Sponsored by
VGoodiez 420EDC
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?

Law Massachusetts

What’s going to happen to legal weed in the Massachusetts legislature?


By Bob Salsberg, The Associated Press

BOSTON — After a week of sharp divisions and heated rhetoric over the future of the state’s recreational marijuana law, it’s now up to a conference committee of six legislators to try and sort everything out.

On one hand, there’s a House bill that infuriated pro-marijuana activists by proposing a major overhaul of the voter-approved law. On the other, a more restrained Senate bill won praise from the groups behind the November ballot question.

Democratic Rep. Mark Cusack, the House bill’s lead author, suggested before the votes that the two chambers were in about 80 percent agreement on their respective approaches.

There is, in fact, more common ground than readily apparent given the dialogue of the past week.

Neither the House nor Senate changed the current legal possession limit of up to 1 ounce of pot or home growing provisions that permit up to a dozen plants per household.

Related stories
Each place state oversight of recreational and medical marijuana under the Cannabis Control Commission, which would become larger and ostensibly more independent than under the ballot initiative that puts it under control of the state treasurer.

Both bills allow medical marijuana dispensaries to transition into for-profit companies, but eliminate the head start those companies had been given over other applicants for recreational licenses. Both set guidelines for the testing of all marijuana products by independent labs, and standards for packaging, labeling and marketing.

Both adopt diversity measures designed to level the playing field for minority and women cannabis entrepreneurs, and address the historically disproportionate impact the “war on drugs” had on minority neighborhoods. And with no currently reliable test for marijuana impairment, both ask a task force to study issues around driving under the influence.

Similarities aside, barriers to reaching a deal by the Legislature’s self-imposed July 1 deadline are many. A few:

‘Repeal and Replace’ or ‘Amend and Improve’?
Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the competing bills: The House repealed the ballot question and wrote an entirely new law; the Senate keeps the existing law while offering changes.

More than just legislative sausage-making, it’s a central question conference committee members must resolve before doing much else. Do they start from scratch as the House did or keep on the books — with modest revisions — the law 1.8 million Massachusetts voters approved? The answer may well dictate the parameters of the final bill.

High on taxes?
The sizeable gulf between marijuana tax rates — 28 percent in the House, 12 percent in the Senate — garnered the most public attention during the past week’s debates.

It may also be the easiest issue to resolve should lawmakers simply agree to split the difference. But the underlying issues are more complicated.

Senators insisted on a tax low enough to encourage consumers to buy from licensed marijuana stores, thereby crushing the underground market for the drug. House lawmakers sought a tax high enough to pay for what the bill described as a “rigorous regulatory scheme” for the cannabis industry. The House also set an ambitious goal of directing $50 million in marijuana revenues to substance abuse treatment programs.

It’s unclear if a compromise tax of about 20 percent satisfies either or both sets of objectives.

Power to the people?
The House grants local governing bodies — city councils and town meetings for example — power to ban or limit pot shops from opening in their communities. The Senate bill leaves unchanged the current law that requires a voter referendum to shut the door on marijuana establishments.

There is no readily apparent compromise, so barring a creative solution one side must give on this issue.

If no agreement, what then?
Failure by legislators to reach a deal by next Saturday would simply leave the voter-approved law intact, and allow Treasurer Deb Goldberg to begin appointing the Cannabis Control Commission. But a possible scenario in the event of deadlock would be to have conferees separate out and approve items they have consensus on, while resolving to address thornier issues further down the road.


- "The House repealed the ballot question and wrote an entirely new law; the Senate keeps the existing law while offering changes."
- "Do they start from scratch as the House did or keep on the books — with modest revisions — the law 1.8 million Massachusetts voters approved? The answer may well dictate the parameters of the final bill."

I don't understand how this is even a question in a democracy. MA residents...get outraged. I don't car what your position is on MJ, you should be enraged at the high handed and elitist views taken by your lower house in the face of an overwhelming, direct democratic vote by the electorate. Go get em, guys. Surprised nobody has filed a law suit yet.
 
Last edited:
In Massachusetts, small group working behind closed doors to reach cannabis compromise
Published: Jun 28, 2017, 8:13 am • Updated: about 8 hours ago Comments (1)

By The Associated Press

BOSTON — A six-member Massachusetts House and Senate conference committee has begun work behind closed doors trying to hammer out a compromise bill making changes to the recreational marijuana law.

The two chambers last week approved separate bills aimed at overhauling the voter-approved law legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in Massachusetts.

The six-member panel, made up of four Democrats and two Republicans, voted to kick out reporters as they were set to begin negotiations on a final compromise bill.

Related stories
One member of the panel, Democratic House Majority Leader Ron Mariano, said lawmakers are facing an aggressive timetable to come up with a final bill.

The House bill made more extensive changes to the law compared to the Senate version, including raising the tax rate on marijuana from 12 to 28 percent.
 
Massachusetts’s Latest Dick Move: Rewriting Pot Legalization, in Secret

Marijuana legalization doesn’t have to be hard. It also doesn’t have to be undermined in secret.

But, as the farce unfolding in Massachusetts proves, unwilling or outright hostile lawmakers can absolutely turn a simple process into a drawn-out drama—and they can also act like an Illuminati cabal and deliberately circumvent the will of the voters. And do it behind closed doors, because why not? Transparency is overrated.

