The initiative process is Democracy at its greatest.
The initiative process is Democracy at its worst.
In many cases, we are frustrated that elected representative legislatures are not enacting the laws we want. Often, our personal politics aren’t the same as the majority of the legislature— as a whole or just on this issue.
Other times it’s legislative procedure can be messy sausage-making which frustrates people.
So what if we had a poll of all the people to ask them what they wanted? Or how about all the registered voters? Or all the likely voters? Or — and here’s how initiatives & referenda really work — all the actual voters?
How are the voters any more qualified to decide what legislation to enact?
[ From the NYTimes today: Colombia and ‘Brexit’ Show Why a Referendum Can Be Dangerous ]
Legislators are skilled (“usually,” I admit begrudgingly), experienced, have a research staff, and can delve deep into the issues. On the other hand, they can be lobbied, cajoled, or even bribed. They have political considerations that can overwhelm their constituents’ best interests or even basic common sense.
Is Proposition 2½ so great just because it was enacted by initiative? How about this year’s Question 2? Or, for that matter, Question 1?
Sure, I support some of these propositions, as I understand them. But the truth is that I don’t fully understand the details and, as recently posted, even the seemingly unbiased state Voter Guide isn’t as helpful as it ought to be (“Baker administration shows bias in Voter Guide “Fiscal Consequences” statement on Question 4“). And, to top it off, I’m an attorney who’s pretty good at legislative drafting— surely better than a vast majority of voters.
Even the questions that I support in principle will be voted “No” by me. They should be brought to the Great and General Court. If they are defeated there (as so often they are before going to referenda), then they’re dead. That’s the good, bad, and ugly of making sausages.
Convince me otherwise, please.
You write “Convince me otherwise, please” … my response (following your pattern) is “NO!” 🙂
I hear you. and I appreciate your hypothesis — enough that I’ll not attempt to dissuade you.
I’ll vote “yes” on 4 because I do not believe the legislature that we have today will do anything rational about the issue. In my view, the shenanigans of Mr. DeLeo and the nearly complete collapse of the Massachusetts GOP as a functioning political party (“functioning” as in running viable candidates for the house and senate) mean that the legislature is unable to reflect the will of Massachusetts voters. In fact, even though the legislature is overwhelmingly Democratic (at least in the stated party affiliation of its members), it is unable to represent even the will of Massachusetts Democrats.
I therefore think that we must somehow address the issues of our legislature. I view at least some of the ballot questions as a temporary stopgap while we do that larger and longer task.
to convince the Legislature to take some action when otherwise it wouldn’t.
As in: would the Legislature in 2014 have increased the minimum wage by $3 over 3 years without the threat of a ballot question? I’m thinking no.
…they can also void a ballot question without repercussions as they did with the Clean Elections Law.
Same year and same villain.
There was never a single payer law enacted in MA by the electorate. If the proponents were serious about single payer, they would have written it as a law, not an advisory question that they threw at the ballot. Please do not dumb this site down.
…the above comment was just fine until you threw in that snide last sentence. JConway is just about the last person who would dumb this site down.
Proposition 2 1/2 has probably had more impact on every town since it passed than any single legislative session, let alone legislative act.
That said it would pass again today. Proposition 1 1/2 would pass today.
To me, Questions 1 & 3 are the type of detailed policy matters that should *not* be the subject of referendum. I plan to vote NO on these questions primarily for that reason.
But, I do think Questions 2 & 4 are appropriate ballot initiatives primarily because they are matters of broader public policy that the Legislature and the legislative process have consistently failed to address over the past decade or more. Despite the new nonsense about “the children”/edibles and the misleading discussions on both initiatives around taxes/spending, I continue to believe that the underlying policy disputes can be readily understood by the public.
I plan to vote No on 2 and Yes on 4 (after having made considerable effort to educate myself on each issue). I’d urge you and others to do the same.
Q1 and Q3 are really simple.
Q1: Should a no-bid slot parlor to be built at Suffolk Downs?
Q3: Should MA prohibit the sale of eggs, veal, or pork of a farm animal confined in spaces that prevent the animal from lying down, standing up, extending its limbs, or turning around?
To me, those are simple for folks to understand, there aren’t many moving parts, the results are straightforward.
But Q2 and Q4 are far more complex.
Q2 isn’t “do we like charter schools?” It asks if we should allow some agency the authority to permit an additional some number of new public but not really schools each year with priority in some places as a function of school performance somehow with annual performance reviews based on standards that haven’t even been decided yet. This isn’t about broad public policy — this is a very detailed, very specific, very complex proposal of policy implementation.
Q4 isn’t “should we legalize pot?” Q4 asks if we should allow 21+ year olds to posses some quantity at home, a different quantity in public, grow some number of plants in their home, create a regulatory commission that issues licenses and regulates sales, includes an additional tax of some value above and beyond sales tax, allows the municipality to implement yet another tax of some other number using some process, and sets up a different fund with some of the revenue going pay for some of the costs associated with passing Q4, oh and all of this goes into effect really soon. This too isn’t about broad public policy — this is a very detailed, very specific, very complex proposal of policy implementation.
==
I’m not arguing fer or again’ Q1, 2, 3, or 4 in this post. I am in violent disagreement with you about which two questions are straightforward matters of broad public policy and which are detailed policy matters.
You may have an understanding of Question 4 that reflects what people are voting on, but by far you are thinking about it in terms that 90%(give or take) of the voters aren’t thinking about. Not one of about 2 dozen people that I have talked to thinks the question goes any deeper than “legalize pot”. Maybe 3-4 mention tax revenue in general. Its a reflection on the level of information that gets to people who vote, and how deeply they go to look for it in the first place.
Q2 included tons of action by legislators to come up with a reasonable compromise that would have significantly lifted the cap while also addressing a few of the fundamental flaws of charters, that burden the system over all (such as opt-in vs. opt-out, and the propensity of charters to try to force under-performing or IEP students out). The charter backers — powerful Republican donors all around the country astroturfing Massachusetts — weren’t interested in any compromise, though, and have wanted to use MA as a test bed under the theory of “if they can do it here, they can do it anywhere.”
Q4 is a whole other ball game. Beacon Hill has not only had a very long history of not being willing to engage on this issue, but has a history of criminalizing it, ruining lives, and engaging in lies and phony science to distort the issues. It has fought a liberalized marijuana policy at *every step of the way*, and wanted no part in any compromise now that legalization is on the ballot.
A ballot question is not an ideal way to legalize pot, but Beacon Hill is not willing to engage in any kind of alternative and so must be punished.
If Beacon Hill wants to abdicate doing its job, even to the point of offering reasonable compromises to avoid a blunt ballot question, then the people must do its job for them.
Actually ballot questions reward inaction by the Lege by passing difficult issues to the electorate as a whole, thus absolving the polls from dealing with (politically) difficult issues.
As such, IMHO they (in theory) increase initiative by, and accountability to, citizens as a whole. In fact they reward the work ethic and political skills of one side or the other, but such is life…
I’m not condemning the electeds in this: Not everyone has the same political priorities, elected officials have to balance contending issues, and politics aren’t (and should not be) morality plays. For those reasons I consider the ballot question approach a useful safety valve, in light of the decline in organized statewide grassroots politics in Massachusetts.
Not every state has ballot questions, but only states with them have legalized or even (AFIAK) decriminalized marijuana.
So, sorry, nope.
Precisely because referenda were options, pols in those States didn’t have to make tough (and potentially politically disadvantageous) decisions.
