CITY ATTEMPTS TO STRENGTHEN POT PENALTIES

Use On Public Land Eyed

WORCESTER - A move is in the works on the City Council to have the
city establish a civil penalty, and even the possibility of criminal
indictment, for the use of marijuana on public property under the
control of the city.

Councilor-at-Large Joseph M. Petty, District 4 Councilor Barbara G.
Haller and Councilor-at-Large Kathleen M. Toomey have jointly filed an
order, asking the administration to prepare such an ordinance in
response to the passage of Question 2 on last November's ballot that
decriminalized the possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana.

Mayor Konstantina B. Lukes, meanwhile, has also filed an order along
the same lines, asking for an ordinance that would criminalize the use
of marijuana in public that otherwise would not warrant punishment
beyond the $100 civil fine called for in Question 2.

Mr. Petty said he and his colleagues are looking to set some standards
by sending a message that the use of marijuana on public property will
not be an accepted activity.

Under the ordinance being sought by the councilors, the use of
marijuana would not be allowed on city streets, sidewalks, public
ways, parks, playgrounds, public buildings, school grounds, parking
lots and any other area under control of the city.

Mr. Petty said what is being proposed is similar to the restrictions
that are in place for the consumption of alcohol on public property.
While the consumption of alcohol is legal, it is not allowed on
properties and areas under the city's jurisdiction.

We're not trying to change the law that was passed by the voters in
November to decriminalize the use of marijuana," Mr. Petty said. "We
fully respect their decision, and all we are looking to do is add some
standards to the law. How could we have a standard that prohibits the
possession of open (alcohol) containers on city property and not have
some kind of similar standard for the use of marijuana?"

The councilor said he has talked to Police Chief Gary J. Gemme about
the proposal, and the chief did not express any opposition.

The passage of Question 2 reduces the penalty for less than an ounce
of marijuana to a $100 civil fine. The three city councilors would
like to see the city at least be able to assess an additional fine to
those using marijuana on city property.

Prior to Question 2 becoming law this month, the state Executive
Office of Public Safety encouraged cities and towns to pass new
penalties for using marijuana in public. Attorney General Martha
Coakley has even offered a sample bylaw that would include a $300
civil penalty and the possibility of criminal indictment for the use
of marijuana on public property.

Mrs. Lukes said there is "significant confusion" on how to implement
the passage of Question 2 without changing the original intent of the
referendum.

There are so many exceptions, and its lack of clarity virtually
renders it ineffective," Mrs. Lukes said. "We need some clarity on
this from the city solicitor and the police chief. This was a
well-intended ballot question that has led to confusion."

Mrs. Lukes said something needs to be done at the state level to set
uniform standards for all communities.

She said she fears that individual cities and towns will set their own
standards, thus setting the stage for different standards and
penalties in each community because the law can be subject to
different interpretations.

We can be left with a patchwork of ordinances that vary considerably
from community to community," the mayor said. "That's why the state
really needs to step forward and provide some clarity to this issue.
If not, then maybe whatever we come up with as a city can become a
model for the state."

Mr. Petty said he and his colleagues will ask the council Tuesday
night to refer their request to the Public Safety Committee so a
public hearing can be held on it before being sent to the city manager.