The Eagle Tribune ran an editorial on my proposal to add additional civil fines for public usage of marijuana. And I know it may be rare to praise an editorial that questions the underlying rationale for a proposal I am hoping to see passed, but I must say that some of the misconceptions about the proposal were clarified in a positive way by the piece. From the Tribune:
Methuen Mayor William Manzi’s proposal to increase the penalties for marijuana use in the city do not seem to violate either the letter or the spirit of the voter initiative that decriminalized possession of small amounts of the drug.
And the editorial made clear why that opinion is there:
Some people may be under the mistaken impression that the voter initiative legalized marijuana. It did not. It merely decriminalized possession of an ounce of less of the drug. It remains a civil violation of the law.
Possession and usage are two different matters. It is perfectly legal to walk down the street with a six-pack of beer. However, stopping to sit on a park bench and opening up a cold one will run afoul of the law.
And just so I am not accused of cherry picking the favorable parts here is the Tribune conclusion:
But as we haven’t heard reports of rampant public pot smoking in Methuen, we wonder whether this measure is truly necessary.
I have done another posting on this so I do not want to beat a dead horse. I will only add that I have been accused of being hostile to the intent of the referendum, or somehow attempting to undermine the will of the voters. The following is the current city ordinance dealing with alcohol. An interesting read:
FYI: Ordinance currently in effect regarding public consumption of alcoholic beverages
“Section 9-33. Public Drinking
No person shall drink any alcoholic beverages as defined in Chapter 138, Section 1 of the Massachusetts General Laws while on, in or upon any public way or upon any way to which the public has a right of access, or any place to which members of the public have access as invitees or licensees, park or playground, or private land or place without consent of the owner or person in control thereof.
Any person or persons violating this section may be arrested without warrant and/or summons before a court of competent jurisdiction, and punished by the imposition of a fine of not more than Fifty Dollars ($50.00).”
I think that should lay to rest the idea that we are treating this product differently than we have treated beverage alcohol. We are treating them, in terms of parks, playgrounds, and our public beach, in the same fashion.
Bill Manzi.com 
Wow, go away for a week, and Methuen becomes a den of inequity!
Mr. Mayor, I read volumes in your last posting, but the libertarian in me is struggling with pieces of the argument.
You make the statement above that you treat marijuana no differently than alcohol, but then quote a city ordinance that lays out a civil fine of no more than $50. Your proposal asks for $300 for essentially the same infraction. Aren’t you thus treating it six times differently?
The other issue: I’ve never been quite sure why the paranoia about marijuana. Studies I’ve read suggest that it is less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco. If we are truly concerned about public health and safety, we’d prohibit them all, along with fast food. But then, we’ve tried that once, and it didn’t quite work as intended. Why attempt draw a line here?
PS. I would have no issue if you made the civil penalty equivalent for alcohol, tobacco, and pot.
Just another set of thoughts. Not that I’m going to be sparking up soon or anything.
Unless it’s a nice fat cigar this Tuesday.
-FM
LikeLike
Fred,
I agree that the fines should be more in line, and I will probably move to make changes to that effect. But keep in mind that the open alcohol container law can bring criminal charges, and my proposal will only bring civil penalty. The state has a separate open container law that is also criminal. I know you may not believe this but I have a strong libertarian streak myself. I am not at all paranoid about marijuana, but I am really at a loss as to why folks think it is an assault on civil liberties to say that you cannot smoke a cigarette, drink a beer, or smoke a joint in a park or playground. Everyone seems to agree with the alcohol prohibition, so why the protest about keeping an intoxicant off of school grounds, parks, and playgrounds. Am I missing something here?
LikeLike
Sir:
Well, it is undoubtedly a loss of civil liberties, what there is disagreement on is the severity of the loss or whether or not the loss balances some greater good. What I did do was read into the increased fine amount as a stronger indictment of pot than of alcohol or tobacco, that’s what I originally objected to, and I do believe that’s the message AG Coakley had in mind. You may not be paranoid, but that’s not to say there isn’t paranoia around this issue – look at the science.
It appears that not everyone agrees with the open container law: at least one respondent noted that it would be nice to consume a beer while watching concerts in the park. I might add a bottle of wine with a significant other to that. Should that be criminal behaviour for adults of drinking age?
School grounds and children’s parks are obviously no places for intoxicants of any kind, at least to me. Cigarettes are health hazards, not intoxicants, and to the extent that smoking them outdoors in public only serves to kill the smoker, I have no objection to adults wanting to kill themselves in this way. They should be free to light up wherever they don’t present a health hazard to anyone else, including parks and playgrounds.
Deep down, I object to trying to make the entire world “kid safe”, because it’s restrictive of adult freedom and in the end, a futile exercise. That’s where the libertarian would say that individual freedom and individual responsibility go hand in hand. Maybe that’s the nerve you’re touching.
PS. I don’t doubt your credentials, I like what I’ve read from you thus far.
-FM
LikeLike
Your Honor & FM,
Perhaps it is more important to think of the “Greater Good” than to think of one’s own personal behavior as the way to go. Today’s “anything goes” society is a poor standard for the children who are growing up in a world filled with temptations that are over and above their control. Yes, we are here to make a “kid-safe world”. The mayor recognizes that fact. I hope we can, too.
LikeLike
L. Done:
I can’t help but think your “anything goes” society might be another man’s free society.
What do you think of one of my favorite quotes?
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
-FM
LikeLike