Question 1: No. This is a no-brainer — and I say that as someone who has devoted literally thousands of hours over the four years of BMG’s existence to advocating for a new kind of progressive politics in the MA Democratic party that, I hope, will replace the hackocracy that retains significant power on Beacon Hill. Nobody likes to see taxpayers’ money wasted, and no doubt there’s plenty of that going on around here. Yes, pension reform is a good idea. Yes, as recent events have shown, there is even some out-and-out cash-in-the-bra corruption up there. But Question 1 is a 50-megaton nuke where a few cruise missiles are the appropriate response. The collateral damage (to stick with military metaphors) that Question 1 would cause is simply not worth the “message” that it would send, however much Beacon Hill needs to hear that message. Carla & Co. are either being dishonest or are hopelessly deluded about the impact that Question 1’s passage will have on the state. Especially now, when times are tough and when vulnerable populations are more vulnerable than usual, the wholesale dismantling of state government would be irresponsible and cruel. There are better ways of achieving the change on Beacon Hill that we all want to see. Things are better up there than they were four years ago, and we’re optimistic that they’ll be better still four years from now. But it takes work. There’s no magic bullet.
Question 2: No. This is the hardest call for me. On its face, it seems innocuous enough, or even like a positively good idea. A criminal record for simple possession of a small amount of marijuana seems silly, and there are legitimate reasons to legalize such possession outright (medical marijuana, e.g.). However, Question 2 strikes me as going both too far and not far enough. After all, possession remains illegal even if Question 2 passes, so it doesn’t solve the medical marijuana or other “legitimate use” problems. Yet an awful lot of people — including some who don’t work for law enforcement agencies — feel strongly that the decriminalization step would be a very bad thing, particularly in the inner cities. I simply don’t feel qualified to second-guess what they’re saying.
There is merit to this proposal, but the arguments against it have merit too. That’s what the legislative process is for. My default rule is that the proper vote on legislative initiatives is “no,” because initiatives tend to be a bad way to make policy, and my hurdle for overcoming the “no” is pretty high. In this case, I don’t see any compelling need to depart from the usual way of legislating. So I’m voting no on 2.
Question 3: Yes. There are, however, instances in which I think a “yes” vote is appropriate. One such instance is where the legislature for structural reasons cannot be trusted to deal with the issue properly. That happens with campaign finance or other election-related reforms, where incumbents are typically loath to mess with the system that got them where they are. Another, I think, is the dog racing question, where the principal beneficiaries of a “yes” vote are not human and therefore do not have access to the franchise and cannot organize on their own, and where the question’s principal opponents are unusually well-connected, out of all proportion to whatever benefit they and their industry bring to the state.
I believe that to be the case here. For reasons we’ve already explained, I think Question 3 is good policy. And because dogs deserve to be protected but can’t vote and can’t hire lobbyists, and because the track owners are extremely well-connected individuals who have gotten the state to spend millions on bailing them out in the past, I don’t trust the legislative process to work appropriately in this case. So a ballot question it is. I’m voting yes on 3.
Question 2 would also fall under the category “where the legislature for structural reasons cannot be trusted to deal with the issue properly”. Do you ever see legislators taking up the issue in earnest? Have they ever in the past? And glimmerings of future consideration of this question by the legislature? IMO this issues is too scary for legislators to touch, and so an initiative is the only way.
This is one of those attack ad issues: a vote for decriminalization invites scary negative advertisements so without political cover, no representative will vote for it. I generally like David’s criteria here but I think Laurel proposes an excellent amendment.
<
p>Laurel, do you have a petition I can sign so we can get your amendment on the ballet and change David’s procedure?
Obviously, I meant ballot not ballet.
you were dancing around the issue. đŸ˜‰
Sure, legislators are in general probably friendly with the DAs, who are likely to oppose relaxing drug laws. But there are influential legislators who favor Question 2 (Sen. Jehlen and Rep. Smizik are listed, and presumably there are others). In fact, there seems to be plenty of institutional support for Question 2. I don’t see why it shouldn’t be able to get a fair hearing in the legislature. Has there been such a hearing? I don’t know, but I don’t see why there couldn’t be, and I think that’s the proper forum. Before I voted yes, I’d certainly want to hear from, among others, the folks who work in inner cities who so strongly oppose the question (as well as others from those communities who favor it). That’s what legislative hearings are for.
<
p>Plus, in the case of Question 2, all the interested parties on both sides are human! đŸ™‚
for most legislators. Not unlike the civil unions/marriage issue before the SJC forced it. I’m glad that a few legislators are openly in support of the initiative, and maybe the initiative, if it fails but barely so, will itself spark further discussion in the legislature. But I wouldn’t hold my breath. I’m sure every legislator fears the ads they know will be coming: “soft on crime, wants you child to have free access to drugs.”
<
p>I don’t particularly like legislation by initiative either. But I can see the need for it on subjects like this. I only wish that states would set up a system of judicial review of proposed initiative legislation, so that patently unconstitutional initiatives get tagged “stoopid!” right from the start. But that’s a whole nother conversation.
Bills like Question 2, that would marijuana possession a civil infraction punishable by fine rather than a crime, have been filed for years in the State House and, as all bills do, have had public hearings.
<
p>The result has been the same – death by study order.
<
p>Here are some bill numbers: For the 2007-2008 session, Senate 1011 and Senate 1121; for the 2005-2006 session, Senate 1151; for the 2003-2004 session, House 2392; for the 2001-2002 session, House 2124.
<
p>The proponents of Question 2 had reason for trying the initiative route.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day?
<
p>Kidding! Kidding! đŸ˜€
it shouldn’t be able to get a fair hearing in the legislature.” No kidding?
<
p>Have you EVER tried to get something past DiMasi? The Legislature is not a pure Democracy.
I cannot imagine how someone liberally minded could vote no on issue 2.
<
p>I read some of the posts you linked to, and they just argued the old canard that marijuana is the “gateway drug.” No, alcohol is the gateway drug. Ask any drug user what the first drug they used was, and I almost guarantee it was alcohol.
<
p>Marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol, and yet alcohol is legal. Either both should be legal or both should be illegal. Ask any police officer how many violent crimes are committed or how many traffic accidents under the influence of alcohol. Visit any AA meeting for tragic stories of alcohol addiction.
