COUNCIL THWARTS MARIJUANA PROPOSAL

Two Orders Get Sent To The Circular File

WORCESTER - The City Council last night thwarted an effort to have the
city establish an additional civil penalty, and even the possibility
of criminal indictment, for the use of marijuana on public property.

By a 7-4 vote, the council placed on file two orders that had asked
the city administration to prepare such an ordinance in response to
the passage of Question 2 on the November ballot that decriminalized
the possession of 1 ounce or less of marijuana.

The vote to file is the parliamentary equivalent of placing an item in
the wastebasket.

A majority of councilors simply felt it was not necessary or
appropriate to have the city alter what the voters approved.

We would be making a mountain out of a molehill," said
Councilor-at-Large Gary Rosen. "Right now, I don't see any problems
with the law. We would be looking for trouble. These (proposed
ordinances) are not needed at this time. The voters have spoken and
let's see what happens."

In addition to Mr. Rosen, those who voted to file the two orders were:
District 3 Councilor Paul P. Clancy Jr., District 5 Councilor William
J. Eddy, Councilor-at-Large Michael J. Germain, District 2 Councilor
Philip P. Palmieri, Councilor-at-Large Frederick C. Rushton and
District 1 Councilor Joffrey A. Smith.

The passage of Question 2 reduced the penalty for less than an ounce
of marijuana to a $100 civil fine. But Councilor-at-Large Joseph M.
Petty, District 4 Councilor Barbara G. Haller and Councilor-at-Large
Kathleen M. Toomey wanted to see the city at least be able to assess
an additional $300 fine to those using marijuana on city property.

They said they were not looking to overturn the law passed by voters
in November when they approved Question 2, but instead felt some
standards need to be set regarding the use of marijuana on public property.

Under the ordinance sought by the councilors, the use of marijuana
would not have been 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 the use of marijuana on public property should not be
allowed, similar to the restrictions that are in place for the
consumption of alcohol on public property. He asked to have his order,
and a similar one filed by Mayor Konstantina B. Lukes, referred to the
council's Public Safety Committee for further study and discussion.

There needs to be some consistent rules on this," Mr. Petty said.
"Other cities and towns are moving forward in this same direction. I'm
willing to have this held in the Public Safety Committee for a while
so we can see whether the state steps up and addresses some of the
issues that have been raised about (Question 2). If the state does
nothing, then I'd be willing to move forward on this."

But Mr. Germain argued against even having the item referred to
committee, saying the council should not be tinkering with a law that
has been approved by the voters.

We would be heading down a dangerous path," Mr. Germain said. "The
voters have spoken and we have to adhere to what the voters' wishes
are."

The effort to establish an additional civil penalty and possible
criminal indictment was also opposed by the Worcester County Chapter
of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.

Ronal C. Madnick, head of the local ACLU chapter, pointed out that
Question 2 was overwhelmingly approved by 65 percent of the voters. He
argued that there is no need for a city ordinance governing the use of
marijuana because its use remains illegal and laws on selling,
trafficking or growing marijuana remain unchanged.

The people of Massachusetts and of Worcester are not misinformed; they
knew what they were voting for," Mr. Madnick said. "Frankly, as far as
I know, there have been no serious problems with the new law. There is
no need for this concern."