As marijuana retail outlets in Nevada—which legalized cannabis at exactly the same time as Massachusetts, where voters approved a remarkably similar ballot initiative—prepare to record the first legal sale of recreational cannabis on Saturday, Massachusetts lawmakers are once again rewriting the basic tenets of the ballot initiative.

But this time, they’re doing so in a closed-door session, in which members of the public and the news media were ejected, which began Monday.

To the advocate or activist concerned with the democratic process, this is only the latest affront in a series of slights that began almost the very moment legalization was approved.

Within months, in a rare special session, lawmakers pushed the deadline for retail dispensaries to open back six months—with a clear message that there could be further delays.

State lawmakers have also elected to almost double the voter-approved tax on marijuana, and also took for themselves regulatory power—including the ability to ban cannabis activity outright—that the ballot initiative delegated to a popular vote.

That’s not great, but much better than the plan cooked up by the State House to outright repeal the voter-approved legalization bill and replace it with something else.

In the age of the Republican-controlled Congress’s version of “repeal and replace,” that was enough to compel the Marijuana Policy Project to urge Massachusetts voters to flood their representatives’ offices with calls.

To the casual observer—like some of the 1.8 million voters who wanted to be able to buy weed at a licensed store and pay taxes on the transaction—the need for secrecy isn’t immediately clear. For the Boston Globe, the cloistered process is an eyebrow-raiser.

“Hashing out differences between House and Senate bills in secret has long been the norm at the State House,” the newspaper observed. “But keeping deliberations about how to rewrite a voter-passed law hidden is notable, even by Beacon Hill’s opaque standards.

It’s worth pointing out that Massachusetts’s political establishment, which is now in charge of rewriting the state’s marijuana law, absolutely hates marijuana legalization.

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh was one of the chief opponents of the voter-approved measure, and Governor Charlie Baker, who will be responsible for signing whatever the cannabis klatch comes up with into law, campaigned against the measure, on the flimsy argument that legalization would be a drain on state resources.

Baker is also the gem of a man who said that legalization should be implemented “briskly,” before approving a plan—which also had no public vetting—to delay the opening of recreational marijuana stores in Massachusetts from January 2018 to July, and then complained that legal pot was stuck in a “no man’s land.”

This is entirely consistent with the precedent set in other states, where lawmakers have proven unwilling or unable to approve pro-marijuana legislation, despite solid public support.

Among the six lawmakers who have taken it upon themselves to redo the voters’ work for them are at least three who either campaigned against the measure or are close political confidantes of staunch legalization opponents, the Globe reported.

Whatever will they come up with, before a self-imposed deadline to present the new scheme to Baker by Friday? That’s for them to know and for us to find out, the hard way.

And this sad tale continues. MA residents...get radicalized. Proponent of MMJ or not, if you are a proponent of democracy you MUST get engaged and get these yahoos....who have no consideration for the will of the electorate....out of office. Also, it wouldn't hurt if some org like NORML or the MPP helped get a suit going.
 
Massachusetts Lawmakers Miss Deadline for Marijuana Deal

Lawmakers with the Massachusetts House and Senate failed to meet a self-imposed deadline to agree on a bill regulating the retail marijuana industry, according to the State House News Service.

Six-member conference committees had until 8 p.m. Thursday to file legislation to be considered Friday by the House and Senate, but the news service reports that lawmakers signaled no deal would be forthcoming.

The committees also failed to reach an agreement on a state budget.

Massachusetts voters approved a ballot measure in November 2016 to legalize marijuana in the state. The House and Senate have since pushed distinct bills to regulate retail sales, with the branches clashing over tax rates and who has the authority to ban shops from communities.

Wow, this is almost as much of a three ring circus as MD has made of their MMJ program. Just pitiful.
 
House speaker says to pause weed bill to focus on overdue state budget

House Speaker Robert DeLeo, in a dramatic move intended to "remove any distractions" from the goal of reaching a deal on an already late state budget, asked House lawmakers negotiating a bill to regulate the retail marijuana industry to suspend their talks with the Senate Wednesday night until a budget compromise can be struck.

DeLeo said he believes a budget for the fiscal year that began Saturday "can and should be sent to the Governor's desk this week."

"A key reason for our consistently high bond ratings has been our commitment to balanced, on time spending plans. In light of Standard & Poor's recent decision to downgrade Massachusetts' bond rating, we need now more than ever to get a budget done," DeLeo said.

The statement from the speaker's office was released less than an hour after the News Service reported that negotiations over the budget and marijuana regulation had become intertwined, according to State House sources close to the process, and that some feared a budget deal was being put on hold until contentious talks over pot could be resolved.

DeLeo said the House was not responsible for trying to link the two issues, but his call for the suspension of negotiations over marijuana to focus on the budget suggested at least the threat of overlap between the two ongoing conference committees with the Senate.

"The budget and marijuana negotiations were never linked by the House, nor should they be," DeLeo said. "Tying unrelated negotiations together for political leverage does a disservice to the residents of the Commonwealth. To remove any distractions, and because of the number of critical needs that hinge on our budget - particularly programs that care for the neediest among us - I have asked that the House members of the marijuana conference committee suspend negotiations until the budget is complete."

Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, in a statement of his own, also denied any link between the two negotiations, and said he would prefer to continue to seek deals on marijuana and the budget without interruption.

"The mischief makers are once again at work. The Senate has not and will not link the budget and marijuana negotiations. Period. The Senate is fully committed to continuing negotiations on both the budget and marijuana legislation simultaneously," Rosenberg said.

The new fiscal year - fiscal 2018 - began on Saturday, but Massachusetts officials were able to avoid the drama of a government shutdown, the likes of which generated headlines in other states over the weekend, because they already put in place a temporary budget to cover expenses through July.

Budget negotiators, led by Rep. Brian Dempsey of Haverhill and Sen. Karen Spilka of Ashland, have had to deal with several unusual developments this year as they work toward compromise on what could become a $40 billion spending plan for the year.

In addition to volatile tax collections that have not lived up to expectations in fiscal 2017, Gov. Charlie Baker asked the conferees mid-process to include a comprehensive MassHealth reform package in the final budget.

The proposal presented by Baker would impose new assessments on employers to help pay for Medicaid and shift hundreds of thousands of MassHealth enrollees into different plans to save money and maximize federal contributions.

Rep. Mark Cusack, a Braintree Democrat who co-chaired the committee that wrote the House's marijuana regulation bill, could not be reached immediately for comment Wednesday night. Cusack is one of three House lawmakers on the conference committee negotiating with the Senate over marijuana.

Just after 3 p.m., Cusack told the News Service conferees were on a short break and indicated that their discussions were going well Wednesday.

Meanwhile, Sens. Pat Jehlen and Will Brownsberger left the room where conference committee negotiations were taking place around 5:30 p.m. Wednesday evening, before the speaker's statement was released, giving no indication that they knew anything was afoot.

Asked if conferees were done for the day, Jehlen said, "We have a lot of work to do at the staff level, which they don't need us for."

Jehlen reiterated she would not speculate about the timeline of a conference report. "I continue to be amazed every single day by my experiences, so I'm not going to make any speculations," she said. Jehlen too could not be reached for comment Wendesday night on the speaker's statement.

House and Senate leaders had set a self-imposed deadline of June 30 to get a bill overhauling the 2016 marijuana legalization ballot law on the governor's desk, but remain divided, according to those close to the process, on questions of taxation and local control over the citing of retail marijuana stores.

While marijuana possession and the right to grow plants at home became legal last year, the Legislature delayed other keys aspects of the law - including the timeline to license retail stores - by six months to give lawmakers time to reconsider other elements of the law.

The self-imposed deadline that was missed last week was put in place in order to make sure that the new regulatory body, which will be known as the Cannabis Control Commission, had a full year to get up and running and begin licensing retail pot stores by July 2018.

Jim Borghesani, a spokesman for the Yes on 4 ballot coalition that passed the legalization law last November, issued a statement Wednesday night defending the law that voters put on the books.

"The law passed by voters in November remains on the books. It's a well-crafted, effective law. Time will determine what changes may or may not be made to that law," he said.

Yet another episode in the ongoing saga of MA's version of "As the World Turns" or is that as the stomach turns?? LOL
 
Massachusetts: Lawmakers to Vote on Budget, May Finally Move Forward with Pot Legalization

BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts lawmakers planned to vote Friday on compromise $40.2 billion state budget that reduces spending levels to account for lower expectations for tax revenues.

The budget trims spending about $400 million to $500 million from spending plans previously approved by the House and Senate and takes other steps to account for a $733 million reduction in anticipated tax revenues for the 2018 fiscal year that began July 1, according to summaries provided by legislative budget writers.

A six-member conference committee reached agreement Thursday on a final budget after weeks of closed-door negotiations.

Democratic Senate Ways and Means chair Karen Spilka said the final budget plan increases spending on schools and local aid, but cuts spending in other areas.

“This budget is not without pain,” Spilka said. “It is clear that the state is facing a shortfall in revenue that will have an impact on real people’s lives.”

Spilka said the budget rejects a proposal unveiled last month by Republican Gov. Charlie Baker to rein in Medicaid costs, saying it doesn’t have what she called “necessary transparency.”

The budget does, however, include a proposal by Baker to create a temporary employer contribution to help ease the cost of public coverage for workers, Spilka said. That plan calls for a two-tiered approach that builds off of the existing employer medical assistance contribution and would help bring in $200 million in new revenue during the 2018 fiscal year.

The budget also factors in $250 million in recent health care saving Baker said he was able find.

The compromise also sets aside $2 million to a state marijuana commission aimed at moving forward with the voter-approved law legalizing the recreations use of pot in Massachusetts.

Passage of the budget could also lead to resumption of negotiations between the House and Senate on a proposed overhaul of the marijuana law. House Speaker Robert DeLeo suspended talks earlier this week, saying he wanted lawmakers to focus on budget talks. (cont)
 
Massachusetts court rules for woman fired for medical marijuana use

BOSTON (Reuters) - Massachusetts' top court on Monday ruled that a woman who had been fired for testing positive for marijuana that she had been legally prescribed under state law could sue her former employer for handicap discrimination.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rejected the former employer's argument that she could not sue it for handicap discrimination because possessing marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

Lawyers for the ex-employee, Christina Barbuto, said the ruling represents a major win for employees in the state and set a precedent that they said could have an impact in other states where medical marijuana is legal.

