounce.

US coffee shops, here we come.

us coffee shops, here we come.

;) 345

not gonna happen, its still regulated under federal law. In Denver its legal to posses up to an ounce, but its overwritten by federal law im pretty sure. Correct me if I'm wrong.

not gonna happen, its still regulated under federal law. In Denver its legal to posses up to an ounce, but its overwritten by federal law im pretty sure. Correct me if I'm wrong.

This is true, but once the states start decriminalizing it, it won't be long before the fed does.

Congratulations!! Soon maybe you'll experience the joys of medical clubs =)

I happen to live near a great one in Cali in Berkley love it love it love it love it love it

not going to happen in my nazi state any time soon....

its going to be a long time before we get rid of even our drugged driving laws.....

because you failed this salvia roadside drug test you must be under the influence, off to jail you go... even if you smoked 3 days ago you can still get fucked....

there was also another one in California.... if it passed in MI im sure the California one did as well....

What was the proposal?

What was the proposal?

LAW PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives before May 6, 2008?
This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty. Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Such programs would include ten hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early detection and prevention of substance abuse. The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a program within one year could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay, an inability to participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a program. Such an offender's parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Failure by an offender under 17 to complete such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding. The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body. Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana. The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.

A YES VOTE would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.

A NO VOTE would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana.


http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/ballotout.php?&ppid=ST&ct=97&wd=4&prnct=A%0D

Thanks for posting that. Interesting. So, if you have an ounce or less, you only gotta pay 100$ plus get it taken away?

The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body.

aaaaaaa.... right! *drools*

there was also another one in California.... if it passed in MI im sure the California one did as well....

No there wasnt. I'm in CA and i researched every proposition on the ballot.

The only one that involved drugs at all was Prop 5, which incresaed treatment and diversion programs for non violent drug offenders. It FAILED.

Cool. I did not know it passed but I voted yes for it on my absentee ballot. It probably got thrown away though because I voted for McCain too.

do you get to keep the green?

do you get to keep the green?

Really? Don't be a dumbass. Read a little.

It won't be legal to have it, just the penalties will be much less.

Really? Don't be a dumbass. Read a little.

It won't be legal to have it, just the penalties will be much less.

well a $100 fine is a lot more significant if you also lose your ounce of weed. Just a little misleading that's all. Also the people who mod bltc have no right to call others dumbasses.

squeegee doesn't mod BLTC, dumbass.

What other states have passed this? Sorry if i missed this information.

A buncha DAs are trying to get it overturned, and a buncha state legislators agree with them. Its gonna be horseshit if that goes down. 65% voted for it.

ther was all these anti smoke shop commercials saying vote no on 1

people were coming out high smoke billowing out scaring old people and little kids

absolute bull shit

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't there a medical side to this as well?

A buncha DAs are trying to get it overturned, and a buncha state legislators agree with them. Its gonna be horseshit if that goes down. 65% voted for it.

This wouldn't happen. It would be them against the majority, and in a democracy the majority wins. It would make it too obvious to the public that we really have just about no control of the motherfuckers in the office, and that's something that legislators will do anything to keep citizens believing that we have control.

The thing that caught my eye was that "possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body." is an offense. Does this mean that if you got piss tested at a job or something similar that you could be fined? I don't think that workplaces would go through the hassle of all that, but it's possible.

At the bottom of that info it says that the dough (no, not dope :)) collected will go towards the city where the offense occurred. This is a good thing, and it might open peoples eyes and let them realize that money could be gained through this. Sure, the money is from it being illegal, but it's a step in the right direction. To the general population they will see that since the penalty was lowered, more revenues have come in and costs (court, probation, jail etc) have gone down. Maybe if they were to look at the whole spectrum of it, like it being legalized, they can see that it will do the community more good financially.


God damn it would be nice and cheerfully ironic if our economy was saved by pot. If only the nigger that's going to be in office didn't promise change without anything to back it up.

If only the nigger that's going to be in office didn't promise change without anything to back it up.

He's a nigger, what else is he going to do for his bretherin?

The medical part came from what this thread was actually about, Michigan's proposal 1. Heres some info about the proposal in MI that passed http://site.qualifyingpatient.com/

Somehow it got sidetracked to some proposal in MA