The system worked.
the house can punt to the senate. Both houses can pass the buck to the executive, by passing something that the executive will veto.
Or they can all just avoid tough decisions, by letting the judiciary legislate. Or the states can blame the feds, or vice versa.
The idea that voters could hold the legislators’ feet to the fire if only there were no ballot initiative option is really strained.
n/t
… because the goal is not ‘holding the legislators feet to the fire.” The goal is a working democracy and a working democracy cares nothing for your sense of entitlement.
Two things:
A) You are not entitled to hold the legislators feet to the fire. That’s the diametric opposite of what ‘representation’ means. It’s laudable that you want something done. It’s laudable when they do it. But you’re not entitled to it and they’re not required to do exactly as you say. If they were required to follow your directives that would be puppetry, not democracy. Representation means they are empowered to act in your name as they see fit. If you don’t like how they represent you then you can vote against them next time. But that’s it.
2) If the ‘will of the people’ is neither wise nor perceptive enough to enact a legislature then that same ‘will of the people’ is neither wise nor perceptive enough to enact legislation. The certain failure of a ballot initiative undertaken to ‘correct’ the failings of a legislature follows directly from the inability of the ‘will of the people’ to choose appropriate representation.
“You are not entitled to hold the legislators feet to the fire.”
Please check out the First Amendment–we definitely are “entitled to hold the legislators feet to the fire.” You seem to have mixed up the process of electing a government with that of entering a nursing home.
Petr’s Prussian roots are showing again.
… which permits the oft perceptive trickle-up to cease in the labor of thought for a (one hopes short) time. Such are the powers of amulets when wielded to defend against effort.
… in your use of both ‘animus’ and ‘democracy’ suggesting that the heavy lifting of a totem is wearing you down.
I love democracy as I love the very idea of women. I love this Republic as I love one particular women, who I married and to whom I renew my attentions on a daily basis and in the reality of my own, oft glaring, faults. Such is the difference between a idea and the choice to strive towards the ideal.
The four states + DC with legal marijuana all did it by ballot initiative, but while many of the decriminalized states did it by initiative as well, there are many (CT, CA, MD, among others) that have passed decriminalization through the legislature.
However, they only did it after others decriminalized by initiative, and the sky didn’t fall. The same will apply to legalization: starts with ballot initiatives, but soon enough a state like Vermont or Rhode Island will do it through the legislature.
…it is already illegal, so there is really no need for the legislature to act if they feel it’s appropriate to stay that way. Was legalizing ever sponsored by a legislator? If so the bill should have been voted on. If not, then I’m more open to taking it public due not to the merits since I oppose it, but to legislative inertia.
and criminalizes lives, sending tens of thousands to prison for no valid reason, is not doing what’s “appropriate.”
Legislators spreading phony, outdated science and discredited theories as justifications for their opposition to change is not doing what’s appropriate.
They have failed their responsibility on this issue, and that’s why we are where we are.
… it is a fallacy to say the legislature, any legislature, ignores its citizen since it was the citizens who brought the legislature into being.
You simply can’t get around that fact.
Sure it is. If the citizens who called the legislature into being are doing so out of misinformation or any phoniness on their part, then the legislature will reflect that. And, therefore, that same citizenry isn’t guaranteed to be more than accidentally ‘appropriate’ when it comes to ballot initiatives…. which, let us be clear, is just an attempt at a veto over their own prior vote. A poor legislature reflects a poor citizenry and ballot initiatives is, in effect, the citizens continuing to argue with themselves.
You discount the fact that the ‘will of the people’ itself is not always a benign, or even cogent, force. Which is, perhaps coincidentally, why we have legislatures in the first place. A better care when calling a legislature into being would likely result in less sturm und drang about what the legislature does, or does not, do.
You’re looking at the telescope through the wrong end. The legislature is just a series of lenses to focus the will of the people. Set the wrong way around the will of the people looks like a distant, impossibly tiny and inconsequential object. Set rightways, it’s immediate and
Or, put another way: Who, exactly, has failed?
I am not sure how much/little experience you have working with legislative bodies but you can tell us. Anybody with real experience in legislative politics knows that the voice of an individual voter means nothing unless they are active and even then it might not mean squat. Meanwhile, this is how reality works.
The residents of MA did not create the Great and General Court. Our ancestors did. Some of us choose to vote but we only get to vote for one member of each chamber. The notion that the citizens are in charge, as you wrote
is rubbish. The legislature as an institution is a creation of the English crown almost a half of a milleia ago.
A ballot question in any of its multiples of forms is not a veto over previous votes by the electorate. It is argh, what do you call it…ahh …wait wait I got it… DEMOCRACY. Sometimes it works, as I hope it will in two years in overturning the century old hideous SJC decision to prohibit a graduated income tax. But it can be used by the Wall Street crowd to try to take tax dollars for profit making charter schools. The process needs to be fixed, especially on the finance side, but as long as the Lege will not deal with issues like weed or physician-assisted suicide or grudgingly addresses the big constitutional changes like same sex marriage and a grad tax (two of the finer moments in recent state government history)
The notion that we are permanently stuck with our Constitution, or are permanently tied to the spinelessness of the Lege is bogus. I have worked for and against enough ballot initiatives and then to fix ill-written ones to know the dangers of the process. Again, it is called, agh wait a minute… democracy.
BMG is not a middle school civics class. I hope.
Please stop using words to explore ideas? No. I very much think I will continue. Thank you, not at all.
You wield that word, ‘democracy,’ as though it were a talisman. Many others here do as well. But the amount of faith you put in that charm does not extend to the word ‘republic’ which is the form our ‘democracy’ takes. And if democracy is the spirit of our lawmaking then republic is the letter of it: the specific structure and strictures by which the general idea is brought into being.
In a republic the laws are made by representatives acting on behalf of the citizenry. If the citizenry where to involve themselves directly, it would not be a republic. Direct involvement by citizens would nullify, abrogate, and de-legitimize the representatives. If representation has any meaning, it nullifies, abrogates and otherwise de-legitimizes the direct lawmaking of citizens. They cannot both happen and both be legitimate and everything, EVERYTHING depends on everybody agreeing to what is legitimate. Without that, it all breaks down.
If, as your nom de blog, as well as statements made and postures taken, suggests you are a lawyer consider this: suppose you are representing a client in court, before a judge and a jury… Suppose you get up to make your opening statement. Suppose that your client decides he doesn’t like the fourth and seventh sentences of your opening statement. Suppose that he/she stands up and starts making their own opening statement. What will happen? The judge cannot possibly let you both continue! You cannot make competing opening statements and both be legitimate. One of you must withdraw or it will be a mistrial, no? This is not a case of mere cacophony: either you represent your client and he/she must STFU or you must withdraw and the client deals with the court directly. Both opening statements cannot happen simultaneously: both would be considered illegitimate if they did.
But even if I believed that direct involvement by citizens could be legitimated I still would consider it the worst of ideas: for the simple logical progression; the citizenry which cannot make an appropriate decision with respect to electing a lawmaker won’t do better when enacting a law. If the representation has failed in its duties then the failure redounds to the citizenry who empowered them. At a point where they could appropriately enact a law or laws, they could appropriately elect a lawmaker… The idea that they need to step in and ‘fix’ the failing of the lawmakers elides their responsibility for the lawmaker.
Petr, I think your real beef is with the author of that sentence.