Barbuto had accused Advantage Sales and Marketing of firing her after her first day of work because she tested positive for the drug, which she had been prescribed by a doctor to treat low appetite, a side effect of her Crohn's disease.

Chief Justice Ralph Gants wrote that if a doctor concludes medical marijuana is the most effective treatment for an employee's debilitating condition, "an exception to an employer's drug policy to permit its use is a facially reasonable accommodation."

"The fact that the employee's possession of medical marijuana is in violation of federal law does not make it per se unreasonable as an accommodation," Gants wrote.

The ruling by a unanimous six-judge panel noted that only the employee, not the company, could have been subject to prosecution under federal law for her drug use.

Massachusetts voters approved the medicinal use of marijuana in 2012, joining the majority of U.S. states to allow for the drug's medical use. State voters in November went further, legalizing recreational use of marijuana.

Matthew Fogelman, Barbuto's lawyer, called the ruling a "ground-breaking decision" for employees in the state.

"This is the highest court in Massachusetts recognizing that the use of medically prescribed marijuana is just as lawful as the use of any prescribed medication," he said.

The ruling reversed a decision that had dismissed Barbuto's 2015 handicap discrimination claim against the company. It upheld the dismissal of other claims.

A lawyer for the company did not respond to a request for comment.

Barbuto said in her lawsuit that she had been prescribed medical marijuana to treat her Crohn's disease, which coupled with irritable bowel syndrome, left her with little or no appetite.

After she started using marijuana, Barbuto said she was able to maintain a healthy weight.

Glad to see some sensibility in our courts on this subject.
 
Pot Negotiators Seek Deal on Changes to Voter-Approved Law

BOSTON (AP) — House and Senate negotiators are scheduled to meet again as they try to hammer out a compromise over proposed changes to the state’s voter-approved marijuana law.

The six-member conference committee is scheduled to gather behind closed doors Monday amid indications that it may be moving closer to an agreement.

The panel has been struggling for weeks to settle differences between a House bill that calls for higher taxes on recreational pot and more control for local officials over retail marijuana stores, and a Senate bill that proposes more modest changes in the current law.

The House chairman of the conference committee, Democratic Rep. Mark Cusack, said Friday he was optimistic that consensus could be reached soon.

Legislative leaders originally set a June 30 deadline for resolving differences over the marijuana bills.

The morons are still at it, eh? In essence, they are debating how to undermine the will of the electorate expressed via the referendum....their only differences are the degree to which they will ignore what the voters told them. Ain't democracy grand?
 
Baron23 said:
In essence, they are debating how to undermine the will of the electorate expressed via the referendum....their only differences are the degree to which they will ignore what the voters told them
Click to expand...
The thing that the anti pot people don't seem to understand is that if the governing officials do something like this to a law regarding cannabis.... they'll do it on any law. This is so much more than a cannabis issue. It's an issue of democracy and freedom. :twocents:
 
Massachusetts Cannabis Law Overhaul Calls for Up to 20% Sales Tax

The Associated Press
July 17, 2017

BOSTON (AP) — State House and Senate negotiators reached an agreement Monday on the state’s voter-approved marijuana law that would allow retail cannabis sales to be taxed at a maximum 20 percent rate.

Highlights of the deal were released by a six-member conference committee that spent several weeks trying to resolve differences between the two chambers.

The compromise language mostly splits the difference between a House proposal to raise the total tax on marijuana to a mandatory 28 percent and the Senate version of the bill, which called for keeping the tax at a maximum of 12 percent.

Under the agreement, consumers would pay a 10.75 percent excise tax in addition to the state’s regular 6.25 percent sales tax. Cities and towns would also have the option of adding a 3 percent local tax.

Lawmakers also compromised on the dispute over local control of cannabis shops. In cities and towns where voters backed the November ballot question, a referendum would be required to ban or restrict retail marijuana stores.

But in communities where a majority of residents voted against the ballot question, retail shops could be barred by a simple vote of the board of the selectmen or city council.

“We have protected the right of adults to grow, possess, and use marijuana. To give them access to a safe, legal supply, the bill removes barriers to the development of a legal market,” said Sen. Patricia Jehlen, a Somerville Democrat who was the lead Senate negotiator in the conference committee.


House Majority Leader Ron Mariano, a Quincy Democrat who also was involved in the negotiations, called it a fair compromise that will allow for recreational sales to move forward and be properly regulated.

The full House and Senate are expected to vote on the compromise bill later this week, with no further amendments allowed.
 
Here Are The Details Of The Compromise Marijuana Bill


More than eight months after adult recreational use marijuana was approved by Massachusetts voters, a group of state lawmakers has reached a compromise bill making changes to the law, setting the stage for the opening of retail cannabis shops on July 1 of next year.

The six-member House-Senate conference committee grappled with several areas where the two branches disagreed. Both the House and Senate are expected to approve the compromise later this week, with the bill likely landing on Gov. Charlie Baker's desk before the weekend.

