Pot Watch

Pot Watch

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

26 Jan 2017, 01:28 #1

How a Bill Becomes a Law (I'm just a bill ... Schoolhouse Rock), Massachusetts style:


The Legislative Process in Massachusetts


Legislation can originate in either the House or Senate, with the exception of revenue bills (also called "money bills;" i.e., bills which require the Commonwealth to raise revenue) and the budget, which are constitutionally mandated to originate in the House. All bills are introduced by legislators, but the state constitution allows citizens to present petitions "by request." With the cooperation of a legislator, the bill is drafted and submitted. The Governor may also file bills.


Bill Filing:


The bill filing deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the third Friday in January of the first annual session of the General Court.


"Late files" (i.e. bills filed after this deadline) require a report of the committees on Rules of the two branches, acting concurrently, and then approval of two thirds of the members of each branch voting thereon.


Once the bill is filed in the House or Senate Clerk's office, the bill is given a number and recorded in a docket book, which lists all bills as they are filed. All bills have a title and number. Bills that originate in the House begin with "H" and those that originate in the Senate begin with "S." The House and Senate Clerk's office refer bills to the appropriate committee for consideration.


The rest of the story:   http://www.masslegalservices.org/conten ... chusetts-0






By 5:00 p.m. on the third Friday in January, 2017, bills that had been presented included:


An Act relative to municipal control over recreational marijuana
An Act Relative to the Use and Legal Effects of Marijuana
An Act relative to the marketing and visibility of recreational marijuana
An Act relative to safe limits on home growing of marijuana
An Act Relative to the Repeal of the Citizen Referendum Law on Marijuana
An Act further regulating marijuana commercialization
An Act relative to marijuana potency
An Act relative to edible marijuana products
An Act relative to energy efficient marijuana cultivation
An Act strengthening local control over recreational marijuana businesses
An Act relative to marijuana product packaging and labeling
An Act relative to youth marijuana use prevention and education
An Act relative to marijuana research, data collection, and best practices
An Act relative to the expungement of convictions for marijuana possession
An Act relative to the public safety risk of marijuana-impaired drivers
An Act further regulating the manufacture and sale of certain commercial marijuana products
An Act relative to the regulatory authority for oversight of the recreational marijuana industry


Still just a bill ...


https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/SD792
Reply

battlingignorance
Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

26 Jan 2017, 10:48 #2

An Act Relative to the Repeal of the Citizen Referendum Law on Marijuana
Here we go:

1. WHEREAS, by public referendum on November 8, 2016 in accord with the Massachusetts Constitution, citizen in the Commonwealth voted in the affirmative to approve the legal use, consumption and ingestion of certain amounts of the drug marijuana;

2. WHEREAS, decriminalization of marijuana use does not eliminate other forms of criminal behavior or civil infractions;

3. WHEREAS, the use of marijuana will, in fact, increase criminal activity and civil wrong-doing;

4. WHEREAS, marijuana is a mind-altering drug that directly affects the brain, the reflexes and the human thought process and its use is highly addictive;

5. WHEREAS, the medical and psychological effects and uncertain human behavior as to action and intent of any person using, consuming and ingesting marijuana will be present in the Commonwealth and pose a threat to the safety of all persons, property and animals;

6. WHEREAS, the use of marijuana, legalized by the passage of the referendum law on November 8, 2016 will substantially increase in the workplace, in homes, on the roadways, in public transportation, and in all public and private spaces and offices;

7. WHEREAS, the Massachusetts Legislature, along with the Executive and Judicial Branches of government in the Commonwealth have both an implicit and explicit obligation to protect citizens under the Massachusetts Constitution and its Preamble, from all foreseen dangers;

NOW, THEREFORE, it being established that legalizing the use of marijuana in the Commonwealth by voters was a mistake; it will increase unwanted criminal and civil wrong-doing and as a result will place many innocent citizens, including young children, in imminent danger with regard to medical, health, financial, family, physical, mental and social conditions:

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, that the Citizen Referendum Law approving the use of Marijuana in the Commonwealth on November 8, 2016 is HEREBY REPEALED in its entirety.

The bill to repeal was introduced by this prick: Senator William N. Brownsberger (Democrat) - Second Suffolk and Middlesex

You'd think this was the 1920s right now with all the double-speak and clear contradiction of facts.
Last edited by battlingignorance on 26 Jan 2017, 10:50, edited 1 time in total.
Reply

brainfix
Joined: 04 Jun 2006, 00:10

26 Jan 2017, 11:38 #3

Unbelievable. Reefer madness hysteria rears its ugly head yet again. Show me the evidence that legal weed causes crime to increase, uncontrollable addiction and rampant medical, health, financial, family, physical, mental and social ills!! After Portugal legalized all drugs, none of the above occurred.