…
The “redress of grievances” clause applies to the response to specific instances of actual harm done by an action of the the government. It is there so the government cannot countersue you to keep you from getting satisfaction after having been harmed by action of the government and is limited in scope to redress, that is to say specific application of justice for the harm.
African Americans and Native Americans. for example, have actual grievances for redress of which they can petition the government and the government cannot punish them for making that petition. That’s what the clause means.
A ballot initiative is not a petition for redress of grievance. “The legislature is lazy, therefore I get to smoke marijuana” is not a redress of a grievance.
Petr, where did you get that interpretation of the First Amendment? Where did you the ridiculous, self-negating definition of “grievance”? Did anyone before you ever claim that all the First Amendment means is that the government can’t counter sue you as long as your grievance passes the Petr test?
I don’t deny that I really like democracy. I notice that you don’t deny that you hate it.
… you are invited to go piss up a rope.
I did deny it. You didn’t notice. I did it pretty explicitly, but you didn’t notice. That’s pretty clearly because anything beyond a fourth grade reading level is gobbleygook to you. Here, let me spell it out for you: if I say your use of the word ‘animus’ is mistaken, I deny the animus.
It’s not democracy you hate, it’s just the first amendment.
“If the ‘will of the people’ is neither wise nor perceptive enough to enact a legislature then that same ‘will of the people’ is neither wise nor perceptive enough to enact legislation. ”
Petr, did you stop for even 5 seconds to consider lack of logic in that sentence? Because if, as you claim, people are not “wise or perceptive enough” to enact legislation, then why would you assume they are “wise and perceptive enough” to choose legislators? And if the people can be trusted to pick a legislature, why can’t they be trusted to pass laws?
There are people on this thread who have tried to make the case that legislators are in a better position, due to time and resources, to make laws. While I disagree with those people, at least they are trying to make a real case from real circumstances.
What I object to in your comments, Petr, is that you don’t do that. Instead you strike the pose of the superior logician who has reasoned this out scientifically. But your logic doesn’t work. It’s filled with twisted definitions, false history and non sequiturs. Especially non sequiturs.
Please pay attention. I make no judgement on the thing itself. I judge the two together as being incompatible. You can do either. You can’t do both. Because we have already done the one, we can’t do the other, however good it might be absent the one. That’s the essence of my argument.
We are, at present, a republic. If you want to change that and make it a direct democracy, I’ll be there with you. But we are not a direct democracy. So when we try to pretend we are a direct democracy we weaken the republic. We have already enjoined representation. That is a thing we do every two years. It is a hard and fast fact. You can’t undo it. To then say it’s your moral right to change a specific law goes exactly and precisely against this thing we’ve already done. If we had not done it, and you proposed a direct democracy, I’d say “YEAH! Let’s do it” But the fact of representation is a fait accompli and you can’t turn your back on it.
If the situation was reversed, and we were a direct democracy and you tried to introduce the hybridization of adding some form of representation, I’d argue just as long and just as hard that you can’t do that. We are what we are. What you wish to be, and your attempts to implement it, weaken what we are. This is true. It would still be true if the opposite forms held: if we were a direct democracy and you tried to fiddle with republican knobs and twiddles you would weaken the direct democracy and I way cry ‘hold!’
So your objection has nothing to do with whether people are “wise and perceptive enough” to enact laws–even though you brought the subject up.
Instead, it’s a new objection–that a republican form of government is just incompatible with direct democracy and that you’re scared of a “hybrid government.” We mustn’t dilute the purity of our precious republican fluids.
You have a talent for pulling things out of . . . thin air. I’ll give you that.
… My objection has everything to to do with whether people are “wise and perceptive enough” to chose a legislator. The very act of attempting to nullify the people’s choice by direct action IS THE STATEMENT that they have been neither wise nor perceptive in their choice of legislator. It’s the same class of decision. They have already made the choice of legislator. If that was a bad choice, they are unlikely to be able to improve on that decision by enabling legislation.
If you are unable to judge the sausage maker you are not going to be able to judge the sausage. If you can judge the sausage you should be able to judge the sausage maker. What about this is at all difficult to comprehend?
It is nonsense to say that once people have voted that they can not improve their decision in a later election. It is one of your Olympic sized non sequiturs.
There are elections every two years. Why keep having elections if voters are so “unlikely” to ever have more wisdom or perception than they did in the previous election?
Voters sometimes do better, sometimes worse. But ii is absurd to claim that a decision in one election can’t be reversed without destroying the republic.
… As I’m sure you’re aware, “non sequitur” means “does not follow.” As in, it does not follow that, if the citizens CANNOT pick a good legislature, they CAN pick good legislation. This, however, is the progression people take when they say, ‘our legislature sucks, therefore the people must do direct democracy.’ That’s a non sequitur nonparaill (I wish I knew how to say ‘pardon my french, in latin’)
And the conjugate non sequitur is instructive also: It does not follow that if citizens CAN choose a good legislature they are necessarily needed at all to indulge in direct democracy. Especially given that republic is the form we’ve chosen and direct democracy is not.
Your mistake is in thinking I’m throwing up my hands in despair calling the whole game useless and that voters cannot improve their decision. I am not saying that. I am saying the exact opposite of that. I am saying that, in fact, every two years we do have the opportunity to improve upon our decisions and if we took greater care in electing the legislature it would be entirely superfluous for us to even consider enacting specific legislation. And, further, that is at the present, the only wholly legitimate option because that is the form we’ve chosen.
The answer to ‘our legislature sucks’ is to iterate on legislators until we have a legislature that does not suck. Advocates of ballot initiatives and direct democracy tend to downplay the importance of the vote for legislators by suggesting that the ballot initiative is the only instance of the ‘will of the people.’ This is not true. A vote for representation is every bit the will of the people as a vote for a specific piece of legislation.
about “wise and perceptive voters” means the exact opposite of what you’ve been saying it means.
You admit that the voters can improve on their past mistakes.
So now, why do you think that the ONLY way to rectify the inadequacies of a legislature is by waiting for a new election and perhaps electing better legislators?
If the sausage is inedible, one way to rectify it is to reevaluate the sausage maker. In the meantime, though, you might want to have something else for breakfast.
No. I admit no such thing. You should admit you were confused about what I said and projected what you thought I meant unto what I said.
Because that is the form we’ve chosen. If I go to a restaurant to eat, I forgo the ability to walk into the restaurants kitchen and fix myself a meal. When dining out, I chose to be waited upon and served, rather than to serve myself. When you choose to be represented you have to wait through that representation.
Or, you might just have to tough it out and go hungry.
Can voters make decisions in a in a election that are better than the decisions in a previous election? Answer yes or no.
…though I think the more common interpretation, and one Madison et al would support, but still makes your point, is that we all get to let our representatives know what is on our mind. We have the right, without fear of retribution, to contact or lobby our representatives to vote the way that we prefer, or to ask for their assistance in working with the government. In MA that even extends to the idea that your legislator will file a bill on your behalf. It is still ultimately the legislator who gets to make the decision and stand on his or her record rather than legislation by plebiscite.
Let’s start with the obvious. Changes to the Constitution must be approved by the electorate. Amendments can be initiated by a legislator or by voters, move through a lengthy Constitutional convention process but ultimately they must be approved by the electorate in order to change the Constitution. If you do not trust the voters to change the Constitution then we are stuck forever in the past. BTW, the original MA Constitution, the oldest continuously operating in the world, was voted on by the electorate (they must have been a bunch of untrustworthy bastards LOL).