Here's how the compromise shapes up:

Taxes

The maximum tax under the agreement would be 20 percent — 6.25 percent Massachusetts sales tax, 10.75 percent marijuana excise tax and an optional local sales tax of up to 3 percent.

The voter-approved law set the maximum tax at 12 percent, which is the level the Senate set in its bill. The House had proposed a maximum 28 percent tax.

Local Control

Whether voters in a community would be required to vote in a local referendum before a city or town can ban marijuana businesses would depend on how that community voted on Question 4 (to legalize recreational marijuana) in November's election.

Communities that voted in favor of legalization would have to put the question of any bans to the voters, before a ban could be implemented. If a community voted against Question 4, the local governing authority (e.g., city or town council, board of selectmen) would be able to unilaterally issue a ban and prevent legal marijuana businesses from setting up shop there.

Expungement

In its bill, the Senate had included expungement, which means the tossing out of criminal convictions of anyone convicted of a marijuana-related crime in the past, if that offense is no longer considered illegal under the state's new marijuana law. The House opposed expungement, saying it was better for the Legislature to consider it under a broader criminal justice reform package.

Expungement of criminal marijuana records did not make it into the final compromise bill, however under the measure it clarifies that criminal records can be sealed, and a public awareness campaign would be launched to make people aware that records can be sealed.

Governance

The original law created a three-person Cannabis Control Commission, with all members appointed by the state treasurer.

Both the House and Senate supported expanding that board to five members, and to divvy up appointment responsibilities. The governor would get one appointment, the attorney general would get another, and the treasurer would get one who would serve as chair. The other two members would be appointed by a majority vote of the governor, AG and treasurer.

Medical Marijuana

The compromise takes the existing medical marijuana program out from under the control of the state Department of Public Health and places it entirely under the soon-to-be-created Cannabis Control Commission.

Home Grows

The compromise bill makes no changes to the existing law governing the home cultivation of cannabis plants for personal use. Every adult over 21 can grow up to six plants in their home, with a maximum of 12 plants per household.


Ok, so....citizens of MA passed by referendum (direct and unassailable democracy, right) a max tax of 12% and their legislature just told them to go fuck themselves and that they will be taxed at up to 20%. I say you need new legislators.....NOW.
 
Pot compromise faces vote in House, Senate

A compromise bill that makes changes in the voter-approved recreational marijuana law faces up or down votes in the Massachusetts Legislature.

The House and Senate are scheduled to take up the measure on Wednesday, with no further amendments allowed at this stage of the process.

After several weeks of negotiations, a six-member conference committee on Monday reached agreement on a bill that would allow for a tax rate of up to 20 percent on recreational marijuana.

That's higher than the maximum 12 percent tax rate voters approved in November but lower than the 28 percent rate proposed earlier by the House.

The compromise version of the bill is expected to be approved by lawmakers and signed by Republican Gov. Charlie Baker.

Retail marijuana sales could begin next summer.

And the saga continues......
 
Governor aims to move on pot bill next week

Gov. Charlie Baker said he intends to move on the Legislature’s rewrite of the marijuana legalization law “early next week,” and signaled he may hold off on major changes for the sake of expediency.

Lawmakers sent an overhaul of the state’s marijuana law to Baker Thursday, giving him 10 days to sign or veto a bill that hikes the tax rate on sales from 12 to 20 percent and reshapes how towns and cities decide whether to ban pot facilities.

The second change, which requires a local voter referendum for the 260 municipalities that voted for legalization last November but only a vote by local elected officials in the towns or cities that voted against it, has already drawn warnings of legal challenges and questions of its constitutionality. Baker, however, didn’t tip his hand on his administration’s view.

“I think what they proposed, that was a pretty artful way of dealing with the whole question,” he told reporters, adding that he intends to “make a decision” on the law “sometime early next week.”

“It’s my expectation at this point that we would like to move forward with this program so we can be assured that we can have it implemented and up and running for the people of Massachusetts” by July 2018, when legal sales can begin, he said.

Baker also signaled he may hold off on any more amendments to the law, which was delivered to him nearly three weeks after lawmakers’ self-imposed June 30 deadline, saying: “If we think there are things that need to be corrected, at a later date, we might choose to do that.”
 
Getting records from Massachusetts State Police continues to be a challenge - even after you pay for them

Three successful appeals and $180 later, the MSP is still refusing to hand over records on marijuana arrests

After pocketing $180 in fees for a public records request, the Massachusetts State Police (MSP) turned around and attempted to convince the state supervisor of public records that the agency didn’t have to turn the records over.

The records request dates all the way back to December 2016. I asked the State Police for reports about marijuana-related arrests that occurred between November 9, 2016 and December 14, 2016. Those dates are when voters passed Question 4, which legalized recreational marijuana, and when the marijuana legalization law took effect. I wanted to see if, after voters passed Question 4, the MSP continued to make arrests for conduct which would soon be legal.