<
p>Marijuana criminalization is a way to persecute racial and cultural minorities and protect the liquor industry from competition. It destroys lives, wastes money, and wastes the time of law enforcement who should instead by going after actual crimes that really endanger people rather than “culture crime.” The narrow-minded bigot mentality behind it is identical to the mentality behind homophobia.
<
p>I’m frankly shocked to read this here. It’s a position I’d expect on a wingnut site, since cultural fascism is not something I ordinarily associate with the left.
I agree with a lot of what you say on the issue and I clearly disagree with David’s viewpoint, but you attack only undermines any credibility you may wish to generate for your viewpoint. There is room for disagreement between “I’m right and you’re a cultural fascist”. Chill out.
Sorry, but it’s the only explanation I can think of for why any sane person with a functioning brain would vote no on 2.
<
p>Alcohol is dangerous, addictive, causes crime, and is a popular drug of abuse, yet it’s legal and nobody argues otherwise. Why? Because it’s popular and accepted in the mainstream culture.
<
p>Marijuana is not exactly healthy (same issues as cigarettes) but is less addictive, less violence-causing, etc. and yet it’s illegal. Why? Because it is a popular drug among “hippies,” counterculture types, blacks, and other marginal groups. It’s illegal because of its cultural associations, not for any rational reason.
<
p>It’s true that there are lots of listless people who smoke pot all day. It’s also true that there are lots of listless people who watch TV all day, play video games all day, and drink all day. The latter three are legal.
<
p>Beyond that, I fail to see how taking someone who is depressed and listless, handcuffing them, and throwing them into the criminal justice system is going to help them get better. I fail to see how an unemployed, depressed, poor pot smoker is helped by being given a criminal record either.
<
p>There is no reason behind this position. In the absence of reason, I must therefore conclude that the answer is either bigotry, ignorance, or simply a failure to think through the issue.
<
p>This deserves harsh language. It’s an insane, idiotic position.
I hadn’t realized that my position was insane and idiotic. But now that you’ve told me that it is, of course I totally agree with you! I’m totally voting yes on 2 now!
<
p>Seriously, friend, you should listen to Laurel. You will never (and I mean never) convince anyone of anything with that kind of posting. You are far more likely to drive undecideds into the opposite camp. An undecided reading this thread would likely read your post, conclude that the “yes on 2” crowd consisted mostly of foaming-at-the-mouth liberals who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a stupid bigoted fascist (that, after all, is what you said), and from that conclude that those guys are usually wrong (which, in my experience, they are) so that the proper vote is “no.”
<
p>But seriously, good luck with your way.
People who make such decisions on the basis of feelings, group allegiances, and political tribalism will think that, sure. Those folks will vote no on issue 2 for those reasons as well, so I don’t think I’m going to ever convince them no matter how nicely I talk.
<
p>People who think on he basis of facts and reason might think about some of the things I mentioned on their merits instead.
<
p>My feelings above are rooted in the fact that I cannot think of any conceivable rational reason that someone would support marijuana criminalization. The only reasons I can think of are rooted in cultural authoritarianism (it’s a good way to persecute marginal cultures), protectionism for the alcohol industry, or simply failure to think about the issue in any detail. The latter is forgivable, but the former are not. If you think that the law should criminalize behaviors just because you personally find them distasteful rather than for any objective reason, then you’re no different from the frothing theocratic wingnut crowd.
<
p>There are many issues on which this is not the case. I can see both sides of issues like the criminality of hard drugs, nuclear power, GMO foods, open immigration, taxes, the bailout bill, etc. and would not use such harsh language in any of those cases to argue a position. I have my opinions on all those as well, but I can think of rational reasons that someone might think differently. On this issue, I simply can’t.
<
p>Thinking from the gut and from tribal allegiance instead of from reality and reason is what’s wrong with this country. When I see people advocating things like this that hurt people on the basis of irrational groupthink, superstition, bigotry, intellectual laziness, gut-think, etc. it makes me angry.
<
p>I have known friends whose lives were harmed far more by the war on drugs than by drugs. Being arrested, jailed, brainwashed, demoralized, abused, and given a criminal record does not help people. It does not help the poor, it does not help “clean up communities” (unless cleansing them of marginal cultures and races is your idea of cleaning them up), it does not help people improve their lives, and it does not fix the root of the problem.
<
p>Most habitual drug users (including alcoholics) are self-medicating for psychological issues. They have a health problem that should be treated medically, not with handcuffs, guns, humiliation, and the further marginalization from productive society that a criminal record brings.
You need to get a grip on yourself pronto, pal. YOU can’t see both sides, therefore both sides don’t exist. That’s not an argument, that’s a joke. As I recommended to Ryan downthread, why don’t you go ask the Ten Point Coalition why they are so strongly against question 2? Do you think they are into persecuting minorities or are in cahoots with the alcohol industry? Or that they’re stupid? Good luck with that.
<
p>And I don’t care if you’re “angry.” Get over it, and then come back with some respectable argument. Until then, we’re done.
I have put forward many arguments that are rooted in fact and logic. They are, to summarize:
<
p>- Pot is no more harmful than alcohol, and yet alcohol is legal. The undercurrent of cultural bigotry behind this is obvious.
<
p>- Giving people criminal records does not help them find jobs or raise themselves out of poverty.
<
p>- Pot smoking is just one form of dissipative activity out of many, and is not the root of the problem.
<
p>- The war on pot is expensive, and some of that money could be used instead to treat the causes instead of the symptoms.
<
p>I’ll add another:
<
p>- Prohibition causes crime and violence by encouraging, creating a market niche for, and financially subsidizing gang activity. This was clearly demonstrated in the 1920s.
<
p>My feelings aren’t relevant, but they’re there. I’ll readily put them forward, but I’m not claiming them as evidence for anything. The arguments can easily be stripped from the emotion and evaluated on their own merits.
<
p>I have yet to see any good reasons from the opposing side, just a lot of criticism of my tone and style and hand-wavey references to people who supposedly know better. I followed some of the links in the original article and found no better reasons there. If there are good objective reality-based reasons, then by all means explain them.
<
p>I’m sure the folks you mention do not wish to harm the inner city, but I also suspect they are looking at the symptoms rather than the disease. Is there any actual data to show that arresting people for pot ever leads to any improvement in their lives vs. other methods of more constructive intervention and opportunity creation? If there is, I’d like to see it.
David is a lawyer.
i’m all eyes. this should be good.
