Three questions will be on the ballot this fall, and they’re all interesting and important ones. More details are at the links.
- Right to repair. This is the latest installment in a long-running feud between car dealerships and non-affiliated repair shops. As I understand it, the repair shops want access to the diagnostic “codes” that cars’ on-board computers kick out when there’s something wrong, and the dealerships don’t want to disclose them [update: see Tim Little’s comment for clarification on this]. The shops would have to pay for the information. Here’s an excerpt from the full write-up at the link:
[T]he proposed law would require a manufacturer of motor vehicles sold in Massachusetts to make available for purchase, by vehicle owners and in-state independent repair facilities, the same diagnostic and repair information that the manufacturer makes available through an electronic system to its dealers and in-state authorized repair facilities. Manufacturers would have to make such information available in the same form and manner, and to the same extent, as they do for dealers and authorized repair facilities. The information would be available for purchase on an hourly, daily, monthly, or yearly subscription basis, for no more than fair market value and on terms that do not unfairly favor dealers and authorized repair facilities.
- Assisted suicide. This question would, if passed,
allow a physician licensed in Massachusetts to prescribe medication, at a terminally ill patient’s request, to end that patient’s life. To qualify, a patient would have to be an adult resident who (1) is medically determined to be mentally capable of making and communicating health care decisions; (2) has been diagnosed by attending and consulting physicians as having an incurable, irreversible disease that will, within reasonable medical judgment, cause death within six months; and (3) voluntarily expresses a wish to die and has made an informed decision.
- Medical marijuana. This question would legalize the consumption of marijuana by people who have a demonstrated medical need for it. It would also “allow for non-profit medical marijuana treatment centers to grow, process and provide marijuana to patients or their caregivers.” Of course, this law cannot affect the fact that federal law still outlaws marijuana in any form; that conflict was in the news in California recently.
I’m tentatively at yes, yes, and yes, subject to further study. What about you?
Christopher says
#1 is a pretty obvious choice and competition issue.
#2 is compassionate and has the appropriate safeguards.
#3 as pointed out is contrary to federal law. I would be open to repealing federal laws in order to allow states to experiment for medical or even decriminalizing, but until that happens I won’t be party to nullification.
David says
It’s not even close to nullification. There’s no intention of defying or overriding federal law. What it does is change state law so that medical marijuana can be dispensed legally under state law. Everyone still takes their chances with federal law, and everyone knows that, witness what’s happening in CA. But there are lots of things that are legal under state law but illegal under federal law, or vice versa. This ballot question would simply create one more.
tim-little says
It’s little bit of a bigger deal than just getting access to the OBD codes. Code lists for most makes are available to the public and anyone with a code reader ($15 at Autozone, for example) can pull down the data.
What Right to Repair would allow is access to diagnostic information that has heretofore been limited to dealerships. My independent mechanic has spent many hours sifting through 3rd party tech data (e.g., wiring diagrams) to find information that is readily available to the dealer service crew. It would also allow him access to tools that reset certain computer settings — e.g., airbag light — that currently require a special trip to the dealership, at dealership prices.
This is a win for small business and a win for consumers.
I’ll be voting “yes” on all three questions….
whosmindingdemint says
The dealers are the retail outlet, just like Best Buy, for example, is a retail outlet for computers. Why should they have the monopoly on service?
#2 really is patient-doctor privilege.
#3 nullification has nothing to do with it
jconway says
1) Yes, though I am getting tired of these questions going straight to voters and feel interest groups are getting around the legislature to sway a gullible and uninformed public about which way to go. It was the same with allowing non-package stores to carry liquor what should have been a straight forward lets make Boston even more livable and awesome for young people vote became controversial due to the “DRUNK DRIVERS WILL KILL YOU__*sponsored by your local packie*” ad campaign that even fooled my parents. There was also that babysitting regulation law a few years ago. Who keeps putting these to the voters and why cant the legislature just decide these issues? So I guess its a yes, though I will have to see how Click and Clack plan to vote on this one.
2) Lean no though I want more information.
As I posted elsewhere, the OR law this is based on really only affects about 60 people a year and I am not sure what the punishment is for doctors that violate this under the status quo in MA. From what I’ve been told due to my dads experience as a mental health professional and his own experience dealing with end of life possibilities regarding my grandparents, a lot of doctors already offer this as an ‘under the table’ service that they really aren’t risking their careers on.That said my dad is also not a doctor, I know Bob is and others around here are probably better informed so I’d like them to chime in.
The reason I am lean no for now is because I can easily see this law, if we codify it, open the door to other possibilities. Groups are already trying to do that in OR and the WA law was a lot broader than the OR law or this one. I think if we allow the right to die in certain cases it will force the door to much broader cases where I am far less comfortable allowing it. Why not stop at terminally ill people when there are tons of depressed people out there, tons of people with illnesses that give them a significantly reduced quality of life, and why not stop at allowing individuals to make this decision when some individuals would love to do this to themselves but cant make the decisions themselves? Obviously people will chime in that this is the slippery slope argument, and it is to some extent, but there are thinkers like Peter Singer out there whose views, once extreme, are becoming more and more mainstream in the medical community. The group sponsoring this bill for instance views this as merely a first step. History shows us that once we establish something as a right it becomes much harder to stop and harder to regulate and restrict. So like I said lean no but I’d love to hear more.