Initially, the MSP refused to turn over the arrest reports, citing the Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) statute, which protects “records and data in any communicable form compiled by a criminal justice agency which concern an identifiable individual and relate to the nature or disposition of a criminal charge, an arrest, a pre-trial proceeding, other judicial proceedings, sentencing, incarceration, rehabilitation, or release.”

reject.jpg


In a December 30 appeal, I argued that the arrest reports were not protected by the CORI statute because identifying information about the people who were arrested could be redacted. In a January 9 ruling, Supervisor of Records Rebecca Murray agreed and ordered the MSP to provide the records.

After that ruling, the MSP assessed a fee of $180 for the reports.

180.jpg


I raised the money through a crowdfunding campaign, and MuckRock sent the MSP a check on March 1. However, the MSP never turned over the records or even acknowledged receiving the check. On March 31, I asked the MSP if they had received the check, but the agency did not respond. So on April 18, I filed another appeal with the supervisor of records.

In an April 24 ruling, the supervisor of records wrote that she “learned that a representative from the Department intends on providing Mr. Quemere with the requested records.” She further stated that she was closing the appeal “with the proviso that the Department provide said response within ten (10) business days.”

10days.jpg


But that didn’t happen.

Instead, Glenn Rooney, an MSP lawyer sent the supervisor of records an email on April 28th in which he again argued that the reports were exempt under the CORI statute. Rooney wrote that the CORI statute allows agencies to withhold records in their entirety, and there is no obligation for them to redact records protected by CORI. He further argued that the MSP could not release the records because someone could use police logs to identify the arrestees.

After that, I didn’t hear anything from the supervisor of records or MSP, so I filed a third appeal on May 22nd. In a July 18th ruling, the supervisor of records rejected the MSP’s CORI argument again. “After another careful and thorough review of this matter, I respectfully decline to reverse my findings. Any non-exempt, segregable portion of a public record is subject to mandatory disclosure,” she wrote.

conc.jpg


I’d like to call that a win, but when you’re dealing with the State Police - 2015 winners of the Golden Padlock “Award” - you shouldn’t count your records before they’re in your hands.

Wow, is every political and government organization like this in MA. First the legistlature tells the electorate to pound sand, they know better, wrt to the referendum to legalize and now the MSP are ducking and jiving over a legal records request related to MJ arrests. If nothing else, MJ legalization efforts are showing the electorate (or at least those who pay attention) how far off the democratic rails their government has gone.
 
Baker Signs Marijuana Bill. Here Are 5 Numbers Related To The New Law


Gov. Charlie Baker has signed an overhaul of the state's voter-passed recreational marijuana law.

Baker's signature came Friday, 11 days after a legislative conference committee reached agreement on a compromise bill that changed several aspects of the original measure.

Here are five key numbers related to the new law:

20 Percent
The law calls for marijuana to have a maximum tax rate of 20 percent, up from a maximum 12 percent rate outlined in the voter-passed ballot question.

Here's how that 20 percent breaks down: a 6.25 percent state sales tax, a 10.75 percent excise tax on marijuana and an optional sales tax of up to 3 percent that communities can tack on.

And here, via the Tax Foundation, are the tax rates in the other states that have authorized recreational marijuana. (Note the map is as of January, and in Maine, for instance, lawmakers have proposed a 20 percent rate as well.)


(Courtesy of the Tax Foundation)
5
Another thing that changed with the compromise bill: marijuana's governance.

The Cannabis Control Commission was originally outlined as a three-person panel, with its members all appointed by the state treasurer. Now, it's five members, and the governor and the attorney general have appointment authority as well. The Boston Herald reports that the three officials have to select these five commissioners by Sept. 1.

The commission will also take over oversight of medical marijuana, which has been under the purview of the state Department of Public Health.

12
Here's something that remains the same. As WBUR's Steve Brown has reported:

The compromise bill makes no changes to the existing law governing the home cultivation of cannabis plants for personal use. Every adult over 21 can grow up to six plants in their home, with a maximum of 12 plants per household.

7/1/2018
Though marijuana has been legal for adults in Massachusetts since December, there are no retail establishments selling recreational pot. That changes July 1, 2018, when shops can open.

You'll recall that date was pushed back: The voter-passed law called for a Jan. 1, 2018, opening of retail marijuana businesses. In late December, lawmakers approved a six-month delay. Senate President Stanley Rosenberg said then that the delay would "allow the state more time to implement the will of the voters."

91
Here's another thing that's new, and somewhat controversial: the process by which a city or town in Massachusetts can ban those forthcoming retail marijuana shops. The original law said the decision rested with an individual community's voters.

But legislative conferees agreed to a bifurcated system. In short, if your municipality voted for marijuana on November's ballot measure, a question of banning or limiting pot businesses has to be put to a voter referendum. If your town or city voted against marijuana, then the decision rests with the local governing authority, like a city council or board of selectmen.

According to election results from the secretary of state's office, there are 91 communities that voted against the ballot measure. They're in blue on the map and table below.

And, that's assuming that the bifurcated decision-making process on "local control" stands up to legal scrutiny. The Boston Globe has reported that the provision may raise constitutional issues and lead to a court challenge.


If you follow the link in the article title, you will see that the article contains the voting results town-by-town.
 
A Brief Guide to Massachusetts’ New Cannabis Law

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker signed a sweeping cannabis bill into law on Friday, marking a milestone in a regulatory battle that began when state voters approved an adult-use legalization measure in November.