Even on the first offense, when any ethical person would say, “you don’t need a lawyer, they’ll put you on probation for a year, and that’s it”, a lawyer will say “how much money do you have? You’re going to need a strong defense.” I told the guy he sounded like a tire salesman and he got all pissed off at me.
slipped in a little personal history there, eh? LOL!
You deserve to lose your privileges–again–with an insinuation like that.
Maybe so, but I doubt it. I am skeptical of conspiratorial motives unless there’s direct evidence for them.
<
p>I think it’s more likely that he’s just never seriously thought about the issue before. He was raised with the same oversimplified “drugs are bad, mmmmkay” propaganda that we all were, and he’s never had a cause to really examine it.
<
p>He’s also probably part of the criminal justice system, which means that the only users of any illegal drug that he ever sees are people who have committed some crime or who use it so heavily that they ran afoul of the law. So he only sees the worst and is forming his opinions based on a skewed sample.
<
p>I’ve known a ton of pot smoking scientists, engineers, and artists who are totally fine and lead productive normal lives with families, good solid jobs, and yes even very healthy kids. He doesn’t see that since a) he probably runs around a more puritanical crowd and b) nobody would tell him about their marijuana use if he’s in the criminal justice system and is a prohibitionist.
<
p>If you were raised in and lived in a white neighborhood and worked at a prison with a mostly black population, I wonder what you’d think about black people? Sample skew is one of the big sources of bigoted opinions.
<
p>The point that you made elsewhere about gay marriage is good as well. That’s an issue on which I feel about the same on, since I have yet to hear a rational argument against the right of gay people to marry. So yes, I think that opponents of gay marriage are either ignorant or bigots. Somehow I doubt though that many people around here would have a problem with that.
you built your whole case based on suppositions. wow. weak and offensive. try sticking to the facts, mkay?
I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you further, so I’m not going to give you chapter and verse. I’ll just say that pretty much all of your suppositions about me, my background, and my views are incorrect.
“So I suppose you’d be polite to a racist bigot then?”
<
p>Yes, if I were actually trying to change the bigot’s mind. If I just want to get a cheap thrill and feel good about myself, then no.
<
p>Guess which one I think you’re trying to do?
My feelings above are rooted in the fact that I cannot think of any conceivable rational reason that someone would support marijuana criminalization.
<
p>”Argument from lack of imagination” is what they call it in my field, cognitive linguistics, when someone’s entire argument consists of, “I can’t imagine how this could be…” It’s not persuasive. In fact, you’re hammering on it so hard, it makes me want all the more to think of good reasons to vote No on 2 (even though I’ll probably vote Yes). Not the effect you want to create, I assume.
An undecided reading this thread would likely read your post, conclude that the “yes on 2” crowd consisted mostly of foaming-at-the-mouth liberals who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a stupid bigoted fascist (that, after all, is what you said), and from that conclude that those guys are usually wrong (which, in my experience, they are)
<
p>Unless, of course, the issue is same-sex marriage, then it seems to work wonders. Seriously, when have you ever disagreed with the foaming-at-the-mouth liberals who think that anyone who disagrees with them is a stupid bigoted fascist before?
My friend, Colin, summed this up much better than I could in a debate we held on Facebook… in it, he said,
<
p>
<
p>What is legalizing alcohol and cigarettes, but banning pot – which is no worse than either of the former – other than than a form of economic fascism? Adam makes a point that other traditional aspects of fascism are linked in it too, including racism and bigotry. I don’t know if he goes so far as to prove that connection, but he makes a compelling case.
<
p>Do I think there were better ways Adam could have put it? Of course. But I don’t think he was actually wrong in calling it fascist. Pot would be legal if not for the lobbying efforts of both alcohol and tabacco companies. That’s fascism.
This is a variant of Godwin’s Law. Let’s try to keep some perspective.
Godwin’s law is invoked when someone makes a Hitler reference. Fascism doesn’t necessarily mean Hitlerism, and yes, that form of economic control is textbook fascism. Another word for fascism is “corporatism.”
<
p>I still have yet to see a rational reason to vote no on 2, just criticisms of my style rather than my substance.
<
p>Of course, I guess that makes sense. Nearly all human cultures use drugs in one form or another… everything from coffee to alcohol to cigarettes to cannabis to peyote. Which drugs people use is partly a matter of style. The war on drugs is rooted in the desire of the dominant culture to persecute rival marginalized cultures by criminalizing their styles. So style over substance is the root of the issue here, and it’s not surprising to see it reflected in the debate itself.
David’s law.
<
p>I’ve already claimed Ryan’s Law.
<
p>But all kidding aside, it’s actually true. Godwin’s law doesn’t state that nazi references are actually bad or wrong, just that they’re inevitable. Sometimes the metaphors make sense, even if most of the time they don’t. In this case, it does make sense, at least when considering fascism in an economic sense. When business and societal influence is used to ban substances that are no better or worse than what would be the legal competition, then that’s economic fascism. I’m not saying you’re fascist; I’m just saying you should probably rethink that position.
I think there’s a big danger with Godwin’s law, in that any real concern that something is Nazi-esque will immediately be laughed off with Godwin’s law, and not be taken seriously. People should take those concerns more seriously, not dismiss them out of hand.
But the way it was introduced into the current conversation was not constructive. That’s all I’m saying.
That would be all of 6, every person there talks about being addicted to drugs, to taking pills and to stealing to support their habit once they became to dysfunctional to work.
<
p>The group might be called Alcoholics Anonymous, but people go there who use more than alcohol.
will always find something to be addicted to. my uncles were addicted to alcohol. some people are addicted to food. others to “a higher power” or religion. outlawing pot doesn’t cure the addictive personality, it just gives people who use that drug a criminal record.
I’ve known people in AA, and that’s what it’s about. AA is not about getting over drugs or alcohol, but about conquering addiction. Addiction is the problem. Drugs or alcohol is just what you’re addicted to.
<
p>My friend who was in AA told me about it, and how there was one person who was actually in there for food addiction believe it or not. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are people in AA for addiction to World of Warcraft. đŸ™‚
<
p>Then you just can’t imagine much, can you… ?
<
p>I’m voting NO because I don’t think it goes far enough and would, I think, throw up a speed bump for further progress. I’m all for treating alcohol and marijuana with complete and comprehensive parity. Pointedly, this law would not do that. Equally pointedly, this law would, I think, slow the adoption of this parity by being somewhere in between compromise and incomplete. Bad law is bad law… marginal benefits, like you getting to go back to the prom after reliquinshing your stash, rather than spending a night in the pokey, doesn’t mitigate that.
