For those who have decried politics in the proverbial smoke filled room this You Tube video, encouraging people to come out against a local ordinance increasing the fine for marijuana usage in parks and playgrounds, gives new meaning to that phrase. I will bring the potato chips and twinkies. See you Tuesday.
-
Recently Written
- A Look at “King of Kings” by Scott Anderson
- The Lessons of Munich
- A Look at “Stuck” by Yoni Appelbaum
- Town of Seabrook 2024 Water Sewer Financial Reports
- A Look at Apple in China by Patrick McGee
- A Look at Presidential Command by Peter Rodman
- Seabrook Announces Tax Agreement With NextEra
- Seabrook Memorial Day 2025
- Tony Blair On Leadership
- A Look at “Why Nothing Works” by Marc Dunkelman
Archive
Categories
- Appeasement
- Books
- Brexit
- Capital Improvement Plan
- Casino Gaming
- Education
- Education Reform
- Electoral Map
- Fifth Congressional
- Greece
- Health Care Reform
- History
- International
- Ireland
- Manzi in the Morning
- Media
- Merrimack Valley Politics
- Methuen
- Methuen City Council
- Methuen Mayor's Race
- Munich Conference
- Municipal Finance
- Music
- National News
- NextEra
- Resiliency
- Seabrook
- Song of the Week
- Sports
- State News
- Surveys
- Technology Beat
- Transportation Finance
- U.S. Senate Race
- Uncategorized
- WCAP Podcast
Bill Manzi.com 
Mayor,
For a brief minute, I thought these guys were members of the same band as Mayor Mike Sullivan’s sons (which would explain Mayor Mike’s perpetual dopey look from breathing the fumes…), but I found I was wrong after a quick google search led me to my first exposure to Prospect Hill’s music (pretty damn good actually!!), and to the ‘Roberge’ name as band members. It made me wonder if they aren’t related to the late Frank Roberge, and if so, if you may have bitten off more than you can chew… 😉
Excuse me while I go print my sign… 🙂
LikeLike
You’ve gotta love democracy in action. I may bring brownies and sit in the back of the room!
-FM
LikeLike
61% in Methuen voted for no additional fine and no criminal arrest. Thanks for noting the video. See you at the hearing. We’ll bring you a box of twinkies and some music. Nobody should carry a criminal arrest for cannabis on their record for the rest of their life. Which happened to me and I am a medical user from years of competing in my first love, amateur wrestling. Wrestled many high school matches at Methuen High.
I respect the new civil law and police that enforce it. I also respect that you put that video up.
Many of us just feel that new law or fine is not needed because 99% of us do not disrespect others. And the one dumb kid that might, should get a fine and some drug education classes not a criminal record for life.
LikeLike
Mayor, with all due respect, the voters of Massachuetts, and the voters of Methuen (12,330 of them), have clearly spoken on the issues of decriminalization of marijuana. Imposing additional fines on smokers is not the answer. Cannabis smokers are harmless, law-abiding citizens, and have the common sense to not smoke around children.
And don’t worry about people lighting up in school, city hall, or any other workplace in Massachusetts. Massachusetts General Law Chapter 270: Section 22 already prohibits the “lighting of a cigar, cigarette, pipe or other tobacco product or possessing a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or other tobacco or non-tobacco product designed to be combusted and inhaled” in these places.
You’re wasting tax-payers’ time and money by trying to undemocratically change the vote of your constituents.
Do you want to lose the support of the 12,330 voters in your city that said “yes” to Question 2? It might make your next re-election campaign rather difficult.
LikeLike
Pingback: Massachusetts Call To Action: Framingham, Methuen, Quincy, MA. - Marijuana.com
Scott,
We are simply mandating, as with beverage alcohol, that such usage shall not occur in our parks, playgrounds, or school grounds. Our proposal DOES NOT criminalize the possession or use of cannabis. It will simply add an additional fine for usage in those areas. It would be helpful if people would stop saying that this proposal would re-criminalize marijuana usage. It does not. Don’t want the additional fine, don’t light up in a park, playground, or school ground. Other than that I have no desire to send out a posse looking for people smoking a joint. As with beverage alcohol USAGE shall not be allowed in certain areas. It simply is an open container law for pot that will be the same as the one for beverage alcohol.