3) Yes.
David says
I generally agree with your point, though I’m also pretty sure that this issue has been kicking around the legislature for a couple of years, but somehow has never made it out of committee. At some point, the groups pushing questions like this throw in the towel with the legislature and decide to take the more costly and labor-intensive route of going around the legislature and directly to the people via the ballot. We have a system that allows that, and as long as that system is in place, this will keep happening.
Mark L. Bail says
of Right to Repair. It’s been hard to find unbiased information on this. My mechanic supports it, which is basically good enough for me, but I wanted to know more.
Dealers are saying the law will let the Chinese create poor quality parts and sell them here. I like to see more people with access to information.
I’m yes on all three.
lynne says
then give me a break. MOST of the parts THEY bring in are cheap parts from China. Let’s not pretend this is somehow going to cost Americans their jobs; the car companies and parts manufacturers already ensured THAT beforehand.
tim-little says
There’s already a huge market in “aftermarket” parts, and in many instances the *value* is actually better than what the dealers can provide. I have a decent number of aftermarket parts on my car that are a vast improvement over what comes from the factory and are cost-equivalent if not less expensive. Most dealers make their money on service (not sales) by charging exorbitant prices for parts and labor: they have a captive audience.
I’m sure some crap parts might find their way into the marketplace because of “Right to Repair” but basically that’s a red herring. If an enterprising Chinese company can come up with a reliable replacement for my $270 OEM oxygen sensor — currently subject to factory recall, btw — I’m willing to consider it!
I believe this is the beauty of a “free market”, no? 😉
HR's Kevin says
#1 is a no-brainer and the bogus ads I have heard the auto industry run against it have only helped to convince me this is a good idea.
#2 seems ok, but I wonder if physicians will be reluctant to actually agree to this for fear of liability if something goes wrong or a distraught family member disagrees.
#3 I don’t doubt that marijuana may have some health benefits but I really don’t believe that smoking it in its raw form is really the best way to deliver that benefit. I would much rather see safe presecription drugs based on extracted or synthesized compounds in marijuana with a safe delivery system that does not require you to inhale toxic substances.
I also believe that marijuana should probably be made legal and regulated like alcohol, but that is a different issue.
David says
even if you’re right, it seems to me that as long as the status quo holds sway, nothing will change. A shake-up seems to me the only way to move toward a better system, perhaps like the one you envision.
Mark L. Bail says
pot smokers (for the record: I’m neither a serious adult or a pot smoker) use vaporizers which negate the health concerns of smoking.
It’s interesting to note that there have been experiments making marijuana so it conveys medical benefits, but doesn’t make users high
cos says
You personally believe that smoking marijuana is not “the best way to deliver that benefit”, and would prefer some other method … so that’s your reason for keeping that benefit illegal for everyone, regardless of whether they smoke it or use some delivery method you personally approve of more.
Aside from that, you’re mistaken about “toxic substances” – research has quite solidly shown that smoking marijuana is, at worst, much much less of a health risk than many things which are already legal. More likely, it’s not a health risk at all.
However, a medical marijuana law is about allowing people to make the tradeoff that the medical benefit they need from marijuana is greater than the (possibly illusory) smaller harm it may cause. Plenty of medications people take all the time, including over the counter stuff, have risks and downsides, but that’s no reason not to take them when you need them to address a problem you actually have.
Either way, what you’re proposing is to keep any method of marijuana delivery illegal, simply because you’re personally not comfortable with today’s most common method – and the fact that people need it to address real problems they have doesn’t rate compared to your discomfort that they may be risking their health in some way.
I find your attitude both callously cold *and* lacking in logic.
centralmassdad says
1. Thanks Tim Little for the explanation. Cue the “non-dealer mechanics will make your car unsafe!” campaign. Ugh.
2. Leaning no. I’m open to argument on this, but was pretty solidly turned off this idea by the guy from Michigan. Seems inevitably open to abuse and creeping over into encouraged suicide.
3. Probably symbolic only, given existing federal law. Anything that moves in the direction of decriminalization is OK in my book.
Laurel says
is why these laws are being passed loaded with safeguards. I’ll admit that I haven’t read the language of the MA ballot measure yet, but WA passed something similar in 2009 and there are no reports of abuse because of the built-in safeguards. If the proposed MA law is constructed similarly, then I’ll support it 100%.
truth.about.dmr says
I see right-to-repair as a nightmare with regard to what should be intellectual property and propriety information.
Many independent repair shops say they do not need this information.
See massautocoalition.org.
SomervilleTom says
Conspicuously absent from the above link is any information about who funds the “Massachusetts Auto Coalition”. Perhaps that is because, according to pieces like this, a major funding source for the group is Auto Alliance, a trade group that includes (from the site) BMW Group in America, Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, etc.
I’m voting “Yes” on this one.
SomervilleTom says
I’m strongly in favor of question 1.