<
p>
<
p>Alcohol, for all your fulminations, is currently not legal in certain situations having to do with age and motor vehicle usage. I might as well ask any police officer how many criminal acts are committed by people acting illegally…
<
p>
<
p>My word, but you do lack imagination, doncha? Insofar as you expect, or require, normative behaviours to run true to your ideology your going to smack that wall again and again: you lack any understanding of the question at hand and the community asking the question. Adults call this foolishness. I’ll give you a pass and simply say your youthful zeal has outpaced your cognitive functions.
Generally speaking I assume the legislature has more access to better information than I do about the effects of various public policy proposals. I had been leaning toward an affirmative vote on 2, but now I’m not sure. Even as someone who, if I do say so myself, pays more attention to these things than the average voter, I would never presume to have all the facts. I will vote no on 3 over concern for jobs and questionable evidence that dogs are treated THAT horribly and HECK NO on 1 for reasons we have all discussed. I believe the General Court has actually acted on these questions and voted them down, though I might be more inclined to consider an affirmative vote if they never even brought the question to a floor vote. We pay and elect legislators to exercise their judgement and I for one prefer a representative rather than direct democracy.
There’s no jobs at stake. The industry employs around 300 people, 400 tops, out of a state of 6 million. Of those 300 or so employees, all of them will have 2 years to find new jobs, since the industry will be phased out. Furthermore, the land will be redeveloped and we’ll see new jobs and tax revenue as a result.
<
p>Why reward an industry that gets government subsidies, protections and services… that can’t even manage to pay its taxes?
<
p>And the dogs ARE treated horribly. 840 or so serious injuries since 2002. Cages they can’t even lift their heads in. They get let out 4 hours out of 24 hours a day. The food they’re fed is of a horrific quality. What exactly is your minimum standard of how these dogs should be treated? There’s been video footage and state documents proving all of those things. What more proof do you need?
Do you know anything about how the dogs are cared for? Or are you just repeating what you see on the adds? Because I have seen the track, the dogs and their food.
<
p>They don’t eat kibble from Stop and Shop, they eat real food.
<
p>Have you ever gone to the track to check out the dogs for yourself? Talked to anyone who works there, or works with the dogs?
yes, it’s not “kibbles,” but the kibbles would actually be better for them. There’s a reason why we feed dogs the food that we feed them.
<
p>The meat they’re given, suffice it to say, ain’t anything like the meat you’d get at Stop and Shop, since you brought up supermarkets.
except in cases in which the legislature is simply unwilling to go there. You will never, in a million years, see legislation see Beacon Hill decriminalize pot. Politicians are too risk averse. It’s the same with greyhound racing.
<
p>Also, I fail to see how pot hurts inner cities. Heroine, cocaine, Oxycontin (which just killed someone who I went to school with k-12)? Sure. But pot? Really?
<
p>The view that people should just vote no on ballot initiatives may seem to make sense, but not when you consider the results. It means that good initiatives will be shot down while bad ones sometimes get through. We have to live with the law of the land and try to make the decisions that make the most sense, given the tools that we have available. Pot can’t be legalized due to federal policy, but we can decriminalize it – so we should.
This is exactly what I’m talking about, Ryan. You don’t see it, but with all due respect, you don’t live there, and you don’t know the neighborhoods and their issues the way the Ten Point Coalition and other Q2 opponents from those communities do. Give them some credit — why would they be going all-in on this if they didn’t think it was important? Just to curry favor with the cops and the DAs? I don’t buy that for a second.
<
p>You should go talk to the Ten Point Coalition guys — I bet they’d talk to you. Let us know what they tell you.
Ok, so pot harms inner cities.
<
p>Millions of white middle and upper class folks smoke pot. Why don’t they have the same problems as the inner city? Maybe because pot doesn’t cause the problems of the inner city.
<
p>Let’s say you could snap your fingers and make all pot disappear. What then? Would everyone in the inner city just rub their eyes and say “gee, I don’t know what I was doing! I’m never going to commit crime again, and I’m going out and getting a job and going to school tomorrow!” I don’t think so. They’d switch to alcohol, other drugs, or other forms of dissipation instead.
<
p>Depression, demoralization, lack of education, and lack of opportunity harms inner cities. Some people choose to evade these issues by smoking pot. Others choose harder drugs, or alcohol, or TV, or video games, or just sleeping all day for that matter.
<
p>How about going after the root causes of these problems. How about cleaning up the inner city, improving the education system, giving children more activities to do, improving their access to transportation, and encouraging more employers to locate there to create jobs? Maybe some of the money we’d save by not spending millions fighting reefer could pay for some of that.
New Bedford for five years of my life. I’ve lived in or near Lynn for the other 19 years. I know what drugs do to communities. Pot isn’t one of those drugs.
<
p>And I must add the qualifier that I have never smoked pot in my life, though I have friends who did or even on occasion still do. There’s just firm science on the matter that shows it’s not addictive and no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes.
I agree with everything you say, having seen the same things myself.
<
p>However, I’d go one step further. I’ve known people who used oxycontin, heroin, ketamine, meth, and other horrid nasty drugs. In every case, it seemed to me that they were self-medicating for some form of psychological issue. I knew a guy with manic depression who used uppers when he was low, and downers when he was high. He got busted for drugs and it didn’t help one bit, just demoralized him and made it harder for him to get a job or finish school. What helped in the end? Lithium. Part of the problem is our inadequate mental health system.
<
p>I’ve never seen a single person harmed by pot.
<
p>Don’t tell me you’ve never heard of Pearlie Sweetcakes and the Calastoga Kid?!?! A cautionary tale, if ever there was one…
<
p>And then, there was this one guy… he was SOooo stoned he didn’t hear Ed McMahon at the door. Lost out on a cool million… or maybe more… He couldn’t count when stoned either… I’d say that counts as harm.
<
p>And, of course the story of the guy who was caught underneath a falling marijuana bale and died, sorta peacefully it’s true, from being crushed. ‘Course, it’s up for debate whether it was the harm of the pot or the drug dealer who dropped it on him. Still and all…
<
p>And then… this other guy… like… smoked alot and got all fascinated… with… ellipsis… and ended up putting… them… every…where… Brilliant writing career up in smoke. That guy’s now pishing away his genius on blogs somewhere complaining about gaps in intertextualism and the incompleteness of postmodernist… something-or-other… Actually, come to think of it, that guy didn’t smoke any pot. He was just naturally kinda loopy.