Bill Manzi
LikeLike
Mike,
I do agree that recriminalizing usage or possession would be contrary to the wishes of the voters, and I am not advocating that. What I propose will be an additional civil fine for usage in parks, playgrounds, or school grounds. I have posted the local open container ordinance in another section, and I will repost it here shortly. This will be the same thing, keeping in mind that beverage alcohol is still legal.
Bill Manzi
LikeLike
Two things, in one of the newspaper stories recriminalizing was the theme. I see you’ve either corrected that or backed off of it. Great. Secondly, the people voted for the $100 fine. Raising it beyond that? Not very democratic. And I think why change the new civil law when the one that was voted on is already working. How many people has this been an issue with? How many people have been fined or caught smoking cannabis in Methuen since the new civil law?
I don’t like the additional fines for several other reasons as well.
1. It raises the odds that people will again not respect the police and give a false name. I’m not advocating that at all. If I’m ever confronted with that, I’ll give the officer my ID even if I am not required to. But raising it to $500 or some larger number than $100 might bring that about.
2. Those who can’t pay the larger fine, what happens to them? Do they get a criminal record? I bet they do.
3. And the biggest reason, 60+% voted for a $100 fine. You want to change that, run a referendum.
LikeLike
Still glad to hear you are not pushing for criminalization.
Thanks for taking the time to comment back.
LikeLike
I think you are going to luck out with the protest too. More people are RSVP’ing for Quincy’s hearing which is the same night and that city seems more gung ho to make it criminal.
http://bostonfreedomrally.com
LikeLike
Mike,
Your post makes it seem as if I am taking the parameters of the referendum on possesion and simply adding an additional fine. That is misleading. I am adding an additional fine for usage in certain areas. If you are in possession in those areas the fine is not increased. It is only increased for USAGE in those areas.
Here is the local ordinance dealing with “open containers” of beverage alcohol.
This simply replicates what we are doing with beverage alcohol. In answer to your question on ability to pay the fine it is not a criminal matter if you cannot pay. It remains a civil matter.
Finally I would tell you that I never advocated recriminalizing. The sample ordinance provided by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth said that localities could take either a civil or criminal approach, and the newspaper reported that. So I have not backed off on that. I have however recommended a $300 fine, which is the maximum allowed. I may back off on that, and recommend a $100 fine, with a recommendation to raise the open container fine from $50 to $100, thereby equalizing the playing field. What do you think?
Bill Manzi
LikeLike
Mike,
This is a two reading item, which means it will be back before the City Council in two weeks. (Final adoption, if it comes, won’t be until second reading). In the meantime you are more than welcome to come on up to my office for a visit to talk about the ordinance, and you can bring a group with you as well. If you think that is worthwhile come on up. Call my office at 978-983-8505 and we will give your group an appointment before second read. Thanks for having a civil discussion with me, and maybe we will see you soon.
Bill Manzi
LikeLike
Thank you Mayor Bill Manzi.
I think making them equal and not criminal makes some sense. I don’t like speaking for others obviously but for myself. I definitely appreciate the responses and giving us the opportunity to speak directly.
And thanks for allowing us to post our thoughts and explaining your rationale and what you are actually considering. I know with newspapers, the full story is often not that clear.
Thank you!
LikeLike
Mr Mayor,
As a supporter of Question 2 I was initially outraged by your proposed legislation but after careful review however it actually seems quite reasonable. The last thing I want to see when I take my daughter to the playground is reckless drug use. My question and concern is in the wording of the legislation. The proposal forbids the use in “any place accessible to the public”. The wording seems quite broad and I wonder if you would be amenable to striking that phrase? Without it, the legislation would still clearly protect city owned land while not leaving anything open to interpretation.
Regards,
Dave
P.S. How about a sidewalk on Pelham St?