I’m going to blank question 2. I see and appreciate the arguments on both sides, and I have significant enough moral qualms on each that I’m not ready to say either way.
I’ll vote yes on question 3, because the marijuana laws are just stupid and I’m in favor of anything we can do to chip away at them.
smalltownguy says
I’ve been involved with a hospice services organization since 2004. I’ve seen continuing advances in palliative care and pain management that allow a terminally ill person to sustain a decent quality of life, make meaningful choices about care, and relate to loved ones as he/she dies. Assisted suicide is crude, ethically risky, and unnecessary.
Laurel says
I watched a close family member die in complete AGONY. There was absolutely nothing anyone could do to ease the pain, despite hospice being involved. If that family member had requested assistance to end their life a bit sooner, I hope that I would have had the strength to support their wishes. People should have the right not to die in agony, and hospice, while a wonderful institution, isn’t always able to facilitate a peaceful death.
cos says
> that allow a terminally ill person to sustain a decent quality of life, make meaningful choices about care,
… so you’d like to deny some of them the choice they actually want to make.
truth.about.dmr says
and for pointing out that the auto manufacturers are opposed to this bill because they feel that they should not have to divulge information and codes that cost millions of dollars in development. They apparently feel there is no fair market value for such information.
The coalition has an impressive list of supporters. Are they to not be taken seriously?
What effect would passage of a bill such as this have on research and development of new and innovative technologies?
AmberPaw says
1. Right to repair – as long as parts are clearly identified, potentially ValMarked – this puts large and small repair shops, dealers and non dealers on the same page. Disclosure – my spouse is part of the ValMark startup. Until his grave illness, he was working full time for equity, and they have accommodated his illness so that he is still productive and useful for Valmark. See: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=61745877
2. Assisted suicide – As the initiative is crafted, it is respectuful and compassionate. I believe this decision should be between an individual, God, and their medical team, not barred by the state. As the grand daughter of a suicide, I believe this initiative would, in many instances, prolong life.
3. Medical marijuana would reduce health insurance costs. The far stronger synthetic THC (marinol or drinabinol) is billed at more than $8000 for the name brand, for what a patient could grow themselves. My Bias? My spouse has stage IV pancreatic cancer, which is a ferocious intestinal cancer that also attacks the nervous system. I won’t go into his medications, but you can infer.
sabutai says
As was said previously, these questions stink of interest groups end-runs around the legislature. Though I have certain opinions on each question, I’m not sure I want to contribute to the Californification of our politics.
michaelhoran says
Which is odd, because a few years back, I was terrified I might feel compelled to do something highly illegal on behalf of someone suffering. I was spared, and she was spared further suffering. But I sure know the dilemma.
Still, the slippery slope really frightens me.
Still: I’ll be voting yes on 2.
1 seems pretty obvious and not weighted with any particular costs or pain for any group for whom I feel particular sympathy.
Three? Hell yes. We’ve–or I’ve, anyway–been waiting almost forty years for legislatures to do the right and sensible thing here. They haven’t, they don’t, and they apparently won’t (both the President and Ms Warren oppose legalization–if anyone’s “gullible and ill-informed,” well, it ain’t the public.) What did we have to do to get it decriminalized here in MA?
Here’s the twist: outside of its anti-nausea properties, which are unparalleled, I don’t actually put too faith in too many of medical marijuana’s alledged therapeutic properties (some of my stoner pals seem to view it as a universal panacea). And unlike many of our politicians, who make all kinds of equally outlandish claims with a straight face–“it will only be available to those who truly need it”–I know very well what the effect of medical weed is on the trade. Think it was Jon Stewart who pointed out how remarkable it was that the good people of Boulder–you know, those fit outdoorsy types–turned out to the the most unhealthy people on the planet–right after medical weed went through on CO.
Medical is de facto legalization, and I have zero problem with that. Quite the opposite. You know, an awful lot of the hi-grade weed being sold herein MA was in fact ostensibly cultivated for medical use. A thriving underground economy based on semi-legal weed being grown in California then shipped across the country and distributed here sans any state revenue collection makes zero sense. And thriving it is; the availability and quality of weed today makes the 70s look like a drug desert.
Eschewing nullification is great in principle, not so hot when folks doing nothing worse than what the local drug and liquor store clerks are doing go to jail for it. Enough.
Gonna miss your good sense on this, Congressman Frank!
jconway says
on 1) it seems pretty straightforward though I am glad we know who is behind it and I appreciate David’s research into why the Leg didn’t pass it.
2) I was expecting most of BMG to be strongly pro-2, glad to see others have similar reservations to me. Its a very difficult issue for me to grapple with, and its good to see others are thinking hard about it as well. I am still a lean no for no.
3) Yes, and to eventual legalization as well. While decriminalization saved us money, legalization would make it. My only reservation is that this does not go far enough. Massachusetts has been at the forefront of progressive common sense on gay rights, womens rights, and it should be on this basic question of individual freedom as well. It’d be great if we could stop being puritans on alcohol as well, but thats a tougher nut to crack due to the diversity of local laws and attitudes.