I am generally not a fan of initiative petitions but I am also not a fan of most elected officials. I vote for and against both on a regular basis. But my voting for a legislator is not an unequivocal ratification of all of their politics. I have spent enough time under the Golden Dome to know that some issues will never be addressed by pols who are afraid of getting an opponent in the next cycle, let alone losing. Social hot button issues like repro rights, drug policy, and physician assisted suicide have historically been resisted by cowardice in our pols even when the electorate has moved. I don’t smoke weed but I know our current laws are stupid, that our Lege won’t do anything to fix them and that the initiative is a cattle prod. I hope that the Lege will then correct flaws in it, as it did with the supposedly sacrosanct Prop 2.5 (e.g. I hope that after enactment the Lege will amend the law to allow growing for personal consumption but I don’t think they even have the stones for that modest change).
Your analogy to a criminal trial makes no sense at all in this context. None.
… who said anything against that?
Voting on changes to the charter document(s) are the same specie of representation as a vote for a Congressman or Governor. It is a republican vote for, in this instance, a republican form. It is not direct democracy.
Voting for a specific outcome or a specific enacting of a law is direct democracy.
I’m impartial. If we want a direct democracy, that’s fine with me. At the present time we have a republic, which is also fine with me. We can’t have both for reasons I’ve already explicated: We can’t have both not because it’s messy but simply because it’s not workable in the same way the pitcher can’t be the batter… the logic of the situation will not permit it.
Hold on a second: I’m the one here saying that if you can’t trust the voters to make a decision upon a lawmaker, you can’t trust them to make the decision on a law. I’m not the one saying don’t trust the citizens: I’m the one pointing out that an effort to enact a law is a distrust, in effect a veto, of the effort to enable a lawmaker. Choose one. You can’t choose both. You can’t have a vacuum and an atmosphere… the one precludes the other. Choosing first the one, then choosing the other, nullifies both choices. Choose one. At the present moment we have chosen a republican form. You want to choose the other? Very well, then. Propose a change to the constitution and I’ll happily use the republican form to vote for the direct democracy.
it’s all about trust. If you try to enable a law because you don’t trust the lawmaker you have already entrusted with power, you’ve tied yourself into an ontological pretzel in a political ontology wholly, and only, supported by shared beliefs and trust.
Duh.
You wrote
Trust nobody. Always cut the deck. Or let’s bring back a King chosen by either god or the lucky sperm club.
Or we can allow our representative democracy to continue to operate with the ability of the voters to amend the Constitution, amend statutory law and elect their representatives. How about we let same voters complain about the results, and let a motivated few act on their complaints. Most won’t act but will instead complain or live in their political theory class from college. That is cool too. And the rest of us do not have to heed the opinion.
You wrote the line
that has no meaning in the real world. Remember, this is “reality-based commentary.”
… we try prolonged, and therefore profound, thinking, first?
Shooting from the hip, and that for the sake of your ego, rarely ever works out for the best. Chill. Stop taking it personally. Understanding the problem space — which you clearly do not — is necessary before launching into a defense of the sacred cows you hold so dear. If you thought about it more carefully they wouldn’t be so sacred and you wouldn’t be so mad at me for being right about it.
and then we can watch the whole thing collapse under the weight of its internal contradictions — a house divided, and all that — and we’ll go back to the beginning. I’ll be there. I won’t say I told you so. I won’t have to. You’ll know.
Gee I don’t know why anyone would.
You misunderstand. I do not take anything you write personally.
I just think you are wrong on theory and fact. It is clear from my previous comments that there is more subtlety and info about the relationship between our Constitution, the legislative process and the initiative process than in your comments.
Shoot from the hip? LOL I back up my comments with reference points, real facts.
That is exactly how I feel. I won’t defend the parts of the initiative I disagree with, mainly that the taxes are too low. The status quo is far worse, and the legislature will then be forced to adopt something similar to the Rogers/Jehlen proposal that had stricter controls, higher taxes, and more uniform regulations.
Democracy is not spelled v-e-n-t-r-i-l-o-q-u-i-s-m.
Representatives are not puppets and the electorate are not puppet masters. There are no strings. They cannot be forced to do something. That’s not democracy, that’s just pretense to your entitlement, which is to say, farce.
They can indeed be forced. By legalizing marijuana in this fashion, the people will have spoken and demonstrated to the legislature that this is an issue they have to support. When problems arise, the legislature will be confronting a status quo where a majority of the state has voted to legalize marijuana but it’s implementation is problematic, will be forced to pass laws that make the implementation less problematic and more successful.
No. They cannot be forced. You can’t force them to do squat. The day you elected them you empowered them. The minute you act against them you de-legitimize that power you granted… you are nullifying your own efforts.
If I authorize you to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on my behalf, and then stand up and say, clearly ‘no’ whenever you say ‘yes,’ what have I authorized? What am I saying that has meaning? Wherefor can a third party discern my intent? What have I done other than to negate my own efforts?
The people will have spoken when they elected the representatives IN THE FIRST PLACE. In a republic that is THE only legitimate statement of the ‘will of the people.’ I’m sorry if that offends your sense of entitlement, but there’s very little to be done about that now…
In your universe you take the Burkean example to the extreme, and argue not only does a legislator have a responsibility to use his or her judgment to do what is right even if the people oppose his or her stance, but that the people have a responsibility to confirm this even if their own judgment determines that he is wrong? That’s a very twisted definition of electoral accountability. By what standard does an incumbent lose their automatic right to re-election?
…This is your mistake. You write as though the election of a representative is just this thing that happens ‘automatically’, perhaps even orthogonally, to the ‘will of the people.’ You are not holding the election of representative at the same level of import as you hold a direct vote on a specific law by the people. This is the crucial error: you think your vote in a ballot initiative is more important, more powerful, more impactful and more vital than your vote for a representative. Why would you think that?
They are both on the exact same fucking piece of paper, the goddam ballot.
You further think you are morally entitled to express your voice in a ballot initiative EXACTLY and PRECISELY because you don’t give a flying french fart for your vote on representation. It can’t work that way. You will be disappointed, again and again, until your frustration, and the frustration of the representative, gives way to either apathy or anarchy or chaos
I am saying that a direct vote and a vote for representation are the positive and the negative poles of the election system and, therefore, when you put them together they add up to zero. Choose one. If you choose the one, then you give up on the other. I don’t care which one you choose, but you can’t choose both.
It is hard to explain how desperately wrong you were when you wrote
Perhaps you missed the language written into the first and all future iterations of the MA Constitution that allows the voters to amend the Constitution. Or you missed the further Constitutional language that creates the initiative process. Or maybe you missed something as simple as the First Amendment to the US Constitution, you know the guarantee that we citizens get to hold our government accountable. Your response to jconway that we cannot force legislators to do what we want? Pure BS. I have done it many times. Anybody who is a real activist can cite when they have done so. This my be outside your experience.
…and I can rob a bank and call it ‘income’ Doesn’t make it morally right or even a workable plan.
Because you insist on calling your terpitude moral, we’re stuck in a loop of representative waiting for the citizens to act, and the citizens increasingly more frustrated that the representatives aren’t acting. How is this going to end?
I’ll save you the trouble of thinking: it will not end well.
You keep reaching for totally irrelevant comparisons to the law making process. Moral terpitude? Wow, you are breaking out the big insults now but I am not offended, just enjoying it, a sign of a lost argument.
I actually do this work and have for more than half a century all across the world. If you have not done this kind of work then maybe you do not understand how democracies function. But I repeat myself.