LikeLike
Dave,
The short answer (on striking that language) is yes. My proposal, as currently written, would in fact do what you indicate. It has a “public way” provision that would really extend the reach of this ordinance beyond what I intended. I will agree to rewrite it to lower the recommended fine from $300 to $100, and get rid of the language that makes it broader than my intent. I will post the rewritten ordinance on this blog at some point tommorow before the meeting, but my rewrite will limit the additional fines to parks, playgrounds, school grounds, and Forest Lake. That is all that I wanted out of this ordinance, and even though I have a strong libertarian streak I agree with you that our parks, playgrounds and schools should be drug and alcohol free. Now as to those sidewalks on Pelham Street……..
Bill Manzi
where on Pelham Street are you looking for sidewalks?
LikeLike
I think Dave likes to smoke on Pelham Street? Haha.
Happy to hear that you are re-writing it to just those designated areas. That was another point of contention for many.
LikeLike
Mr Mayor,
Thank you for being so open minded. I’m taken aback. I’ve lived in town for three years and never knew much about you. I regret taking so long to find out.
As for the sidewalks on Pelham St, I will review them when I get home tonight, but essentially from where the new Irving station is going in to at least Sevoian Dr and possibly farther, there are either no sidewalks at all or sidewalks that are inadequate. Considering the close proximity to the Marsh School it’s a pretty dangerous scenario. I live on Pelham and kids walking home from school have to walk across my lawn for fear of being hit by on-coming traffic. I don’t mind them walking there, I just figure there’s probably a better and safer solution (even if it means me giving up 8 feet of crab grass).
Sorry for derailing the conversation and thanks again for being so…accessible!
Dave
LikeLike
Oh, my bad. He’s looking to get a sidewalk added. Understood. The real city/town issues. Nevermind me.
LikeLike
Mike C,
Not a smoker, just a strong minded Libertarian with too much free time at work.
Dave
LikeLike
Nice job, Mr. Mayor.
-FM
LikeLike
Thank you Fred. The seeds of compromise were planted when you told me it would be acceptable to make the fines equal.
Bill
LikeLike
I take no credit, you compromised on your own, your credentials are intact.
Will there still be twinkies?
-FM
LikeLike
Plenty to go around. Twinkies for everyone.
LikeLike
Why does Mr. Manzi feel the need to heap penalties upon marijuana users, right after the voters of Methuen just voted overwhelmingly to reduce the penalty to $100?
The penalty for marijuana use will NOT be equal to alcohol with Mr. Manzi’s proposal. Those who use marijuana in public will be subject to a $100 fine under Question 2 plus a $50 fine for Mr. Manzi’s law.
Public users of alcohol will only be fined $50. That’s why Mr. Manzi’s proposal is totally unnecessary. We have public drinking ordinances because otherwise there’d be no way to stop people from drinking in parks – alcohol is legal.
Just because Attorney General Martha Coakley proposed this doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. Coakley and the rest of prosecutors were politically opposed to Question 2. They lost in a landslide.
This proposal is their way of striking back at the voting public and trying to undo the $100 fine approved by the voters.
The voters did not approve Question 2 by 65% because it applied only inside the home. How else will people even be cited for marijuana possession if they’re not smoking it in public or in a motor vehicle. The voters knew EXACTLY what they were doing, marijuana is less harmful than alchol and the penalty should be reduced to a that of a trivial offense.
Cheech and Chong – that’s really funny. I think “Leaving Las Vegas” might be more appropriate, Mr. Manzi. You’re the one who owns a liquor store. Marijuana is a competing product in the same market space as alcohol. Obviously no one in the liquor business is going to be happy to lose market share to another product.
Marijuana use in public is already covered multiple ways by Q2 and public smoking laws. Surely Methuen has other problems to focus on beside additional marijuana penalties at this time.
LikeLike
Scott,
You think that a municipal fine for usage of marijuana in parks, playgrounds, and school grounds is going to cause beer sales to go down? That is indicative of the strength of your argument, which is negligible.You say:
Same market space? I have not seen marijuana occupying the same “market space” in stores that sell booze, and I think I would know that.