<
p>Myself… well, I keep falling asleep whenever I smoke pot. In fact, for whatever is metabolically different about me, it’s better than valium. The harm in this is great: I don’t want to even think about the number of trysts forsaken in this manner… sigh… ‘Tis better to have loved and lost, than not to smoke at all…
<
p>
I think this is an absolutely terrible argument.
<
p>Why not read what the Ten Point Coalition says, and evaluate whether you think it makes sense? Just because some folks from the inner city say something has a particular effect there doesn’t make it so.
<
p>You’re always working with imperfect information. That’s citizenship. But I see no reason to take someone else’s opinion as gospel, regardless of where they come from.
<
p>And what of those arguments? Pastor Brown essentially makes the argument that pot is a “gateway drug”, which we’ve all heard, and never made any sense to me except for this: It’s a gateway drug insofar as it’s illegal, and other drugs may move in the same distribution networks.
<
p>IOW, this is an appeal to authority, with some slippery slope thrown in for good measure. Try again, counselor. đŸ˜‰
you’re wrong. đŸ˜‰
<
p>You’re always working with imperfect information. That’s citizenship.
<
p>When it comes to electing representatives, sure. When it comes to ballot initiatives, however, I think a different standard applies, as I explained in the post. The strong default should be “no,” because legislators’ job is to gather the information that citizens don’t have the time, the ability, or the inclination to gather before voting on something that may have real social consequences. Can you honestly say that you’ve done your research, you’ve considered all aspects of this issue, and you’ve reached your conclusion based on all of that? Or do you just think that our drug policies suck and this would send a good message? Or get a foot in the door? Or something?
<
p>Just because some folks from the inner city say something has a particular effect there doesn’t make it so…. I see no reason to take someone else’s opinion as gospel, regardless of where they come from.
<
p>You’re kidding, right? Hey, why should a bunch of guys who’ve devoted their careers to working in the inner cities know anything more about what’s going on there than, say, me out in the ‘burbs?
<
p>It’s a gateway drug insofar as it’s illegal
<
p>It’ll still be illegal if Q2 passes.
<
p>this is an appeal to authority
<
p>It’s an appeal to people who, I think it’s fair to say, have a lot more experience with a particular aspect of this issue than you or I do.
<
p>Furthermore, why is it so important to decriminalize pot? The $30 million argument is nonsense, so what’s the real social good that this measure would accomplish? There are lots of potential downsides here, and not much upside that I can see.
<
p>2. With all due respect to the Ten Point Coalition, our drug policy is stupid, and anything that builds momentum toward scaling back the Drug War is a good thing in my book. If criminal prosecution is the best route to treatment, then find some better route to solve the great pot addiction problem that is the scourge of our times.
<
p>3. No jobs at stake, well, except for the jobs at stake, but fuck those people, let them find new jobs, it isn’t like the economy is bad or anything. Worse, is the willingness to codify and enforce a notion of morality that lacks societal consensus. And pushed by the same folks that have already banned trapping, and want to ban hunting, horse racing, and the circus, not to mention fried chicken and bacon cheeseburgers, and maybe transfats and cigarettes, just because it would be good for us.
If I gave you 2 years to find a new job, I think you could manage to find one, right? It’s called a “phase out” for a reason.
<
p>Furthermore, there’s the potential that by closing the tracks we could create a great deal of new jobs, much more than the 300 or so who are employed at Revere and Raynham combined. So, maybe I should distort your position as much as you did mine and say that you’re against creating new jobs? After all, technically it’s true.
<
p>
<
p>Really? You don’t think that the majority of society would say that animal cruelty was wrong? If the tracks weren’t so good at distorting the issue, the margin of victory on question 3 would be even bigger than it’s very likely going to be. BTW, isn’t passing a ballot question by popular vote the very definition of creating “societal consensus?” If not, what is?
<
p>Finally, it’s not pushed by people pushing other bans, but even if it was, so what? Some of your examples quickly become hyperbole, but if there’s a group of citizens that want to push other questions on animal cruelty, that’s their perogative. Just like it’s Carla Howell’s perogative to try to eliminate this state’s primary funding mechanism. It’s up to the people to decide whether or not the question should then pass.
They can’t just be retrained to be seeing-eye dogs or drug sniffing dogs, not even in two years.
they can be adopted out as pets and live happily ever after, just like other dogs. or do you disapprove of any dog not earning it’s keep?
sheesh! (that’s a joke too)
but what would you like them to do?
<
p>my dog sits on the coach all day, demands at least one 20-30 minute walk and will jump at the chance to ride on the car. She also specializes in being obsessed with everything I do, begging for treats and slobbering me with kisses every time I come home after being out for at least 30 minutes. Also, she keeps me company when I’d otherwise be alone.
<
p>There’s a home for every one of those greyhouds – and the phase-out nature of the amendment will give plenty of time for homes to be found. Honestly, I just had a dog that died a week ago; I’ve been thinking about getting a greyhound myself.
And everyone said he was being silly.
If the issue is how the dogs are treated, why is the initiative for an outright ban? Why not set standards for how the dogs are treated? It seems to me that there should be a middle ground that preserves the livelihoods of the people involved in this industry while providing better protection for the animals.
A) There’s no way to set reasonable standards without killing the industry anyway. They break legs while racing because there’s a bunch of dogs going 40 miles an hour in a very small space. They’re going to crash; it’s inevitable. What are we going to do? Make them race one dog at a time? If we could create standards making it safe, we would.
<
p>B) Even if we could create those standards, the dog track industry has done nothing to inspire trust that they’d obey them. They fixes will be expensive; it’d be for the state expensive to make sure they obeyed new regulations.
<
p>So there really isn’t a middle ground. The best we can do is make sure the industry is phased out, instead of instantly banned, to mitigate any of the problems. There aren’t a whole lot of jobs that we’re talking about, so two years will give this state and the people effected plenty of time to find new, good jobs.
“We” don’t create jobs, employers create jobs. Banning employment does not create jobs, it eliminates them. Worse, it prevents someone else from setting up a profitable track in the future, because we don’t like the guy running Wonderland today.
<
p>All in all, classic party “base” politics: We have decided, in our wisdom, that which is morally correct and that which is morally incorrect, and if we can scrape up 50% +1 votes, by whatever means we deem necessary, we shall enforce our enlightened moral vision upon 100% of the people. And they shall be morally improved by our direction and control.