… you missed the part where I expressly noted that amendments to the charter documents fit squarely in the mold of the republican form. I see no difference between all the people voting for a charter and all the people voting for representation. I see a huge difference between the republican form and the direct democratic attempts to enact specific laws. If that’s a distinction you refuse to apply then you’re hopeless.
I saw that. I’m saying that those are the seeds of our own destruction: the casual hybridization of incompatible strains that will destroy our republic, from the inside. The Constitution isn’t perfect. The people aren’t perfect. None of this is guaranteed.
You can fiddle in the system all you want, and call yourself clever, but every time you de-legitimize a legislator — and by your own account you’re a serial batterer — you sow resentment, frustration, and confusion. Each act might seem small to you, but the cumulative weight — now seen, especially here, in the seething frustration by the people towards the legislators you piss on — is going to cause it to all come crashing down, eventually. The way to truly hurt someone from whom you’ve wrested something of value is to return it to them broken. That’s exactly what you do. Again and again.
Sorry to bust your oh-so-self-important bubble.
You wrote
It does not bother me to read your words. BMG readers know who you are, maybe smart but your judgement is…
I have been an activist for democracy for more than a half century. I help build peace and democracy. Most of that time was been spent in MA politics. The last few decades have been in other parts of the world. I am pretty sure that I have never met you anywhere doing any political work. Never.
Next week I am going to another country where we are actually trying to restore a democracy and end a vicious civil war. It is a quick trip. I am guessing I won’t see you there or any other place I work, whether it is Beacon Hill or elsewhere.
… you haven’t met me in this capacity, since, having long since decided that that work of undermining our republic is morally repugnant and entirely feckless, I don’t do it. Derp. Have you not been attending to anything I’ve said? You’re like the pusher who says “how do you know drugs are bad for you unless you try them…”
I’m sorry for you that you’ve spent decades of your life in a morally repugnant and entirely feckless endeavor. Not, however, as sorry as I am for all of us if my meager rhetoric is your first exposure to this reality. That you appear to relish it is altogether too depressing.
…we HAVE seen examples of where the legislature outright overturns a law enacted by the people so, no, I wouldn’t say they are forced.
I cannot think of an initiative that was repealed by the Lege but there may be some in the not so distant past that I do not recall. The public finance election law was the most obvious initiative that was destroyed by the Lege. It was easily predicted by anybody in the building because the law required annual appropriations, which cannot be subject to the initiative process. That is why Finneran knew he would beat the Draisen/Fine/Donnelly troika, smug as they were.
Go ahead, please name another with details Christphoer
…though I seem to recall them nixing a voter-approved tax roll back as well. Point is, legislation enacted by the people in no way legally enjoins the General Court from repealing it the first chance they get. They of course risk political consequences, but that is a different matter.
A bill was put out by Sen. Jehlen and Rep. Rogers. It was not put up for a vote but tabled. It was a bill with tighter regulations and better taxation models than the proposal we will be voting on. Since that proposal is likely to pass, the legislature really missed a great opportunity to weigh in and do its job.
.
How are you qualified to choose your elected officials?
…give us an idea of their values and judgement as well as where they stand on the issues pertinent to that election season, which does not require the level of specificity that directly voting on legislation does.
to vote on a single issue than a candidate they’ve likely never heard of, and very few know personally well.
Even people we think we like and know well as voters could be the next DiMasi or Anthony Wiener. Ballot questions can’t do that, because they’re not people.
Bob’s argument is spot on. Under Mark’s measure, maybe voting is too hard for him to do at all. The record of MA voters on ballot questions isn’t exactly perfect, but IMO it’s pretty good, and given the huge swath of issues that Beacon Hill has refused to touch with a six foot stick, 1000000000000% necessary.
The day Beacon Hill actually decides to do its freaking job and get shit done, then I’ll oppose ballot questions.
…voters are willing and able to do the research and become really well-versed in complex issues. I’m probably moreso than most if I do say so myself, but I wouldn’t be that confident that I could do it. We pay legislators and their staff to do this on our behalf. Also, voters can’t collectively debate, amend, mark up, or otherwise improve the proposal, but must take it or leave it.
full of symbolic, meaningless votes that obscure what the legislator is really committed to accomplishing. Divining where a legislator really stands ( as opposed to his/her poses) requires deep attention to, and deep understanding of, the legislative process–as well as clairvoyance.
I’d rather have an imperfect check on an imperfect legislative system, than to believe in legislative infallibility.
Just that they have access to more and better information most of the time. The rest of us have other activities and interests. As for where they stand, that’s what a voting record is for, the big stuff getting roll calls, as well as public statements. If they stray too far there is always the next election, but they do have to be challenged for that to work.
What exact information do state legislators have access to that the broader public doesn’t? It’s honestly not that much, and most any private citizen could draw on more information on any given topic than any legislator will ever read on the same topic — even if they’re interested and engaged.
The main argument one could make in favor of state legislator expertise, as you’ve presented, is time — that we elect representatives to give them the time to become experts on all these issues, but in 2016, in the days of constant fundraising and constituent events (and when most state legislators have second jobs), I think the amount of time most (not all!) legislators spend on research is depressingly little.
Which is maybe why less and less is getting done every year, and more and more of what does get done seems to be getting done behind closed doors.
Finally, I think legislative views on marijuana are a great rebuttal to your notion that they are using their time and access to become experts on an issue as relevant to the lives of many people across the Commonwealth as marijuana legalization. The information anyone would need to decide marijuana is safer than currently legal and widely available drugs is widely available and abundant, as is the information to prove how damaging marijuana prohibition has been to tens of thousands of individuals across the Commonwealth. Instead of tapping into that information and drawing logical conclusions, our elected leaders are instead often peddling outdated theories and anecdotes, or pretending the issue doesn’t exist, like ostriches burying their heads in the sand.
… a very cogent, and powerful, argument… against the corrupting influence of money in politics and against the underlying mechanisms of elections… which is to say this is a very cogent and powerful argument against both the cost of and the very pernicious affects of modern marketing and advertising — that is to say, forms of manipulation — as applied to elections.
It is not, however, a very good argument in support of a ballot initiative, any ballot initiative, since the same forces — money and manipulation — are brought to bear in the attempts at passage of ballot questions as are used on behalf of individual candidates standing for election.
A legislature is, and ought to be, a very powerful body. This is one of the powers they have. They have the power to decide to do. They have the power to decide not to do. That is the power citizens give to them when they elect them to representation. Anybody they elect will have this power so it is the responsibility of the citizens to elect people who will use this power wisely.
Or, put another way, if you elect an ostrich to a position, why would you affect surprise when the ostrich does what an ostrich does??
Legislatures are split in two. They are subject to vetoes from the executive branch. Their actions are subject to being overruled by the courts.
In the same way, they are subject to voters’ initiatives.
Nobody would argue that instead of having a governor with veto power, or a court with power to invalidate legislative acts, that we just elect better legislators, or just get the money out of politics.
We’ve been electing legislators for almost 250 years, yet there are people arguing now that if we would just “throw the bums out” at the next election, we wouldn’t need this check on their power.
But that all happens in the context of representation. The voters elect the split legislature. The voters elect executives. Then the representatives and the executives appoint the courts. The three branches then interact in a formalized manner.
It’s all in the context of representation: action on behalf of the citizens. The citizens get to choose who goes into the arena. They are not, thereafter, empowered to direct how those chosen act within the arena. They are, in fact, forbidden from jumping into the arena themselves because that abrogates, entirely, representation.