Your ascribing a profit motive to me for promoting a policy that I believe is in the public interest is the classic misdirection. It won’t work here because it is dried out horse manure.
Now lets get down to what is really bothering you. I have already said that I will recommend a change in the local open container ordinance that will reflect a $100 fine for beverage alcohol. That will equal the $100 fine that I am recommending for usage of marijuana in parks, playgrounds, and school grounds. In your post you said:
No Scott, I am recommending a $100 local fine for open smoking in those locations. If you had read the posts maybe you would have gotten it right. Now lets look at your next pearl of wisdom.
Gee Scott if the voters were trying to say that marijuana was less harmful than alcohol then why did they impose a fine for its use, when alcohol is LEGAL! Maybe you should think about what you post before coming on here and insulting people personally.
Finally Scott, maybe you are not aware of the fact that if you are picked up by a State Trooper for an open container of beer you will likely be charged under state law. But if you are picked up by a local police officer you could be charged under local ordinance or state law. You are not going to be charged with both. We have passed a local ordinance governing open containers even though we could utilize state law because we do not want open containers of beer or alcohol in our parks, playgrounds or school grounds, and we want a local ordinance to that effect. Same thing here.An additional $100 fine for usage in a park, playground, or school ground over and beyond what the state allows is the same thing for both products, even though one is legal and one is not.
Finally it is pretty arrogant of you to ascribe motivations to the voters. Who are you to say that the voters wanted to do anything but decriminalize possession of one ounce or less of marijuana? If your ridiculous theories are true then why did the voters stop at an ounce? What is the deal Scott? Does Marijuana become unsafe at an ounce plus?
My proposal is no more of a repudiation of the referendum than saying the usage of marijuana while driving a car should only be subject to the referendum mandated $100 fine for possession. They should be fined more for using an intoxicant while operating a motor vehicle. And that would be good public policy Scott.
I am not sure what the reference to “Leaving Las Vegas” is, but “Up in Smoke” is a pretty funny film. Happy to keep debating, but no real reason to throw in the nonsense.
LikeLike
First off I would like to thank Mr.Manzi for posting our video. It seems it has provoked a nice online debate which is always necessary in good politics. Not mention any publicity is good so again thank you for the promotion. I personally have a lot of respect for Mr. Manzi, for he was a dear friend to my late Grandfather Francis Roberge.
With that said, I for one do not agree with the proposal which you all clearly could see from the video. I feel the people were asked to vote on a particular matter and in doing so the majority made their decision. We are a democratic nation, which allows majority rule. 65% voted yes on “question 2” decriminalizing the possession of up to ounce of marijuana and it passed. It is already unlawful to smoke on school grounds and in public places so with that said why the need foe the additional fine. Also to what Dave said where do the boundaries end. “Public” is a very broad word and by no means is specific, that word allows law enforcement to interpret it whichever way necessary. Scott has also made a good point stating the alcohol fine is $50 when without the the proposed law is still less than the marijuana fine. Clearly there are many good points to be made that could counteract this proposal, I will be in attendance tomorrow and I expect the portion of people from Methuen who make up that 65% will be in there as well.
Oh and Mr.Manzi the potato chips are will do just fine 😉
LikeLike
“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).”
Mr. Mayor, thank you for your response. I understand your concern about keeping alcohol and marijuana away from children, in parks, and in school grounds. My concern is simply, if you’re seeking to classify smoking marijuana in public as an extension of your open container ordinance, than keep the fine the same: $50.
But then again, it would make more sense to classify marijuana regulations in line with your tobacco regulations, and amend your current smoking by-laws to include cannabis as well as tobacco.
LikeLike
Scott Mortimer, I respect, he’s a professional, a medical user, a good advocate for himself and marijuana reform and has spent lots of time collecting signatures, writing letters and lobbying.