<
p>Same attitude, different focus.
this is a non-partisan effort, is it not?
is in the very fabric of politics. By your standards, maybe we shouldn’t have scraped together the 50%+1 to mandate companies give women a few weeks off after delivering birth before they can legally fire them? Maybe we should still have child labor? Or cock fights? We make moral decisions every single day in government. Morality can be taken too far, of course, and a great many people draw the line at allowing sentient, consenting adults do what they’d like to do, so long as it doesn’t hurt others. However, when it comes to people or beings who can’t properly stand up for themselves, government does (and should) step in often.
Rights are subject to morality, as established in law by 50%+1 of the voters.
I was never one of the people who tried to say that the homophobes never had the right to try to put my rights to the ballot. Of course they did.
<
p>What I did say at the time – and feel free to search both my blogs and this site – was that the bar is set too low in this state for constitutional amendments. See, there’s a difference between law and higher law. Higher law, constitutional law, should be much more difficult to pass – requiring a 2/3rds majority. There always needs to be a basic framework from which to change the fabric of our system, our constitution, but that framework ought to be significantly more difficult to alter than a simple majority.
We disagree on the Q3. I give you a six for paragraph 2.
<
p>I still suspect that the existing track owners are well connected on Beacon Hill, and will find a way to miraculously survive the likely passage of Q3.
I agree with you on Question 3, but I don’t think that line of argument helps the cause. Of course there are jobs at stake. There aren’t nearly as many as the track people say, but they’re still there, and that’s important to those people and their families. Denying or unnecessarily minimizing things that are true is essentially the tack taken by the No on 3 crowd; the Yes folks can and should do better.
What are the “stakes” short, medium and long term?
<
p>Short term:
<
p>The tracks will remain open for the next two years. No one is getting laid off tomorrow who otherwise wouldn’t (due to factors such as the fact that the industry is borderline bankrupt anyway).
Medium term:
<
p>Yes, upwards of 300-350 people will have to get new jobs over the next two years who otherwise wouldn’t. It’s a tough market; I quite understand (trust me). There’s no reason, though, why – coupled with resourced at the unemployment offices and other resources – that we can’t find these people new, well-paying jobs.
<
p>Furthermore, the brunt of this workforce was going to have to find new jobs anyway because this industry was just bleeding money. Wonderland was already on record saying it would be closing, months ago, when Racinos were being discussed. Given the fact that they couldn’t pay their property taxes, that seems quite likely to happen soon. They’re just trying to hold on to try to get casinos or racinos.
<
p>So, are jobs at stake medium term? A very small sum of people may not be able to find comparable work over the next 2 years, but not really. Medium term, these people, in all honesty, are probably better off than people working in the financial sector of the economy in Boston today.
<
p>Long term:
<
p>After the tracks are closed, construction companies will soon be called in to build something. Who knows what? I don’t. Between the two tracks, that’s probably nearly a hundred jobs (or more) for several years. After that, there will either be new businesses there providing permanent employment or taxpaying residents paying property taxes (and almost assuredly more taxes than what was currently being paid – zero in the case of Wonderland). If it’s mostly residential property, the amount of units added to the area would mean lots of new opportunity for small business growth, but I’d honestly bet on the bulk of the growth at both tracks being businesses, providing a great many permanent jobs, quite likely more than what’s there now. A big commercial project at Wonderland in Revere could actually spark the entire area.
<
p>So are there long term jobs at stake? It’s unlikely – and there’s a strong probability that in the long term there will actually be job growth. This is a lot of prime real estate we’re talking about.
… of our time. The fact that Ryan’s points might be right nevertheless can’t change the fact that they are hard to frame to be palatable. Palatability over reason. The triumph of style over substance. I don’t disagree that this is the case, but I lament nonetheless. I’d like to believe that these points could be debated on the playing field of logic and reason, but the truth is we unfortunately vote with our lizard brain and tribe more than frontal lobes. I lament.
Ballot question number 1 – I will be voting NO – As a homeowner, and a tax payer, ya I would love to stop having to pay income tax. Except it would only mean I would have to pay even more in property taxes for my home and vehicle. Now as someone who lives near the Wonderland race track I am sure my homes value will drop if question 3 passes. It will also mean that the need for city and state services will increase. So I’m in trouble either way.
<
p>Ballot question number 2 – NO I have witnessed what drugs do to people, and the people who live around them. That unemployed pot smoker might not hurt any of you, but they do hurt the people they steal from to get their drugs. Many dealers use children and family members to ‘hold’ drugs for them. All this means is more innocent people will be holding smaller amounts of drugs. It does nothing to help the people who are dealing with the problems of drug use. I also see this law as being yet another way society coddles middle and upper class people. Do any of you think pot falls from the sky? The ‘innocent’ person with the couple of joints in their purse, or pocket got that pot from someone, someone who had more than an ounce. A dealer who more than likely deals in more than just pot. And does not live any where near the person with one joint.
<
p>Think about it, who will this law help more, the 18 year old in Arlington who will loose their student loan, and early acceptance to Harvard, or the poor 18 year old in Roxbury with a limited education and no future to speak of?
<
p>Ballot Question number 3 – NO I have mentioned before, so many times before, that I live in Revere. Right near the dog track. Revere Animal Hospital is attached to the track. These dogs get better care than many poor children. The dogs are feed some of the best dog food available. They are working dogs, athletes, and could not run on cheap dog food. Massachusetts has the strongest laws governing dog racing as it is, we should be working to put those laws in effect throughout the country. Yes it is sad that the dogs spend their day sleeping in cages, unlike my dog who spends his day sleeping on the couch.
<
p>Finally, what is going to be done with the property, if the dog track is forced to close. They are not the first industry the state has helped and they will not be the last. There are already many empty condos on the beach and an empty strip mall right next door to the dog track. I don’t see a casino in our future, or a new train station. I just see an empty property, a fire waiting to happen.
The dogs are fed for their short to medium term health, not their long term well-being. They usually get too much wet food, and consequently come off the track with bad teeth. They also don’t tend to get quite enough food, since they usually want to keep the dogs’ weights down.
<
p>I don’t know that it is actually true that MA has the strongest dog racing laws. Can you back that up and explain what you mean? But even so, you have to realize that the dog tracks are regulated by the racing commission, not actual animal welfare organizations such as the MSCPA, which of course, strongly opposes dog racing. The racing commission has an inherent interest in keeping racing going, since without it some of them will lose their jobs (and save the state a little money as well).
