Mass. court rules social sharing of marijuana legal

In a group of four cases, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled Friday that social sharing of marijuana is not criminal, but growing the plant is still an offense worthy of arrest.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decisions involved four cases of marijuana-related arrests made after Massachusetts residents voted to decriminalize possession of one ounce or less of cannabis in 2008. Under that law, possession of less than an ounce, while not criminal, remains a civil offense with a maximum penalty of $100.

In one of the cases, Commonwealth v. Kiiyan Jackson, the defendant, Jackson, was arrested in 2010 at Hempfest, an annual gathering in the Boston Common to advocate the legalization of marijuana, by two police officers in civilian clothing. The officers allegedly saw him passing a marijuana cigarette to someone sitting next to him and arrested him for distribution, an offense worthy of up to two years in prison or $5,000 in fines.

The court, however, ruled that, as opposed to paid distribution, “the social sharing of marijuana is no longer a crime,” according to the opinion released Friday.

In another case involving a 2010 arrest, Commonwealth v. Kenneth J. Palmer, Jr., police officers consensually entered Palmer’s house and arrested him on outstanding warrants for cultivation of marijuana in a school zone, a felony worthy of up to 15 years in prison and $10,000 in fines. The collected amount of marijuana weighed less than an ounce and a district court ruled that the case should not be considered a criminal offense.

The Supreme Judicial Court countered the ruling, asserting that “cultivation of marijuana … and the offense of simple possession of marijuana are ‘listed separately in the General Laws,’” according to the opinion.

The court said growth of marijuana for personal use is not different than growth with intent to distribute, stating the law “contains no language creating an exception for cultivation for “personal use” or “indeed any exception at all.”

Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, which filed an amicus brief in one of the cases, said this was the latest in a series of steps taken by the Commonwealth toward full legalization of the drug.

“I don’t think there is any doubt that these decisions did not remove Massachusetts from what we perceive as the top four states for [marijuana] reform in the United States,” he said. “Decriminalization in [2008] … medical marijuana in 2012, and potentially legalization in 2014 — No other state has effectively taken that many bites out of the reform apple that quickly.”

Dr. Kevin Sabet, co-founder of Project Smart Approaches to Marijuana and former White House advisor on national drug control policy, said the growth ruling was a step in the right direction for reasons pertaining to health concerns.

“Today’s marijuana is not the Woodstock weed of the sixties,” he said. “It’s a lot stronger than it was in the early sixties. It causes emergency room admissions for hundreds of thousands of people a year. It’s linked to deaths … because people are abusing it more. I’m worried about the abuse.”

The rulings also stated that while the smell of marijuana constitutes probable cause for searching a vehicle and suspicion of operating under the influence, it does not constitute probable cause for suspicion of distribution, according to the court’s opinions.

The biggest impacts of the cases, though, deal with getting closer to both clarification of what state laws already exist and taking steps toward legalization, St. Pierre saud.

“The state is caught between legalization and decriminalization,” he said. “These cases affirm that the judiciary is not entirely keen on casting all of cannabis policy in a non-regulated free market.”

St. Pierre said the court’s concern is well placed because reforms enacted too quickly without research to back them can be dangerous.

“[The court doesn’t want] to create laws and standards where the science does not exist,” he said. “However, it’s [the rulings] definitely more of a positive thing than not.”