I think he went to far, especially with the liquor store thing. I was a helper delivering beer for miller/coors for many years locally. If Mayor Manzi owns a liquor store in MA, he’s not worried about cannabis but NH.
I can see that point possibly as a reason maybe the owners of some huge multinational beer company wouldn’t want bud legally sold but that has nothing to do with this.
My new video.
I’m usually a hardliners guy on this stuff, like Scott but I’m happy with the compromise and being able to discuss it. And giving us the info on when it will really go to vote. Mayor Manzi is supporting democracy and the people in some key ways that should be applauded.
An elected offcial that will respond publicly about a subject like this on his blog? That’s a good thing.
My new bag of potato chips video.
And yes, PROSPECT HILL, great music, awesome people.
LikeLike
Thank you for your response Scott,
I appreciate the give and take. I intend to file, along with the ordinance in question, another ordinance that would increase the fine under the local “open container” ordinance from $50 to $100, thereby equalizing the fines. I do agree that there is some logic to that equalization, since I have been the one making the comparision. Your suggestion on extension of the tobacco regs to cannabis has a lot of merit, but it has some logistical issues as well. I will need to think about that a bit before I comment further. I have tried to limit the additional fine involved, and after interaction will recommend $100 instead of $300, and I will place a hard limit on the areas where additional penalty could be imposed. That will be parks, playgrounds, school grounds, and Forest Lake. I have not sought recriminilization, and I will not be seeking to extend these areas in the future. Maybe I will see you at the meeting.
Bill Manzi
LikeLike
Mr. Mayor, I can not thank you enough for your open dialogue on this issue. This is democracy in action, and I hope it acts as a model for other cities across the Commonwealth.
LikeLike
http://www.myspace.com/prospecthill
http://www.myspace.com/prospecthill
http://www.myspace.com/prospecthill
http://www.myspace.com/prospecthill
http://www.myspace.com/prospecthill
LikeLike
myspace.com/prospecthill
LikeLike
Smoking marijuana in public is just like walking down the street or driving/sitting in a car with an open container of alcohol. I thought the ballot question was for possesion? If one is caught using marijuana in public (or while in a vehicle) there should be a harsher penalty.
LikeLike
“If one is caught using marijuana in public (or while in a vehicle) there should be a harsher penalty.”
Why? Seriously. I don’t see that it’s much of a problem at all. In that very rarely do people get caught doing it. And if they do, why punish them with a criminal record for life? If a civil fine and common sense didn’t stop them you think a criminal arrest will? It’s never made a difference. Most people just don’t do it. If I was wrong, I’d expect Methuen would be fielding reports of people flagrantly smoking in public. That’s not happening. Because most people are not smoking in public. If a kid gets caught, do I want him to carry that forever? No. A fine, losing the marijuana, and a drug education course seems about right. Swift punishment but don’t ruin a life over it.
LikeLike
Good luck at tonights meeting Mr. Nay or. I hope you have adequate security. I’d put Capt. Huff n’ Puff in charge. 🙂 Also you might want to open the meeting by playing Peter Paul & Mary’s “PUFF the Magic Dragon.:)
LikeLike
Don’t we have an election coming up in November? Could we put the proposed law on a ballot question for just the town?
LikeLike
Mike,
I do not propose to recriminalize, but to simply add municipal fines in four areas only. Parks, Playgrounds, School Grounds, and Forest Lake. No criminalization, no expansion beyond areas where kids and families gather, and no real difference between penalties for open containers and open consumption of pot in those areas. I think it is fair and reasonable, and quite logical.
Bill
LikeLike
Mayor Manzi, I understand what you are saying and I’m glad you made the compromise. I was just responding to the other guy. Not going criminal with this, means much to me.
Thanks again and I think you know that you don’t need security from us like another jokingly suggested. It’s going to be less protest and mostly just us showing up and speaking with you all. Thanks for offering us the chance to respond and supporting that right. I like it better this way, so that we don’t have to picket Methuen. Quincy is going be a zoo tonight. Methuen not so much.
Thanks again and see you tonight.
LikeLike