From: [v--d--t] at [twain.ucs.umass.edu] (Sol Lightman) Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,alt.activism,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.hemp Subject: MASSACHUSETTS PROPOSED BILLS Date: 26 Aug 1993 22:57:33 GMT MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION SEEKS SPONSORS FOR FOUR ANTI-WOD BILLS The CLUM Drug Policy Task Force will be campaigning for the passage of four bills in the Massachusetts Legislature this session. The bills are described as follows: Bill 1) The Hutchins Act -- provides for a medical necessity defense. Under the proposed changes to Massachusetts state law, using marijuana medically will be a valid defense against all posession charges. Bill 2) Medical Cannabis Diversion Act -- modeled after a Maine bill, this bill would arrange things so that marijuana confiscated by the police would be checked for purity and then turned over to a state sponsored experimental medical marijuana program to be used by patients in the program. Bill 3) Forfeiture Reform Act -- this bill is a little weak, but a definite step in the right direction. It ensures that police have to charge you with a drug crime within 30 days, and convict you within a year, from the time they seize any property from you. If they do not, they have to drop all charges and return the property intact. Bill 4) An Act to Cede to the Federal Government Sole Responsibility for Enforcing Marijuana Prohibition -- title says it all. No Massachusetts funds or police effort will be spent on marijuana prohibition if this bill passes. [This is our favorite of the four :-)] The UMASS Cannabis Reform Coalition will be coordinating various efforts to pass these bills from the UMASS campus, including letter drives, public demonstrations, and petitioning. Text of the four bills follows: THE HUTCHINS ACT [MEDICAL NECESSITY DEFENSE] _Be it enacted_ by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court Assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: _Section 1._ Section 34 of chapter 94C of the general laws, as appearing in the 1992 official edition, is hereby ammended by adding at the end thereof the following paragraph: It shall be prima facie defense to a charge of posession of marijuana under this section that (1) the defendant is a patient certified to participate in a therapeutic research program described in chapter 94D, or that (2) the defendant, without the medical use of marijuana, (a) would be faced with a clear and imminent danger, (b) could reasonably expect that his or her use of marijuana would be effective in abating the danger, and (c) there is no legally available alternative which would be equally effective in abating the danger. _Section 2._ Section 32C of chapter 94C of the general laws, as appearing in the 1992 official edition, is hereby ammended by adding at the end thereof the following paragraph: It shall be prima facie defense to a charge of posession of marijuana with intent to distribute under this section that (1) the defendant is a patient certified to participate in a therapeutic research program described in chapter 94D, or that (2) the defendant, without the medical use of marijuana, (a) would be faced with a clear and imminent danger, (b) could reasonably expect that his or her use of marijuana would be effective in abating the danger, and (c) there is no legally available alternative which would be equally effective in abating the danger. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SUMMARY This bill would create a medical necessity defense to the charges of possession of marijuana and possession with intent to distribute. It adopts the standard suggested by Chief Justice Liacos in his dissenting opinion in Commonwealth vs. Hutchins 410 Mass. 726 (1991), whereby a medical necessity defense should, in his view, be available to defendants like Joe Hutchins. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDICAL CANNABIS DIVERSION ACT _Be it enacted_ by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court Assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: _Section 1._ Subsection b of section 47 of chapter 94C of the general laws, as appearing in the 1992 official edition, is hereby ammended by changing the period at the end of said subsection following the word ``otherwise'' to a comma, and adding the following words:- or in case of marijuana in quantities exceeding five ounces shall be delivered to the department of public health. The said department shall test and examine all marijuana so delivered for contaminants and adulturants, or other substances not intrinsic to marijuana, and any marijuana not so contaminated or adulturated shall be made available to patients participating in the therapeutic research program established by chapter 94D. [Typist's note, I think, but am not sure, that this bill hinges on the passage of legislation (chapter 94D) establishing said program, correct me if the program already exists. -- B] Contaminated or adulturated marijuana shall be destroyed. _Section 2._ Section 47A of chapter 94C of the general laws, as