No… I’m arguing that a ballot initiative is, in fact, a nullification of the voters own power because it is in opposition to a decision they have already made to allow somebody to represent them: they are checking themselves. It is, in fact, not a exercise of any powers but rather a dilution of their powers…
The citizenry cannot say the electors represent and then take back that representation when they judge it to have been done poorly. That is, in fact, not representation but puppetry. The act of empowering a specific piece of legislation is in direct opposition, indeed conflict, with the act of empowering a legislature. You cannot do both and have a working, workable government.
that is entirely empty of meaning. A distinction without a difference.
.. this is as much as saying elections themselves are empty of meaning: elections are the choosing of representation, that is to say the actual construction of that very context.
“The citizens get to choose who goes into the arena. They are not, thereafter, empowered to direct how those chosen act within the arena.”
you count a recall vote.
eom
Access includes time. Legislators have built in time to review the material, have staff to do research and report findings, and have knowledgeable folks on all sides of the issue available at any time to have a discussion.
I’ve got 20 minutes, wikipedia, and bluemassgroup.
You really think that’s comparable?
. . .while as a voter I can concentrate on the 3 or 4 issues up for a vote. On balance, I think voters have the advantage.
and then get back to me on how deeply legislatures and their staffs research issues.
An age with a flood, an overwhelming firehose of information that may or may not be true or relevant. An age with overwork and distraction. There is an argument that legislators may need to be prodded to politically risky policy. There isn’t much an argument I can see for displacing professional policymakers.
…as would probably many active BMGers, but then it becomes your JOB to really study the data, interview experts, etc. in a way that most citizens can’t or won’t. Besides, by invoking 2016 vs. 1916 and the difference of access to information you come awfully close it seems to saying it’s all on the internet, and we all know how trustworthy that can be.
Meaning lobbyists.
The initiative process exists as a progressive reform of legislatures that were and are beholden to the special interests that buy and pay for the legislators.
Let’s talk Question 4. Yes, it has flaws and it would be far better to go through the legislative process to iron out the problems. But time and again the Legislature has demonstrated they do not have the backbone to address the “will of the people” and we’ve had to use the initiative process to correct a wrong.
Twice the voters overwhelmingly voted to first decriminalize pot and then make it legal for medical use and now the people are force to vote to (hopefully) legalize it. If we did not have this tool we would be living in the state where possession of a joint would lead to a criminal record still. So I feel my back is against the wall, the legislature will never act and it’s time I role up my sleeves and help with the sausage making.
… in the stead of any election effort parallel to the election of representatives, that only has the effect of creating contention and contretemps, the people put forth the same amount of time, money, effort, determination and care that goes into a ballot initiative into throwing the present set of bums out? How’s about getting a whole new set of bums? It seems like a lot of sound and fury to enact by initiative a veto against your choice of representative (also by ballot)…
This sort of pre-arranged butting of heads, it seems to me, is a remarkably insane method of guaranteeing maximum ruckus with minimum affect (even if it were legit). If the initiative reflects the “will of the people” what does the election of the representative (oft on the exact same piece of paper, called a ‘ballot’) represent? Maybe if the choice of representative was made with more care — that is to say, more will — then that same will (of the people) will be reflected in , and not refracted by, the legislature.
All this is to say, as a wise man once said, we get the politics we deserve…
Voters can go around the Legislature and pass laws. And the Legislature can amend and repeal them.
This is better than the California system that, in effect, creates a 2-tiered legal code, one from voters by referendum and a subordinate system of laws passed by the legislative process.
It’s also better than a system where the Legislature is the only way to go. Especially in a no-party state like ours.
There is a regrettable double standard in the Great and General Court that holds any tax-cutting referendum to be holy writ while other popular votes can be dispensed with. We should change that. But it’s still a better system.
…and thus not a fan of direct democracy. Two exceptions that make sense to me are constitutional amendments, which should supersede the legislature, and cases where no action has been taken at all (but not to overturn legislative action).
…I believe in playing by the rules we have rather than the rules I wish we had and that if you don’t vote you can’t complain. I will go ahead and vote yes on 3, but that’s the only yes from me this time.
I’m voting for legalizing marijuana. I won’t care if it doesn’t win, it doesn’t affect me.
I don’t think a ballot question can handle all the legal aspects of legalization and expect the legislature and governor to implement it carefully.
But there has been an excellent series of debates on these four topics on WBUR, with the final one coming soon. I would think that they are available on a pod cast or something.
I think direct democracy is necessary in cases where the legislature refuses to act. Not, as in California, when it doesn’t take (relatively) much. In Massachusetts we generally get to that level, legally.
What is different now is that referendum questions needed popular support. Now, all it takes is money to buy that support. I don’t know about the animal caging question, but the other three were pushed onto the ballot by paid signature gatherers. That makes me really disinclined to vote for them.
I think direct democracy fine and doesn’t need to be stamped out. There are plenty of towns that are run through town meetings. Unless the disadvantages are overwhelming and obvious, democracy should be the first option. There are things not to like about the ballot initiative process, but nothing anyone has said about the process on this thread justifies abandoning it.
I do like the ballot initiative as a corrective to legislative action, as in Massachusetts. In California, it can serve as a substitute. In Switzerland, a canton couldn’t extend suffrage to women until the 1970s because it had to be through direct democracy.
Remember, the only reason marriage equality didn’t become subject to a vote in Massachusetts is because anti-equality people couldn’t get 1/4 of the legislature to oppose it. Had that happened, the people of Massachusetts likely would have embarrassed ourselves by banning marriage equality at the time when it was not yet the default option.
…though I suppose every system has its pros and cons. At least Town Meetings involve discussion and process, though if you are lucky in most cases 1% of the town’s voters show up to an open Town Meeting.
I’m with Bob.
If you don’t like ballot initiatives and want the Legislature to pass appropriate legislature without it then don’t vote on the ballot questions at all. Otherwise you are telling your representatives that you want them to vote no. It is utterly stupid to vote “no” on an issue you want to pass: either vote yes or abstain.
Personally I am voting no on 1&2, yes on 3, and on the fence about 4.
This is the kind of stuff that goes away under legalization and we still have to deal with under decriminalization. How is this not a criminal justice reform issue again?
Overreach is as overreach does does
This is the kind of thing that happens when people are dumb. there’s nothing particular to Marijuana legislation about people being dumb.
Stealing milk, a product that is already legal, is a criminal offense. We are not advocating for free marijuana for everyone. The law calls for unlicensed pot dealers to be prosecuted, it prevents minors from purchasing or using the substance, and it criminalizes those that grow without permission. But, under our scenario this 81 year old woman would be a law abiding citizen free from police prosecution and harassment. It’s not overreach if the very law the police are enforcing is itself, irrational and stupid.
The burden of proof is on the laws defenders to show why marijuana is more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol which we have legalized, regulate, and make revenue off of. Seeing that they have not and cannot, then we have to treat it the same. And I will not make the perfect, which the legislature had an opportunity to pass and failed to, the enemy of the good which is this flawed law, that is substantially less flawed and less unjust than the status quo.
Either you want old ladies arrested for growing pot or you don’t, that is the question that decides this question, not whether the regulatory structure will work properly or not. Like any policy, it will have to be modified as it is implemented and we learn from it. But the policy we have been implementing for decades wastes money and ruins lives.