Image
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

26 Jan 2017, 12:15 #4

Can I have my votes for state senator over the years back?
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

gator
Joined: 27 Apr 2011, 20:12

26 Jan 2017, 17:40 #5

Damon wrote:
Can I have my votes for state senator over the years back?
Don't worry about it. This is career suicide for anyone involved.
Reply

drinkycrow
Joined: 10 May 2007, 13:48

26 Jan 2017, 18:39 #6

[font=GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]TO:                  Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure[/font]

[font=GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]FROM:            Senator William N. Brownsberger[/font]

[font=GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]RE:                  S. 126, An Act relative to the shipping of alcohol.[/font]

[font=GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]DATE:             October 14, 2015[/font]

[font=GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]I am writing in support of S. 126, An Act relative to the shipping of alcohol.[/font]

[font=GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]Massachusetts is one of the few states nationally that continues to prohibit the shipping of alcohol by licensed retailers. Shipping alcohol direct to consumers will open up new channels of business for alcohol retailers and small producers in Massachusetts.[/font]

[font=GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]This bill creates an economic benefit to the small businesses; I hope the committee will report S.126 favorably.[/font]

[font=GEORGIA, 'TIMES NEW ROMAN', TIMES, SERIF]
[/font]


https://willbrownsberger.com/wp-content ... 0/s126.pdf
Reply

drinkycrow
Joined: 10 May 2007, 13:48

26 Jan 2017, 18:55 #7

I'm too busy to see if he took any booze lobby money.
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

26 Jan 2017, 19:50 #8

Dear drinkycrow,
Do not bother :)
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Cathy (Admin)
Joined: 13 Aug 2005, 09:30

26 Jan 2017, 20:20 #9

To be fair, it is noted on the repeal bill's page that Brownsberger filed the bill "by request," which indicates that it was filed on behalf of a citizens' petition.


This link should bring you to a page generated by a search of this session's bills using the term "marijuana."  The listing shows who filed each bill with links to the page for each bill where you can find the text.


https://malegislature.gov/Bills/Search? ... 56e7429%22


These are still just bills ...
Reply

battlingignorance
Joined: 01 Sep 2012, 12:06

26 Jan 2017, 20:32 #10

...then he should withdraw it "by request". Did he not get the citizens' "request" as exemplified by the Referendum?

Two-faced weasel.
Reply

William Taylor.e
Joined: 30 Mar 2007, 04:27

26 Jan 2017, 22:40 #11

drinkycrow wrote:
I'm too busy to see if he took any booze lobby money.
Hmmmmm...."by request"....= payoff in pocket...most likely by the alcohol lobby which is having paroxysm of anguish over pot being legalized.
You make a living by what you get. You make a life by what you give..
Reply


brainfix
Joined: 04 Jun 2006, 00:10

12 Feb 2017, 23:55 #13

Let's not hold our breath, so to speak. The morally-superior legislators will shoot down anything that legitimizes the devil's weed.
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens
Reply

NightStalker
Joined: 15 Apr 2006, 05:02

13 Feb 2017, 13:39 #14

and they'll still all get re-elected as people have short memories. why do we even have referendum votes if they don't mean a thing??

evidently Colorado & Washington are dens of crime now according to our reps.

Am I the only one who gets a laugh out of a "joint" committee on marijuana use

and they wonder why voting percentages are going down.
You think you know it, but you haven't got a clue!!
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

13 Feb 2017, 16:48 #15

I do not give a hoot about marijuana legislation.
However I care a lot about the vote of all the people of Massachusetts.
As far as I am concerned, Bruce Tarr is someone I do not know.
I can think of nothing else he could have done to anger me so.
I have often been on the other side of an issue from him, but never before
on the other side of democracy.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Dun Fudgin
Joined: 21 Jun 2007, 03:54

13 Feb 2017, 22:09 #16

Damon wrote:
I do not give a hoot about marijuana legislation.
However I care a lot about the vote of all the people of Massachusetts.
As far as I am concerned, Bruce Tarr is someone I do not know.
I can think of nothing else he could have done to anger me so.
I have often been on the other side of an issue from him, but never before
on the other side of democracy.
Damon you have to consider not all rules and regulations were included after the peoples vote! The action by Bruce and others was for the sake of public safety to assure all concerns are addressed. If this occurred after prohibition you'd have moonshiners unregulated hooch on store shelves poisoning the masses!
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

13 Feb 2017, 22:21 #17

Nonsense. If they had worked with the people who spent years preparing a referendum they could have been ready. They could have gotten together with the parties after the referendum passed and worked out what needed to be done if anything in public after the legislature reconveened. Stop making excuses like I heard from his staff. I am totally disgusted. "Public safety" - BULL
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Fortune Cookie
Joined: 13 Nov 2010, 17:37

13 Feb 2017, 22:29 #18

They could also have had the stones to do this in a regular session, not in a little clique of conspirators.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪

Fortune Cookie

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Reply

Damon
Joined: 25 Jun 2007, 22:00

13 Feb 2017, 22:36 #19

Exactly. That is what I meant by doing whatever after the legislature reconvened after the Christmas break. The fact that seven legislators got together to undermine a referendum voted state wide is just infuriating.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Reply

Dun Fudgin
Joined: 21 Jun 2007, 03:54

13 Feb 2017, 23:03 #20

Damon wrote:
Nonsense. If they had worked with the people who spent years preparing a referendum they could have been ready. They could have gotten together with the parties after the referendum passed and worked out what needed to be done if anything in public after the legislature reconveened. Stop making excuses like I heard from his staff. I am totally disgusted. "Public safety" - BULL
No nonsense, the vote was not rejected just was extended for all the "i's dotted and t's crossed". Yes the referendum was not prepared well, I'll give you that. But public safety is a serious factor and I applaud those who took this stance.
Last edited by Dun Fudgin on 13 Feb 2017, 23:08, edited 1 time in total.
Reply