“I worry terribly about what the consequences over time will be.”
Gov. Charlie Baker
The new law, the result of a legislative compromise struck last week between the House and Senate, rewrites much of the voter-approved initiative—raising allowable tax rates, amending rules around local cannabis bans, and adjusting details of the agency that will oversee the state’s cannabis program.

Even as he signed the bill, Baker, a Republican, expressed doubts about legalization. He said he remains hopeful that the lawmakers’ changes would address some of his biggest concerns.

“I worry terribly about what the consequences over time will be, and having spent a lot of time talking to folks in Colorado and in Washington … there are a lot of pitfalls we have to avoid,” he said.


RELATED STORY
Study Finds Colorado Cannabis Shops Not Selling to Minors
“But, look,” he continued, “the people voted this and I think it’s important that we put the program in place and deliver a workable, safe, productive recreational marijuana market for them in Massachusetts.”

Among the biggest changes under the law is the boost in allowable taxes. The voter-approved initiative set maximum rates at 12% in combined state and local taxes. The new law raises that to 20%. Medical cannabis will remain untaxed.

As in many other legal states, local jurisdictions will have the opportunity to ban the cannabis industry. But the process under the new law is unusual: In communities where a majority of residents voted against November’s legalization measure, elected officials can enact a ban themselves. In areas where residents approved the ballot question, a voter referendum would be required to ban or restrict cannabis businesses.

Some legal experts have said that the compromise, which removes the ability of some voters to oppose a ban, could leave the law open to a constitutional challenge.


RELATED STORY
Massachusetts Cannabis Overhaul Could Prompt Legal Challenge
Packaging and labeling rules under the new law will require cannabis products to be sold in child-resistant packaging, and THC levels are required to be included on product labels. “We want it to be a responsible industry that sells safe products to consenting adults and doesn’t market products to children and teenagers,” said Democratic Sen. Jason Lewis, who led a delegation of legislators on a fact-finding trip to Colorado last year and later opposed the ballot question.

“We take elected officials at their word that there will be no more delays in implementation of the legal sales system.”
Jim Borghesani, spokesperson for 2016 legalization campaign
Shortly after Baker signed the bill, state Treasurer Deb Goldberg, a Democrat, announced her five appointees to the Cannabis Advisory Board. The board will offer advice and recommendations to the yet-to-be-formed Cannabis Control Commission, which will oversee both adult-use and medical programs.

Some of Goldberg’s appointees have experience in the medical cannabis industry. They include:

  • Norton Arbeláez, who founded a medical cannabis center in Denver and advised Colorado state regulators.
  • Alan Balsam, the former director of public health in Brookline, MA, and an adjuct associate professor at Tufts Medical School and Boston University School of Public Health.
  • Michael Dundas, the president and CEO of Massachusetts dispensary Sage Naturals, who helped form the Commonwealth Dispensary Association.
  • Jaime Lewis, the founder of cannabis product manufacturer Mountain Medicine and a founding member of the Cannabis Business Alliance. Formerly the chief operations officer for a Colorado dispensary, she now works at Mayflower Medicinals.
  • Shanel Lindsay, an attorney and legalization advocate. A former law clerk for the Massachusetts superior court, she since founded biotech and medical cannabis company Ardent, where she serves as president.
Baker and Democratic Attorney General Maura Healey must also by next week appoint five members each to the board.


RELATED STORY
25 Things to Expect in Newly Legal States
As for the Cannabis Control Commission, a five-member board that must be formed by Sept. 1, the state budget for the fiscal year that started July 1 includes only $2 million to fund the group. Goldberg, responsible for naming the board’s chairman, has said the commission would need up to $10 million in the first year.

“If they need additional resources, they will get additional resources,” Baker said Friday.

Jim Borghesani, spokesman for the ballot question group, found the governor’s pledge reassuring.

“Right now a $2 million appropriation doesn’t even cover the software that’s necessary to get this system up and running,” he said.

In a statement, Borghesani added: “We take elected officials at their word that there will be no more delays in implementation of the legal sales

If you live in MA, and you think the provisions of this bill overule your direct democratic vote via referendum, then you know what to do....vote the bums out and make them work for a living.
 
SJC to hear case against ‘unconstitutionally vague’ medical marijuana law


The state’s medical marijuana law is unconstitutionally vague and endangers the rights of patients who grow their own weed, according to a case that the Supreme Judicial Court has agreed to hear.

The case stems from the 2013 arrest of a Framingham man caught in a legal twilight zone: He was permitted by the state to grow medicinal pot in his home, but was collared for distribution when police stumbled upon how many plants he had in his basement.

Related Articles

DA Ryan: Parents face two-fold problem with opioids and legal pot

Medical marijuana dispensaries will get a jump on new retailers
Editorial: Problematic pot law
“This is an area of the law that is unclear, that is unconstitutionally vague, and as a result our client’s rights were violated,” said Hopkinton attorney Allison Callahan, who successfully petitioned the case to the Supreme Judicial Court.

Some medical marijuana patients can grow enough pot for a 60-day supply under vague state rules that do not denote exactly how many plants patients can grow — leaving police and the court system to guess at patients’ intentions.

