As you all know the voters of the State decriminalized the possession of marijuana in the last election cycle. Since that election there have been some questions raised, by law enforcement officials and others, about the impacts of the law in certain areas. The Herald did a story some time back about what effect it might have on the Human Resources policies of governmental entities that have job penalties for marijuana use. The State Executive Office of Public Safety and Attorney General Martha Coakley have suggested that cities and towns consider some added penalty for public usage of marijuana. I agree, and have filed legislation that would up the penalty for public usage from the existing one hundred dollar fine (for possesion) to a prospective $300 fine for usage in a public area. I have already received some complaint that I am trying to alter the results of the referendum through local ordinance. Upon close examination that argument simply goes up in smoke.
The main thrust of the law is to put some teeth into an ordinance that will protect our public areas, most prominently our parks and playgrounds from people thinking the new law gives them carte blanche to smoke marijuana in these areas. We have many families that use our park system and playgrounds, and we intend these areas to be alcohol and drug free, notwithstanding the critics who apparently think the new state law covers all contingencies. Simply stayed, it doesn’t. Beverage alcohol is an apt comparision. That product, (beer, wine, spirits) is legal. But open container laws go beyond the laws on who may possess it and prohibit the open usage of such products in public areas. Yes we take that extra step and say that it is not in the public interest that beverage alcohol be consumed in parks and playgrounds. And I guess you could safely say that such laws are an infringement of your right to use a legal product, and you would be correct. But the larger public interest requires it, and the general consensus is that these laws are correct. That is all we are doing with the newly decriminalized marijuana.
Finally, for those who have assigned revenue motivation to this proposal you should think again. If you do not openly use this product in the listed areas then there is no added penalty. We are not looking to raise more money or change the results of a democratically decided referendum. We are simply restating the City of Methuen’s belief that our parks and playgrounds will remain drug and alcohol free. I am willing to debate anyone who thinks otherwise. In the meantime I will be looking out of my City Hall window to see if Cheech and Chong have arrived to picket.
Bill Manzi.com 
Mayor Manzi:
Hi. I think what you are doing is sound for this. This Question should have never been passed in the first place. It was some of the Woodstock mentality that pushed it through
Gerard
LikeLike
Your Honor,
Best you can do in a difficult time. I am concerned about our society that has taken this turn.
Jules
LikeLike
Leave it alone Manzi!!! The residents voted. Drop it. Focus on more important issues. As it is now – if you’re caught you get fined period. Sounds like you’re not hoping to get re-elected….I sure know that I won’t vote for you if you think you “know better” than the citizens who voted on this. Basically, you’re saying Yes you voted but I’m changing it up to better suit what I think is best”. Leave it alone Manzi….leave it alone
LikeLike
One of the reasons, this law was passed is to eliminate these misdemeanor cases from clogging up our court system. It will save the state and municipalities a great deal of money. It’s about time we started to grow up and join a 21st century world.
By increasing the state fine through local ordinance one would indeed be altering the results of the referendum. It would have been nice if they had left the dollar amount nonspecific allowing localities to set their own amount. However layering on a local fine for the same offense should drum up little resistance.
LikeLike
Well resident if you had bothered to read the proposal you would know that in reality it has NOTHING to do with the referendum. Prohibition was repealed as well, but we still have laws that make illegal open containers of alcohol in public areas. The Referendum dealt with possession. This prospective ordinance deals with public usage. If you think that public usage of marijuana in parks, playgrounds, and on school property is ok just say so. I don’t. So if you think that a cannabis in parks platform will spark up interest in another candidate for Mayor I will be happy to debate that person. 61 percent did not vote to allow unrestricted use, and I will be delighted to keep debating that with you.
LikeLike
With all die respect to his honor the mayor, don’t you have other things to worry about instead of playing junior legislator? I think the people of Massachusetts made their will known and though I don’t always agree with the voters they HAVE spoken and they have spoken pretty clearly! With everything going on in the City of Methuen I would think a few guys smoking dope would the least of your concerns. I was always under the impression that you were a “man of the people” and that you respected the wishes of the voters. Now you seem to be subverting their wishes because you don’t like what they had to say. It may be a good POLITICAL stand to take in a conservative city like Methuen if you are trying to score points for a legislative run later on but I really think you should be focusing on more important issues.
LikeLike
J Godsey,
I appreciate your reasoned arguments. Let me say that we will not be clogging the courts with these matters. We are not looking to criminalize this behavior, and the final legislation will leave this as a civil disposition. Again I must point out that the referendum dealt with possession. Like beverage alcohol there are separate laws on how you use it. Would it be against the referendum to make illegal the usage of marijuana while driving? J Godsey this is just an attempt to say that our parks, playgrounds and schools shall remain alcohol and drug free. And they should.
Bill
LikeLike
Tom,
Nobody here is playing junior legislator. As I have said in this thread possession is different than usage. If you repost let me ask you a couple of questions.
1) Tom, is possession of beverage alcohol legal in Massachusetts? (Beer, wine, spirits)
2) Do cities and towns throughout Massachusetts have ordinances prohibiting the use of beverage alcohol in parks, playgrounds, and schools. (Open container laws)?
3) Are such laws bad or good, in your opinion?
4) Would criminalizing the usage of marijuana while driving be a law that “violates the spirit of the referendum”?
5) Do you believe that parks, playgrounds, and schools should be drug and alcohol free?