… how I apply the analogies I employ. You can, however much you seem to enjoy it, argue with yourself and pretend I said something I didn’t, but in general that’s kinda boring. (The diagnostic term for that is ‘reaction formation.’ So the next time you’re on the couch with your favorite Freudian, maybe you can address it there. )
The analogy was regarding overreach. Both offenses were minor. Both offenses were met with dramatic overreaction. One offense involved marijuana. The other offense did not involved marijuana. The offense you chose, complete with whirly-bird, was no doubt intended to show the absurdity of marijuana laws. The comparison was intended to demonstrate to you that absurdities in law enforcement exist apart for the specifics of the laws.
I agree with markles – these initiative petitions have become a playground for special interests who can afford to hire signature gatherers to get something on the ballot, and who can afford to pay to advertise for their desired outcome.
Q1 was placed on the ballot by someone who would profit from an additional slot license at Suffolk Downs.
Q2 was placed on the ballot by a bunch of hedge fund guys, sitting around in a luxury box at Yankee Stadium, who want to smash the cap on charter schools.
Q4 was written by and for the marijuana industry. State Senator Jason Lewis argues the proposed law has a much lower rate of taxation, and is much more favorable to the industry, compared to the Colorado law.
When the lobbyists and money interests can’t get the legislature to enact their priorities, they can try the initiative petition. Unlike a 10 registered voters warrant article at Town Meeting, the threshold keeps citizens off the ballot but is a playground for special interests. I don’t like it.
Oh, and the chickens? I have some compassion for the poor little animals. Yeah, I’ll vote for this one, but you need an exception to every rule.
Senator Lewis had an opportunity to co-sponsor a bill with his colleagues Pat Jehlen and Dave Rogers that would have allowed for stricter controls and higher taxation, he choose instead to oppose any form of legalization entirely and force the bill we have on the ballot. And I am unaware of Question 4 getting money from out of state marijuana industry representatives, unless you count Rick Steves 🙂
on the 4 ballot questions consistent with my philosophy of humanistic balance between the public good and individual rights.
Let’s take them in order:
1. the detrimental societal costs of gambling outweigh the financial benefits to the state
2. As the proud son of a union, public school teacher I cannot support the expansion of our limited resources to privatization
3. As the loving Dad of ” Bits ” , my sweet Pom / Chu mix puppy, the thought of causing cruel suffering to our farm animals for profit violates my belief in Dr. Albert Schweitzer’s axiom : ” All life is sacred.”
4. I have always believed that marijuana should be legalized, regulated and taxed like tobacco and alcohol.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
You blame Lewis for not sponsoring a bill that would still have the effect of legalizing marijuana, but what sense does that make from the standpoint of someone who does not want to legalize it at all?
I would respect his position if it was ‘I oppose marijuana’, but he always presented himself as someone who approached the issue with an open mind, would read the studies, interview Colorado policy makers and come to a rational reality based conclusion. He also stated on this forum that there are ways of legalizing he might have been willing to support and he wish it didn’t come to this flawed policy we are voting on.
Well, he should’ve supported one of them! If not Jehlen’s proposal than a competing one of his own that he could’ve felt comfortable voting for. Even if it also died in committee, at least he could say, here is a path forward I supported and fought for. And he was the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Marijuana, this is an issue he wanted to be a player in and asked to be part of. And then he threw up his hands and pretended his hands were tied and he had no other choice. He did have a choice, and he could’ve backed a policy compromise if he was truly open to legalizing ‘the right way’.
It’s certainly possible to come to an issue with an open mind, and then once you have studied the issue develop a firm stance one way or the other.
made the attempt to appear as if he was a ‘progressive’ on the issue and was interested in legalization, even as he engaged in fearmongering. It was an incredibly dishonest and patronizing diary, IMO, which is why I don’t think it went over particularly well.
As jconway says, he should just be honest, say he opposes it straight out, and argue from that perspective.
I read the link; Lewis has cold feet because of his daughters. As the father of a girl about to turn 12, I can relate.
I might of course point out that we expect legislators to imagine people in different circumstances when they craft legislation … oh wait I just did. A good “Sheesh!” would cover it better. Maybe more than one?
‘Written for the industry” seems a bit much though.
Nearly 60% of high school students have tried it. The numbers stay the same in CO vs. states where it is illegal. Just as they can access abortions whether we force them to ask their parents for permission or not. But under one scenario, they will have access to a product or service that is safe and under the other scenario they are subject to black market forces that do not have their safety in mind and are not regulated by the state.
That is what is infuriating in this argument. The Christopher’s, Petr’s, and yes Sen. Lewis live in a fantasy much like the religious right does, that banning something makes it go away. It doesn’t, what it does do is drag the market underground where none of the societal costs of the vice can be mitigated against through taxation and where the government can’t have a say in regulating it for safety.
I have never smoked pot and am morally opposed to abortion, but I can’t force my values on others as a matter of philosophy and using the law to do so rarely succeeds as a matter of policy. This is why I would argue it is a progressive litmus test. Either we trust people with their own bodies or we don’t, and either we trust the state to regulate it and use the revenues wisely or we don’t.
And that is a good thing
I’m still having a very hard time believing that usage, especially in a way that has public consequences, will not go up when it becomes legal. Even in an age of greater restrictions I still encounter cigarette smokers, including underage with some regularity and that product is legal. I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have ever smelled pot, a heretofore illegal substance. Also, you hear about a lot more instances of driving under the influence of alcohol, again of course an otherwise legal product, than you do driving under the influence of marijuana.
According to an August 2016 study. And I welcome these findings. This means adults are more likely to actually pay society back for the consequences of their behavior through taxes and adhering to regulations and that minors are no more likely to use under a legal regimen, but they are more likely to use safe products rather than those laced with harmful additives.
And your cigarette and alcohol examples seem to prove my point that less folks drive under the influence of pot than of alcohol and that more teens smoke cigarettes than pot.
My point is I very much fear it no longer will be post-legalization. Also, there is no way I can reconcile with someone who welcomes the news that adult usage rates have gone up. I have no desire to make “safer” that which one should not do in the first place and will be as ludicrous as “safer” cigarettes. What the heck happened to just say no!?
Really?
As long as they’re not driving, etc., what the heck does it matter to you? It’s none of your business, and it doesn’t rise to the level of being in the public interest to clamp down on it since there aren’t major health or addiction issues.
I don’t partake in marijuana and haven’t even tried it — it’s not my thing — but it is ridiculous to try to tell people what they can or can’t do when that something they want to do can be done safely by adults with minimal, if any, long term health consequences.
I know the proposal restricts use to 21+ (though I’m skeptical of that working given underage drinking and cigarette smoking), so of course I am arguing against adult usage. I have found links previously that lead me to have public and private health concerns and see no reason to introduce another substance to the legal arena. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it. Lucky for us, we each get to cast our own votes on November 8th. If it passes, I will be extremely surprised if we don’t hear more stories of operating under the influence or if I’m not unwillingly exposed to it more often.
All those things are more addictive and more destructive by any measure to a person’s life. I’ve never met someone who’s life was destroyed by pot; I have met people who have died from lung cancer, and who’ve destroyed their lives with alcohol or problem gambling to the point of going to jail or losing a house.
You should also support the banning of candy and sugary substances, right? I mean, that’s bad for us.
What else? Freedom? Fun?
Did you read The Giver and think it was prescriptive?