In September 2013, Framingham police responded to a report of a home invasion. Officers arrived, searched the house and found 22 marijuana plants growing in the basement. The resident who made the call, Joshua Richardson, told cops he had a medical marijuana license with a hardship permit to grow, but he was arrested for unlawful possession and possession with the intent to distribute.

At trial, a police detective told the court that the plants would yield much more than the allowed 10 ounces of marijuana per 60 days. An expert for the defense countered that many of Richardson’s plants would not have yielded usable marijuana for various reasons, such as the unknown gender of the plants, their strain, and the quality of growing conditions. The defense expert said Richardson would have been lucky to get 10 ounces from the plants.

In August 2015, a jury convicted Richardson, who was sentenced to 18 months in jail.

The case before the SJC argues the regulations of the medical marijuana law are “unconstitutionally vague” — they do not state how many plants are too many, in effect leaving patients “open to prosecution if they mistakenly grow too many plants or yield too much marijuana.”

“These basic policy decisions were impermissibly left in the hands of police, judges and the jury,” Callahan wrote.

Michael Maloney, a criminal defense attorney who also specializes in marijuana compliance, said if the SJC rules that the portion of the law is unconstitutional, it would “have an enormous ripple effect in the cannabis industry.”

“Realistically the law has to provide more clarity for patients,” Maloney said. “This is a strong, credible case.”
 
Want to influence Massachusetts weed industry decisions? Regs board now forming
It will help if you are on good terms with the governor, AG or state treasurer


By The Associated Press

BOSTON — The race is on to assemble the five-member board that will oversee recreational and medical marijuana in Massachusetts.

Under a new state law approved last month, Gov. Charlie Baker, Attorney General Maura Healey and state Treasurer Deb Goldberg will each name one member of the regulatory board, and the three elected officials will together appoint the remaining two members.

The commission is supposed to be in place by Sept. 1.

Healey says the attorney general’s office will accept applications until Aug. 15 for both her individual and joint appointment.

Related stories
Goldberg, who will select the chair of the panel, has said she is dedicated to finding commissioners who will ensure a “safe and timely implementation” of the marijuana industry in Massachusetts.

Retail pot shops are expected to begin opening in mid-2018.
 
Keep voting for this mayor, yeah?

Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse vetoes Council's moratorium on approval of recreational marijuana retailers

HOLYOKE -- Mayor Alex B. Morse vetoed the City Council's moratorium on approval of recreational marijuana retailers because he said a statewide moratorium makes it unnecessary and it handcuffs the city economically.

"The only thing this ordinance would do is put the city at an economic disadvantage by dissuading interested investors from planning and submitting for a license during the period that will begin April 1, 2018," Morse said in the Aug. 10 letter to the City Council.

"I ask that you consider sustaining this veto so we can have a more substantive conversation on this topic -- one that will both protect our community but also position Holyoke to take full advantage of the economic and workforce development opportunities that the cannabis industry presents," he said.

The Council likely will consider whether to override Morse's veto at its next meeting on Sept. 5.

The Council on Aug. 1 voted 10-4 to impose a moratorium on recreational marijuana retailers until July 1, 2018 or until the city establishes an ordinance to regulate the industry.

The goal of the moratorium is to give officials time to write local regulations before this industry that is new to the state opens for business, officials said.

A state moratorium with the same time frame is in place, along with moratoriums established in individual cities and towns.

Voters in Massachusetts approved the recreational marijuana law in 2016. But lawmakers and Gov. Charlie Baker delayed the measure to allow for crafting of laws to regulate such new businesses and ensure the revenue from taxation would cover costs of regulations.

Massachusetts voters in 2012 also permitted medical marijuana facilities by approving a statewide ballot question, and state law prohibits a city or town from banning such facilities. But the city has adopted rules that regulate where such a facility can be located and require that the permit-holder disclose security measures and discuss issues like hours of operation.

In the veto letter, Morse said he agreed with Councilor at Large Rebecca Lisi on several points, including that the city could benefit from the retail pot industry's jobs and revenue but that other cities and towns are competing for those same benefits.




2 moratoriums would benefit Holyoke more than 1, argues Councilor Rebecca Lisi, unsuccessfully

A Holyoke councilor failed to persuade the City Council that with jobs and revenue at stake, the Massachusetts city would have positioned itself to benefit by establishing two distinct moratoriums in relation to recreational marijuana retailing businesses.

Lisi also argued the city can save time by mimicking the zoning rules officials here have already established, under medical marijuana, to set up regulations for production and cultivation of marijuana for recreational retail sales.

That would allow for fast action on that part of the establishment of an ordinance, for production and cultivation of marijuana for recreational purposes, and let officials focus on rules regulating recreational marijuana retailing, Lisi said.

Morse took it a step further than Lisi, saying that no moratorium at all is needed on the cultivation of marijuana since the city already has established regulations for that in the medical marijuana ordinance.

"From a land use and zoning standpoint, there is no difference between cannabis cultivation for medicinal purposes, for which we already have a robust special permit process, and recreational cultivation. In both cases, the product goes through the same grow and processing cycle regardless of its intended end use," Morse said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsored by
VGoodiez 420EDC
Back
Top