c**i
发帖数: 6973 | 1 VOA Chinese, Dec. 22, 2010.
http://www.voanews.com/chinese/news/20101222-Mailbox-116-LEGALITY-OF-MARIHUANA-112332889.html
My comment:
(a) County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML. Court of Appeal for the Fourth
Appellate District, Division One (July 31, 2008).
http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/SanDiegoDecision.pdf
"On October 16, 2008, the California Supreme Court denied the Counties'
Petition for Review and the United States Supreme Court denied the Counties'
cert. petition on May 26, 2009, rendering the case final for all purposes."
NORML stands for National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws,
which is based in Washington, DC.
(b) For decades, it is criminal in Massachusetts to possess, use or
distribute marijuana, though sometimes local law enforcement agencies turn a
blind eye on small amount (then again it all depends, so for teh same
amount and behavior, soem were prosecuted and some others let go). State
Legsilature refuses to decriminalize it. So marijuana supporters resorted to
the public.
Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative, also known as Massachusetts Ballot
Question 2, was passed on Nov. 4, 2008.
The summary of the ballot question by the Secretary of the Commonwealth is
as follows.
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele08/ballot_questions_08/quest_2.htm
("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.")
Afterwards, state and local police simply give up and refuses to cite
CIVILLY persons who possess "one ounce or less." |
|