Answer those questions and lets see if you are still opposed to this very reasonable ordinance.
LikeLike
Wow, Your Honor,
Several of the “bailout” stories go without any entry. Mention their weed and all hell breaks lose.
Duuude
LikeLike
In regard to your post:
This prospective ordinance deals with public usage. If you think that public usage of marijuana in parks, playgrounds, and on school property is ok just say so. I don’t. So if you think that a cannabis in parks platform will spark up interest in another candidate for Mayor I will be happy to debate that person. 61 percent did not vote to allow unrestricted use, and I will be delighted to keep debating that with you.
——
My response:
I do not think it is OK for public use anywhere. PERIOD. I do, however, feel that the current law allows the officer to fine the user $100 if they are caught with it anywhere. PERIOD. The officer will also confiscate it. I feel that we as voters knew this and voted for this – not for our Mayor to turn around and change it to “benefit us”. Why not allow this new law a chance before jumping to pass a new law that you feel is better for us? Let’s just give it a chance. You may be surprised at the outcome. I’ve read Andover and other surrounding towns are doing just fine with the current law. All I am asking you is to give it a chance…..is that really too much to ask?
LikeLike
See, the stuff IS bad for you!!!
http://www.moviewavs.com/php/sounds/?id=gog&media=MP3S&type=Movies&
movie=Cheech_And_Chong"e=chongold.txt&file=chongold.mp3
LikeLike
Resident: I appreciate your argument, and I have to say it is easier to deal with than your first post. I do not want to be seen in this discussion as splitting legal hairs, but I must argue this point a little more. The State has different areas of law for how beer, wine and spirits can be possessed and how they can be used. I know you have read this before, but an open container of beer in a park is a criminal offense. Under my proposal the usage in a park, playground, or school ground will not be criminal, but a civil offense. The fine for such an offense would be $300. Now if you do not light up in those areas then you don’t pay the fine. I do not think that this law is “better for you”, but rather I think it is good public policy to have a stronger law in certain areas that we have heightened concern over. A good example would be the increased penalties for certain narcotics trafficking that fall within a certain proximity to school grounds. The voters said to decriminalize possession. I think a referendum in Methuen asking if the voters approved of a tougher law involving parks, playgrounds, and school grounds would likely pass easily. Only speculation, but what do you think? Maybe we should put that to the test? Finally I do not want you to believe that I don’t listen or that I am stubborn. I do listen, and I change my mind more than you might think. I just don’t see how this simple local ordinance in any way circumvents the referendum. I am not a “reefer madness” type of person.
LikeLike
The mayor is right on the money with this one. His argument is reasoned and is rooted in common sense.
LikeLike
Mayor Manzi,
I agree with you on this.
Good luck.
Frank
LikeLike
Your Honor.
I saw the editorial in the Trib. I’m on your side. The folks must not be exposed to this irresponsible habit.
I’m on your side. If you need a protester let me know.
Jules
LikeLike
ANSWERING YOUR QUESTIONS!
1) Tom, is possession of beverage alcohol legal in Massachusetts? (Beer, wine, spirits)
YES
2) Do cities and towns throughout Massachusetts have ordinances prohibiting the use of beverage alcohol in parks, playgrounds, and schools. (Open container laws)?
YES
3) Are such laws bad or good, in your opinion?
PLAYGROUNDS AND SCHOOLS IT IS GOOD, PARKS IS UP FOR DEBATE
4) Would criminalizing the usage of marijuana while driving be a law that “violates the spirit of the referendum”?
NO
5) Do you believe that parks, playgrounds, and schools should be drug and alcohol free?
AGAIN I SEE NO PURPOSE IN TELLING SOMEONE THEY CAN”T ENJOY A BEER AT THE PARK WHILE HAVING THEIR LUNCH OR LISTENING TO A CONCERT IN THE SUMMER, IN FACT IT WOULD BE NICE TO ENJOY A BREW WHILE LISTENING TO YOUR SUMMER CONCERT SERIES, BUT I AGREE THAT SCHOOLS AND PLAYGROUNDS ARE A DIFFERENT STORY AND DRUGS AND ALCOHOL SHOULD BE PROHIBITED.
Answer those questions and lets see if you are still opposed to this very reasonable ordinance.
YOU HAVE CONVINCED ME! YOU ARE DA MAN! GET GOING AND STOP THAT EPIDEMIC OF POT SMOKING ON PARK BENCHES AND SIDEWALKS ALL OVER METHUEN! I DROVE THROUGH METHUEN YESTERDAY AND I TOTALLY AGREE! DOZENS AND DOZENS OF LAZY AND CONFUSED POT SMOKERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, SITTING AROUND PLANNING TO RUN FOR OFFICE BUT TOO STONED TO KNOW WHERE TO SIGN UP TO VOTE! GO GET ‘EM MR. MAYOR! PUT AN END TO THIS OUTBREAK OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR AND SHOW THOSE POT SMOKERS YOU ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT!
LikeLike
Tom,
When you drove through did you see any people drinking open containers of booze throughout the city? Hey Tom, did you happen to see people snorting cocaine while you were driving through the city? I did not see that either, so maybe we ought to get rid of the open container laws and the laws about using narcotics throughout the city. It is a silly analogy, and all we are saying is that an intoxicant shall be kept out of our parks, playgrounds, and schools. If you wish to puff the magic dragon in your home that is your business and I have no desire to recriminalize or interfere.
LikeLike