appearing in the 1992 official edition, is hereby ammended by adding the following paragraph:- In lieu of ordering destruction of marijuana in quantities exceeding five ounces, the court shall order that same be delivered to the department of public health The said department shall test and examine all marijuana so delivered for contaminants and adulturants, or other substances not intrinsic to marijuana, and any marijuana not so contaminated or adulturated shall be made available to patients participating in the therapeutic research program established by chapter 94D. Contaminated or adulturated marijuana shall be destroyed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SUMMARY This ammendment to the state forfeiture law directs the courts to turn confiscated ``clean'' marijuana over to the department of public health for use in the therapeutic research program under chapter 94D. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FORFEITURE REFORM ACT _Be it enacted_ by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court Assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: Section 47 of chapter 94C of the general laws, as appearing in the 1992 official edition, is ammended by adding the following subsection:- (k) All property seized under this section shall be delivered intact to the owner or owners thereof (or, if the owners are unascertainable, to the person or persons from whom it was taken) and all forfeiture proceedings related to said property shall be terminated and dismissed with prejudice, unless (i) within thirty days after said seizure, the owner or owners of the property so seized, or such person or persons from whom the property was seized, shall have been formally charged with manufacturing, dispensing, distributing, or possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of the provisions of section 32, 32A, 32B, 32C, 32D, 32E, 32F 32G, 32H, 32I, 32J, or 40; or [Typist's Note: If you ask me, this last ``or'' should be an ``and,'' -- B] (ii) one year after said seizure the owner or owners of the property so seized, or such person or persons from whom the property was seized, shall have been convicted of violating any such section of this chapter. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SUMMARY This bill requires police to return property confiscated from people who are not charged with any drug offense within 30 days of the seizure, or convicted within one year. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AN ACT TO CEDE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENFORCING MARIJUANA PROHIBITION _Be it enacted_ by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court Assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows: _Section 1._ The twentieth paragraph of section 1 of chapter 94C, which paragraph begins with ``Marihuana,'' and ends with ``germination,'' is hereby stricken. _Section 2._ From the forty-second paragraph of section 1 of chapter 94C, which paragraph begins with ``Tetrahydrocannabinol,'' all words following the first ``marihuana'' are hereby stricken. _Section 3._ The word, ``Marihuana,'' as appearing in subsection (b) under ``Class D'' in section 31 of chapter 94C, is hereby stricken, and the balance of said subsection renumbered. _Section 4._ Subsection (a) of section 32E of chapter 94C, is hereby stricken, and the balance of said section renumbered. _Section 5._ From the fourth sentence of the first paragraph of section 34 of chapter 94C, the words ``marihuana or,'' are stricken, and from the first sentence of the third paragraph of section 34 of chapter 94C, the words ``marihuana or,'' are stricken. _Section 6._ Nothing herein shall be construed to derogate from existing provisions of law relating to the operation of a motor vehicle in an impaired condition. _Section 7._ No city or town shall enact any ordinance or bylaw prohibiting or regulating marijuana. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SUMMARY This ammendment to the marijuana laws is inspired by the New York bill signed by Governor Al Smith in 1923, which repealed the state (alcohol) prohibition laws, thus shifting authority for enforcement of the prohibition laws in New York to federal authorities. This bill simply deletes the word marijuana from Massachusetts statutes; enforcement of marijuana prohibition in Massachusetts would thereby become the exclusive province of the federal police and federal courts. Since federal prohibition laws remain unchanged, the bill cannot be said to ``legalize'' marijuana. ..... which basically does for the entire state what we did for the UMASS Student Government Association.... :-) Brian -- The University of Massachusetts at Amherst | _________,^-. Cannabis Reform Coalition ( | ) ,> S.A.O. Box #2 \|/ { 415 Student Union Building `-^-' ? ) UMASS, Amherst MA 01003 [v--d--t] at [twain.ucs.umass.edu] |____________ `--~ ; \_,-__/ * To find out about our on-line library, mail a message with the * pattern "{{{readme}}}" contained IN THE SUBJECT LINE. * You will be mailed instructions; your message will be otherwise ignored