You absolutely will not get some grand unified theory from me about all of these substances. They have their differences and it strikes me as intellectually lazy and ideological to insist on consistency. I for one have heard of people whose lives and health have been destroyed by pot. Cigarettes I would love to ban, but alcohol can be used wisely, candy is food so we have to know where to draw the line (though there HAVE been limited bans such as in NYC) and the latter two also have some benefits. Gambling isn’t even a substance, but an activity (though I did ultimately vote not to get the state involved and will vote against this year’s question 1). Yes, they all have their issues and yes they can all be used in moderation, but pot is not yet legal and there is no compelling reason for it to be. If you want to write another diary proposing the ban on any of the others feel free and maybe I will comment, but in the meantime I refer my honourable friend to comments I have made previously on these matters.
There will be more pot use if it is legalized. Wickepedia (and others) say maybe 9% of people become psychologically (not physically) dependent on pot (marijuana/cannabis use disorder).
Is it a gateway drug? I knew a couple dozen tokers back in the day. About half went on to also use hash, THC, coke, acid, speed, and a couple even went on to injectables (where I drew the line), two friends died of overdoses. Common thread they all started with pot.
I prefer the controlled buzz of a six pack of Yuengling nowadays. I won’t deny anyone the right to experiment, I know however it will lead to more 12-13 year olds who steal from their parents stash and younger brains are still developing.
Bottom line I just don’t want to pay for peoples rehab. Legalize anything you want just don’t be surprised if it has negative consequences.
EOM
haven’t done your homework.
Why don’t you start with this Reuters article:
Drug experts say alcohol worse than crack or heroin.
And here’s an article from NBC News on marijuana being safer than alcohol.
Then there’s this article from the Washington Post, which goes into length at describing alcohol’s role in violent crime, and isn’t subtle with its headline: Alcohol is still the deadliest drug in the US, and it’s not even close.
I want to address one last comment:
1) The fact that people want to use it safely and legally, when it’s far safer than already legal drugs on the market, feels like a compelling reason to legalize it to me. And there are compelling reasons beyond that, as well.
2) Since when has the measure of whether something should be legal or not been that there should be a compelling reason for something to be legal? There was never a compelling argument in favor of Meet the Kardashian’s existence as a television show, but that doesn’t mean we go and ban it.
You have the whole thing backwards. If we’re going to ban something, there better be a highly compelling public reason for that thing to be banned. And when much more dangerous substances are legal in the US, there is no compelling reason to ban pot. Period. Full stop.
I get it, you disagree, as is your right. You have evidence of your own too – that’s great. I am not going to rehash the same arguments and I’m especially not going to find the links for the umpteenth time on a computer that reacts so slowly my internet connection might as well be dial up.
I was a regular weed user in my younger years.
There is a dramatic difference between the behavior of a driver, especially a younger driver, who is under the influence of alcohol versus those under the influence of marijuana. People who are high on weed do NOT get behind the wheel of a car to see how fast they can go. People high on weed drive slower, not faster. While anecdotal and not statistically significant, I’ll say that I’ve sat at more than one traffic light in my youth while the driver sat and watched the lights change colors, entranced by the “light show”. I’m not saying it’s safe. I am saying that it is starkly different from the behavior of the drunken kids who drove at 110MPH into the tree in front of my house on Boston Road (Rt 3a) in Billerica, the open cans of beer and worse flying around the crash site.
The hazards people intoxicated by weed create (and they are real) are by driving slowly, reacting slowly, and impeding traffic. Certainly they may sometimes make unpredictable movements — they do so very slowly.
This reminds me of an old joke about a cop pulling over a stoned driver:
Cop: License and registration, please. This is a 30 mile zone. Do you have any idea of how fast you were going?
Stoner: Uh, sorry officer. No, I don’t — maybe 50 or 60?
Cop: Actually it was 5.
I suggest that we won’t see major changes until marijuana is legalized at the federal level. After that happens, I agree with you that we are likely to see an increase in cases of drivers operating under the influence of marijuana. I think we will also see a decrease in the cases of drivers operating under the influence of alcohol.
More importantly, I think we will see a widespread decline in accident rates, especially among young drivers. I think we will see a decline in intoxicant-related deaths and injuries, as the intoxicant of choice shifts from alcohol to marijuana.
I understand that you and I will vote differently on question 4. In my view, any societal harm from legalizing marijuana will be more than offset by decreased usage of alcohol — especially by young people.
have been the big liquor companies.
Other big donors that have historically fought pot legalization ballot questions?
Private prisons shareholders/execs and prison guard unions — who’s incomes and jobs depend on locking up marijuana users, particularly minorities.
And police unions, who’s departments have benefited immensely from the federal and state funding created by the “War on Drugs,” and who’s salaries depend in part on the property they seize when drugs are used on, in or even near drug users. Even if the property owners themselves have broken no laws.
Oh — and drug companies, particularly those who own major pain relief pills.
The reason why we have marijuana prohibition is because a lot of wealthy and/or politically powerful industries and professions have a financial incentive for that prohibition to continue. Liquor companies and drug companies don’t want the competition, prisons want more inmates, and police want their state and federal funding for the “War on Drugs” and the so-called “right” to steal homes and cars, among other valued assets of marijuana users or even those who are merely associated with them.
This is the real opposition to marijuana — the people backing it and criminalizing it, and not coincidentally, financially benefiting from its continued prohibition.
I have to believe that when police and prosecutors line up against legalizing marijuana it’s for a reason other than wanting to make more work for themselves. They can still get their funding to fight what would still be illegal.
Since you keep on the line that LEOs, as opposed to MDs, social workers and psychologists are the best informed about the danger of weed, try taking a look at reality with no excuses about your slow computer. Here is an article about how the private prison industry is on your side
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/04/28/how-for-profit-prisons-have-become-the-biggest-lobby-no-one-is-talking-about/?utm_term=.f7026d347826
I’m not a big fan of private prisons either, and am very glad we don’t have them here in MA, but from time to time you end up agreeing with your usual opponents – nothing wrong with that.
Be clear that I am agreeing with none of your words. You like keeping marijuana a criminal offense which the for-profit prison industry supports. I don’t
I favor the decriminalization of marijuana.
.
…and have never been a big fan of the it-will-happen-anyway cop-out on any number of issues, but if black market is the price we pay for not condoning it (and to be clear, like it or not, intended or not, that is how at least some will interpret legalization, especially kids – for that matter that’s even how some interpret decriminalization.), well at least part of me says so be it.
Denying facts because you don’t like them is the cop out.
has corresponded with shrinking usage among young teens.
it’s fairly easy to understand why: getting rid of the black market means it’s actually tougher for younger kids to get their hands on it, in aggregate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/21/colorado-survey-shows-what-marijuana-legalization-will-do-to-your-kids/
A heretic–call him “Publius?”–might say that the real lesson of 2016 is that we need more from the elites and less from ordinary people: more political courage from elected representatives and elites, more superdelegates (especially on the GOP side, where there are none!), more real reporting of real news from real journalists, less Twitter, less populism, less uninformed bloviating by voters, more civic education, less willingness to treat politics as entertainment, etc. If that is the overall lesson, then a heretic would say that Progressive-era direct democracy tools like the initiative and the referendum look pretty unattractive.
but I did pause and thought about chicken prices for a split second, probably makes me a horrible person. But will vote Yes on 3.
shows that the added cost will be 1 cent per egg.
If chicken little is right and the prices do go up substantially, then the legislature will be forced to fix it. This kind of small bill ought to be the kind of thing a legislature decides, but it’ll probably pass and it’s nice to have animal rights vindicated in the legal code.