I’ts interesting that the state should get a citizen-backed law decriminalising pot, and then immediately extend it to hash, hash oil, and apparently pure THC, without legislative input or due process. It's funny, too, I think, that they perceive a problem with public use of something that will get you a $100 ticket, so they need to “tighten up” public pot use laws, like it's OK to smoke anything anywhere anyway (tobacco). That's why I posted that article.
As for excluding or not excluding salvia, goes to show it's a War On Some Drugs.
The whole thing is quite amusing.
Other articles I dredged up but did not post related to evaluating whether citizen-based initiatives should be allowed, since this was one of them, and Prop 8 here in CA was, and what if the people in MA were allowed to vote on gay marriage?
lol pass the popcorn!
Similar laws have been working fine in several states since the 1970s. The sky hasn't fallen in states that decriminalized. Per capita pot use isn't even higher in those states. These police and prosecutors just need to grow up and get over it. They lost. Sixty five percent of the population wanted simple possession of pot to be decriminalized and punishable by a ticket with a small fine. These yahoos want to whine about it, try to get the legislature to overturn the new law, which they can do in Massachusetts, so they're using scare tactics, painting these “sky is gonna fall in” scenarios. That ticks me off because I don't think cops and prosecutors have any business screwing with laws like these. Their job is to enforce the laws. They need to shut up and enforce the laws. That's just my two cents worth.