Recent drug legislation is changing to penalize suspects who possess less than an ounce of marijuana, making the Commonwealth’s future with medical marijuana uncertain.
Massachusetts decriminalized marijuana in 2008, ruling that suspects caught with less than an ounce of the drug will receive a $100 fine at the most.
But on Monday, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court stated people found with any amount of the drug could still be charged with the intent to distribute, a crime that could potentially end in jail-time for the offender.
Following a recent appeal to a Massachusetts court about the discrepancy in the law, the Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the 2008 ruling and found that no matter how much marijuana a person has, he or she can still be tried with the intent to distribute.
Chief Justice Roderick Ireland acknowledged the 2008 voter-approved statute that decriminalizes marijuana possession under an ounce, but said it “did not repeal the offense of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute,” in his published opinion.
“As such, while the voters, through the act, made specific amendments to the simple possession statute, the voters did not make any changes to [the statute] concerning the crime of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute,” he said.
Under the state’s Controlled Substances Act, a person who knowingly distributes marijuana, a Class D controlled substance, can face up to a two-year prison sentence or a maximum $5,000 fine, a sentence that increases for more convictions.
The court also ruled the intent to distribute does not have to involve a sale. It quoted another case in defining the intent to distribute is a fact inferred from all the facts and circumstances of the case.
“I feel like the intent to distribute is very iffy,” said Boston University Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences freshman Madeline Alexander, adding, “I think the police officers can use a lot of bias in their judgment depending on who they’re arresting with the pot.”
The questions surrounding the drug may be indicative of the nation’s undecided stance on it.
Sixteen states, for example, currently allow their citizens to use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Not only has this caused debate in the other 34 states about possibly legalizing medical marijuana, it has also posed quandaries to the states that do allow it.
California, the state with the longest history of legal medical marijuana, has no law regulating the amounts of THC in the medical cannabis that doctors can prescribe.
Some marijuana retailers can – and do – advertise the THC levels in the different strains of the drug they sell, but the numbers are not officially approved by the federal government, according to a LA Times article published on Monday.
Under federal law, any sort of marijuana possession is illegal, and this leads to gaps in the law where state regulations and federal regulations do not meet.
For example, employers who subject their workers to random drug tests do not have to recognize the difference between licensed cannabis users and unlicensed cannabis users, said BU Professor Kabrina Chang in her paper, “High Risk Employment: The Management Headache over Medical Marijuana.”
“In the states where medical marijuana is legal,” she wrote, “very few laws indicate how its use impacts employment rights.”
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
There is no logical reason to create a loophole so people can be criminalized. My crystal ball says there will be a large increase in marijuana possession with the intent to distribute arrests, in the near future.
Why is there so much affinity by the powers that be for a law conceived, born and nurtured from greed, lies and racism.
Dems and Reps, different pages from the same bad book!
LEAP member, NYPD, ret.
I must have missed something. What law is being changed to increase the penalty for petty possession? Laws are not changed by the judiciary, they’re either upheld or struck down. The ruling noted in the article above is an act of stupidity, but all it does is uphold a law already in place.
I think the judge is just trying to give a heads up to the legislature and citizens that the step they took to decriminalize cannabis is incomplete and needs further steps. Maybe I am giving the judge too much credit though. Massachusetts appears to be heading toward regulation faster that most Eastern states despite having anti-cannabis governors like Mitt Romney in their past.