Locally, the voters of Massachusetts approved a highly regulated marijuana market that would ensure products were taken off the street and into homes and small businesses where their safety could be assured by the government and the users pay back the community for the privilege of using the product. Instead, we have a Wild West status quo where people selling to my students outside of schools have little incentive not to do so under lax enforcement mechanisms, no businesses are propping up, medical marijuana is still stigmatized in communities, and that CO and WA revenue isn’t coming in and it’s desperately needed.
The Feds should decriminalize, which is the easiest bipartisan fix we could pass today, and get out of marijuana entirely and allow the states to compete over which ideas work best. I think CO and WA did a better job than MA, mainly because their policies were crafted by public health professionals in consult with legislators before the proposals came to voters.
MA marijuana regulation has been half baked. Advocates put a law on the ballot that taxed too low and left the regulatory mechanisms to our hapless legislature. Opponents, particularly elected law enforcement officials, ran a really dishonest reefer madness style campaign rather than coming to the table and putting their stamp on the inevitable policy changes the voters wanted. Compromise and common sense for a well regulated product that’s off the streets and taxed properly in above board small businesses is the sweet spot we can achieve locally and learn from states doing a better job. Sessions and the DOJ should get out of the way and let states experiment with best practices.
Can you refresh my memory on the referendum? I don’t remember the tax being mentioned.
This was precisely the problem with the way we legalized by referendum.
Voters interpreted the vote as: recreational pot should be
PICK ONE:
___ legal
___ illegal
They didn’t pay any attention to the zoning, number of plants, number of ounces, taxation schemes, or any other component of the specific ballot initiative. It created a real disconnect between intention and action.
Agreed. Care to elaborate what you might support if you’re elected? Rogers-Jehlen seemed like a good solution, but I’m open to others that are better than this status quo.
I’ve got awful lot to learn about the details of this issue before commenting on specific legislation. I support making it legal, making sure the rules for ‘possession’ are simple and easy to understand, and ensuring that consumer protections are adequate.
Isn’t it the case that the Lege has already addressed what it saw as the gaps and errors in the ballot question, so consequently marijuana is unlikely to come up again as an issue in the next session and Representative Stomv of Brookline will be able to turn his attention to other matters?
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2017/Chapter55
What do you think the intention was?
As I see it, the Legislature has imposed a (punitive) tax. Clearly the intention was for a lower tax, or no tax — but these aren’t realistic goals.
Many policy experts found that policy change lacking in sincerity. If the goal is to create a credible regulated market that is not the way to create it. This is why it’s taking forever to be implemented. Passing Rogers-Jehlen in anticipation of the Yes vote would’ve put the state in a much better position to have these mechanisms in place. Now it’s up to the whim of the next US Attorney. Foresight alas, is not their forte.
The Legislative never would have got there without the referendum. It’s imperfect — they always are — but I would say it got us closer to the goal.
At least we got some funny ads out of it.
I have been waiting for something like today’s news to happen for a long time. Everytime I’m talking with someone who mentions “legal marijuana,” I say, “it is illegal to use or possess marijuana everywhere in the United States.” Sometimes I get a raised eyebrow, sometimes an argument about Colorado and now other states including Massachusetts. Here is the law (21 U.S.C. § 844(a)): “It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter. ”
Jconway suggests a federal law decriminalizing the drug. It’s not that simple. Legalization would put the United States in violation of Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, that is, in violation of international law. Congress has the power to violate international law, but it shouldn’t.
The lesson: wishing doesn’t make it so.
It seems the US should be able to simultaneously reschedule marijuana for domestic purposes while upholding our commitments to combat international trafficking.
In fact the convention (Article 4) obligates the United States to prohibit even possession of marijuana for recreational purposes.
Black helicopters coming after people’s dope? How did the State Department let that happen? Thank God they at least protected U.S. landmines and cluster bombs.
My understanding is that farmers and other small players have been cut out of the MA cannabis industry altogether. If we make it impossible for people to sell a very lucrative product through normal channels, then we should not be surprised when it ends up on the black market.
I suspect that the model of legalization plus stifling regulations (and/or stifling taxes) will result in an even BIGGER black market. Which is exactly the opposite of what everyone wants.