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 may, in fact, increase criminal activity and civil wrong-doing;

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

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, in fact, substantially increase in the workplace, in homes, in schools, 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, being established that the legalized use of marijuana in the Commonwealth will increase other unwanted criminal and civil wrong-doing:

BE IT ENACTED by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, that a rebuttal presumption of culpability and liability exists in all civil matters being determined by any adjudicative process governed by law or statute in the Commonwealth devolving to those persons found to have traces of marijuana in their bodily systems. Such rebuttal presumption may be overcome by oath or affirmation of clear and convincing evidence that no such use of marijuana occurred or that such bodily traces of marijuana had no material effect on the conduct being adjudicated. A finding of use of marijuana towards any participants in a civil adjudicative process may be established by any credible process and proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

IT IS FURTHER ENACTED, that a rebuttal presumption of criminal intent exists in all criminal matters being determined by any law or statute in the Commonwealth where evidence of marijuana use by any criminal defendant is determined by an adjudicative process. Such rebuttal presumption may be overcome by oath or affirmation of clear and convincing evidence that no such use of marijuana occurred or that such bodily traces of marijuana had no material effect of the conduct being adjudicated. Credible medical, forensic, self-incriminating, video, audio, digital evidence or the sworn testimony or deposition of 3 persons may establish the use of marijuana by any defendant.

FINALLY, evidence of prior use or possession of marijuana by any person, defendant or witness within the past 365 days of the incident or conduct being adjudicated is admissible in all civil and criminal proceedings by the same aforementioned process. A refusal to submit to a duly authorized or court-ordered drug test is automatically held as prima-fascia proof of marijuana use.