<
p>In any case, you can expect this question to come back again and again and again until it succeeds or racing eventually dies off on its own.
<
p>
Wonderland hasn’t paid its taxes in two years. So they weren’t contributing to your city’s expenses anyway.
<
p>Also, how in the world do you surmise that closing Wonderland will reduce the value of your property? I could think of arguments where it would increase the value of your property, but not to decrease it. In any event, that’s entirely speculative, so you’re going to have to back it up if you want to make that kind of argument.
<
p>By any chance is your last name Carney? Seriously, that’s one of the most rediculous comments I’ve ever read. Unless you force your children into situations where there’s an unacceptable chance that they’ll break limbs, eat the lowest class of food and stay trapped in a tiny steel cage 20 hours out of 24, with dozens of other babies and little human contact… then you treat your kids much better than those dogs.
<
p>
<
p>That’s a lie.
<
p>
<
p>The sky is the limit. It’s across the street from a popular T stop that’s getting a major revamp. It’s across the street from the nation’s first public beach, with many things to do. It’s across the street from future economic development that numbers in the hundreds of millions. Whatever will be built on Wonderland will almost certainly be bigger and grander than a lame, dying piece of dirt.
<
p>Also, on question two, you’re wrapping people who smoke pot and do crack together in one fell swoop. That’s asinine. Pot isn’t any worse than drinking beer. I suppose that hurts the community, but if one’s legal both should be. If you’re worried about the black market, we should legalize pot, not continue to force pot further back into the shadows.
“I also see this law as being yet another way society coddles middle and upper class people. Do any of you think pot falls from the sky? The ‘innocent’ person with the couple of joints in their purse, or pocket got that pot from someone, someone who had more than an ounce. A dealer who more than likely deals in more than just pot. And does not live any where near the person with one joint.”
<
p>Now that is a good point.
<
p>I totally disagree with the first part of this paragraph, since it’s more of the same ignorance about marijuana that I’ve talked about elsewhere. The vast majority of users are normal people.
<
p>However, you raise a great point about partial decriminalization: it’s very unfair. It coddles the users of the drug who are mostly middle and upper class and penalizes the dealers and traffickers who are mostly lower class.
<
p>That’s why the whole drug policy around marijuana is absurd and destructive. We are spending millions of dollars, filling up our prisons, wasting the time of our cops and justice system employees, and destroying peoples’ lives to combat a drug that’s less harmful than booze while there are booze ads all over the T. It’s insane.
<
p>Nevertheless, I support any incremental step toward ending prohibition. But congratulations, you’re the first person to raise an actual valid counter-point.
It’s on the beach and it’s on the Blue Line. Developing it into a hotel-entertainment complex is a natural. The site has had one or another entertainment-related use for over a century, dating back to when it was an amusement park (which is how it got the name Wonderland).
<
p>2. Yes – If cigarettes can be sold (with various government subsidies), then so can marijuana. DAs repeatedly explain that this is a “top-up” crime used on people they’ve arrested for other reasons. In other words, a statute they only enforce to get around sentencing guidelines.
<
p>3. Yes – Giving people jobs isn’t reason enough to engage in animal cruelty. Otherwise we’d still have cockfighting in this state.
<
p>2008 is proving to have a rather easy ballot so far.
Well, I guess I should join in the commentary while I’m hanging around shooting off my mouth.
<
p>1. No – I support tax reductions in general, but only when they’re done responsibly. But, spending reduction is far more important than tax reduction and that’s the job of the legislature. The “it’s a reckless idea” pretty much sum it up for me. If income tax were abolished, it would just cause property tax, sales tax, and corporate income tax to shoot up. The latter could discourage job creation. So no, it’s a good sentiment but a horrible reckless idea.
<
p>2. Yes – Anything that takes even a half-buttocked step toward ending our stupid war on marijuana gets my vote.
<
p>3. No – It takes more than something being distasteful to outlaw it. I think this is a “snob law.” Dog racing is “lower class,” so let’s make it illegal. Sorry, but to get me to agree to pass this you’d have to show evidence that dog racing harms people or is more cruel to animals than other things that are legal such as farming. The fact that dogs are companion animals while pigs are not isn’t all that relevant or fair… dogs and pigs actually have similar levels of intelligence. I would perhaps support a crack down on animal cruelty at dog tracks, if indeed it’s going on.
pigs are off the hook?
<
p>if you think there isn’t cruelty at the tracks, you haven’t bothered to look. i find it fascinating that you went on that fascist tirade over david’s “uninformed” position on #2, yet you’re every bit as uninformed on #3.
Nope, I’m going for consistency in both cases.
<
p>In the case of marijuana, I argued that it should be legal if alcohol is illegal.
<
p>In the case of greyhound racing, I argued that it should be legal if factory farming is legal. Is it legal to raise pigs in small cages in this state?
<
p>Consistency is very important in law. If you’re not being consistent between groups of people and types of activities, then you’re showing favoritism and bigotry.
<
p>I get it about the way dogs are treated at tracks, but I don’t think it’s any worse than the way livestock is treated on most modern farms. I suspect that the real reason for proposition 3 is a desire to gentrify the area around Wonderland.
<
p>Don’t get me wrong… I wouldn’t shed a tear for Wonderland if it went out of business tomorrow. It is ugly and dirty, in my opinion. But a personal taste is not enough for me to pass a law.
<
p>I grew up in the midwest, and they have this thing there called a “megachurch.” I despise those things. They are filthy, exploitative, pseudo-churches. They’re sort of like a cross between a tax-exempt shopping mall and a Taliban indoctrination camp. Yet I would not vote for a measure to make them illegal. I would grit my teeth and vote no, since it’s not right to force your own personal tastes on others. That’s not the proper function of government.
I mean “legal if alcohol is legal” in the second line.
gentrify?
<
p>I keep telling everyone one this thread, it will just be one more empty building in an area that has to many already. The train station was finished in 2006, they are now working on Suffolk Downs and Maverick stations.
<
p>There have already been attempts to gentrify the area, 3 empty buildings and one hole in the ground later the area is still full of us icky poor people.
<
p>The gentry does not want to live here. However, if the track is closed, we get one more big empty space. A space many of the people who live near are concerned will be turned into a casino. Or just another big hole in the ground.
