[420 Girl]

MARLBORO — The city last night joined a growing number of communities imposing fines for anyone caught smoking marijuana on municipal property.

The new marijuana consumption ordinance passed by the City Council last night levies a $300 fine on anyone caught consuming marijuana on public property. Ward 3 Councilor Scott Schafer abstained from voting on the ordinance. The $300 fine is in addition to the $100 fine that Question 2 imposes for the possession of less than an ounce of the drug. It is also in addition to any higher disposition for possession of an ounce or more of marijuana. Question 2, which passed by 65 percent by state voters last November, gives communities the authority to adopt laws prohibiting consumption of the drug.

Nine towns, including Hudson, Milford and Boylston, have had marijuana consumption bylaws approved by Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office. Berlin, Douglas, Orange, Townsend, Hopkinton and Ayer are among 26 other towns that have proposed bylaws before the attorney general’s office. State approval is not required for city ordinances.

In January, the Worcester City Council voted not to pursue an ordinance assessing an additional $300 fine to people caught using marijuana on city property. Lancaster town meeting in May also declined to adopt a similar bylaw.

Ward 2 Councilor Paul R. Ferro said he drafted the ordinance after Code Enforcement Officer Pam Wilderman told him she had issued a couple of nuisance citations under the city’s blight ordinance to people smoking marijuana in his ward. She said the issue was popping up more and more.

Mr. Ferro said the ordinance clarifies how the issue should properly be handled.

“That’s not the purpose of the blight ordinance and that’s not Pam’s job to do that. It’s more appropriate to give police the authority to do that,” he said.

Ronal C. Madnick, director of the Worcester County Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, sent a letter to councilors and Mayor Nancy E. Stevens last week urging them not to adopt the ordinance. He said it would amount to usurping the will of voters who favored Question 2.

“The people of (Massachusetts) made a clear decision that while marijuana ought to remain illegal, penalties for small-time users were disproportionately harsh. Why subvert the will of the people? I know of no real problem. Do you?” Mr. Madnick wrote.

Mr. Ferro said voters endorsed the decriminalization of possession of a small amount of marijuana and the $100 fine. He said there is a flaw in the law.

“Like we have a public consumption law for alcohol in the city, this is just a way of enforcing appropriate behavior on public streets. We don’t let people walk down the streets with an open container of alcohol, which is legal I might add.”

http://www.420magazine.com/forums/in...ost-400-a.html