… OK. In an ideal legal world, we’d be consistent. More to the point,… we should be striving toward consistency. But then, where do you start? I mean, if you’d vote for 3 if we were more consistent with other animal laws, how would you get from a state of inconsistency in animal laws, presumably with some that you’d support and many you wouldn’t, to a set of more consistent animal laws? How could you do that without taking the intermediary steps of voting for individual laws (or representatives who would do so for you) more in keeping with the more consistent view you wish were held more generally?
<
p>Seems to me that consistency on any issue is a legal journey and voting on one instance of an issue is a necessary step toward that end.
Yeah, it’s a snob law, like the wine in grocery stores was…hmmm. OK, leave dog racing legal, but ban gambling on it.
I’m gonna vote to ban dog racing because it is gambling, screw the dogs.
because that’s how i would vote too, but of course for different reasons. fascinating how we can agree on so little yet end up in the same place.
<
p>Truly it is. For many of the reasons you cite. But, interestingly, there is another reason not often cited. This I find fascinating… and an indictment of our local journalists. Such a parlous state we inhabit…
<
p>
<
p>Carla Howler and Michael Clod have repeatedly run for office… and just as repeatedly… they have lost. Both here and, I believe, Colorado. Why is this? Well, their ideas are loopy, that’s why.
<
p>Well, if we don’t like them bringing their ideas into the legislature…. and the evidence is pretty clear that we don’t… why should we then turn around and vote for their ideas??
<
p>The answer is simple: we should not.
<
p>And we can be pretty sure they are being dishonest: the very concept of ‘waste, fraud and abuse’ requires one to believe in a working, workable government. This is not what libertarians believe. You’re likely to believe a Christian Scientist railing against bad doctors, as opposed to all doctors, if you believe Carla Howell is making a distinction between good government and bad government when it comes to tax revenues.
<
p>I will never seek advice from Grover Norquist on liberalism and I will never seek advice from Carla Howell on taxation.
<
p>
Howell had her chance to find and eliminate waste during her campaign for governor. She was never able to give specific places to cut, and she’s trying to tell us that every person who’s ever come near the State House is part of this conspiracy. Politics by wishing doesn’t work.
2. No. I changed my mind after hearing Worcester District 4 city coulcillor Barbara Haller. I agree with her. South Worcester doesn’t need more drug dealers. You never buy your weed in your own nice neighborhood.
3. I like dog racing. I also believe you can’t place 1,000 now homeless dogs.
billxi can we meet for coffee in Worcester? Send me an email. mikeburden55@hotmail.com
I bet you also don’t believe the Earth is round.
<
p>Seriously, where do you suppose the state is going to come up with the $13 billion in revenue the income tax generates? Surely, local property taxes will rise, but are limited by Prop 2 1/2. So what you have left are sales taxes and user fees, both of which are, at best, moderately regressive.
<
p>Just for shits and giggles, let’s assume that between increases in the property tax and sales and use taxes, we can close half the gap ($6.5B). Now, tell me which programs you’re going to cut to make up the other $6.5B?
<
p>
I’m near the Hub, I’m not falling off.
<
p> Emliminate the ABCC. All hacks anyways.
Cyut elderly programs by 20%. They’re overfunded.
Make cuts in disability services. There are extravagant spots.
Place tolls in Southie. Let EVERYONE share the burden.
Reorganize the Pike Commission. Still a lot of waste there.
More automation, less hacks.
Flagmen.For real, not just before the election.
Masshealth has a lot of loopholes. I know, I’ve used them.
Blow up DOR and rebuild the right way. A 10% or 600 families error rate is much too inefficient.
Legalize weed and control it’s sales. TAX REVENUE!
<
p> How’s them apples for a beginning?
billxi send me an email I would like to chat with you.
mikeburden55@hotmail.com or maybe we could meet for coffee some day in Worcester?
I have yet to see a single argument againt Q2 that I feel has merit.
<
p>Legislature can’t deal with it because too many are afraid of the “political danger” – and the best way to show them that the political danger may be illusory is in fact to vote for something like Q2. If it passes, the legislature will be emboldened to tackle drug policy reform; if it fails, too many legislators will understand the message: “you can’t touch this, voters will punish you”.
<
p>Unfortunately, unlike with gay marriage, this happens to be an issue where the voters are scared too, and may send a message they don’t mean to.
123Who
YesYesYes
YesYesNo
YesNoYes
YesNoNobillxi
NoYesYesRyan, Sabutai, MetroWest Daily News
NoYesNoCentralMassDad, adamierymenko, me
NoNoYesDavid
NoNoNoBoston Globe, Fibrowitch
2. Yes – I don’t like the idea of someone having a positive CORI for life over a little pot.
3. Yes – The dog are treated poorly.
Since last Tuesday
123Who
YesYesYes
YesYesNogarrett3000
YesNoYesPeter Porcupine
YesNoNobillxi
NoYesYesRyan, Sabutai, MetroWest Daily News, Renting in Mass,
tblade, AnnEm, eury13, Kathy, Ron Newman
NoYesNoCentralMassDad, adamierymenko, KBusch
NoNoYesDavid, petr
NoNoNoBoston Globe, Fibrowitch
are no yes yes!
<
p>(that could be the best middle school campaign version of a slogan on a bmg thread yet)
Are not afraid togo against the grain.
Apparently, Ryan thinks you are the opposite of cool, then.
<
p>You could be the hero of a Disney movie about how an uncool kid’s virtues (which are not immediately apparent) save the town from a scary cartoon character.
and here we were finally gonna be one of the cool people, too.
and here we were finally gonna be one of the cool people, too.
2. prosecuting people for small amounts of pot is a waste of taxpayers’ money.
3. for the dogs.
1 – obviously this would be disastrous for Massachusetts.
<
p>2 – Harassing people for possessing small amounts of a relatively harmless substance serves no public benefit. Giving people criminal records for marijuana possession damages their future, and wastes time and money for both police and the court system.
<
p>3 – Redevelop Wonderland for a more profitable use. It’s on a transit line and it’s on the water.
<
p>2. I agree with the arguments put forth by Adam and others. It makes no sense to treat it differently than alcohol. Put some drug dealers out of business. Regulate it and tax the shit out of it. And while you’re at it, make the legal age 18 for pot and booze.
<
p>3. I have no idea how Wonderland survives. The industry in Mass has been clinically dead for years. Impose standards of care and let it die of natural causes. Oh wait, I forgot, anything associated with the “G” word must be banned (except those games for the high end players like lottery, keno, scratch tix, etc.).