I think I've held forth on these already, so I won't belabor the points:
Question 1: No.
For all those folks who don't use roads, or send kids to schools (or care about or are influenced by public education in any way), or aren't protected by police or firemen, or don't use libraries, or courts, or services for the disabled, or have parents in nursing homes, or get health care services, or use parks, or are affected by local economies … Yeah, for all those folks, then Question 1 makes a hell of lot of sense. All three of you, living in that cave, with all the guns and canned food.
For the rest of us, it's a Dumb Idea.
Question 2: Yes.
I just can never get over the question of why marijuana possession itself should be illegal in the first place. The argument always goes into “it's a gateway drug” (slippery slope), or weak analogies to alcohol, heroin or cocaine (are they at all similar? How?), or that weed is way more powerful than it used to be (more powerful than what? to what effect, exactly?).
I am open to any responsible, well-documented arguments regarding the harmfulness of marijuana. But I seem to never actually hear them.
In the absence of such arguments, I have to conclude that our marijuana possession laws are draconian, and should be weakened or cast aside entirely. This measure is a small movement towards that end; and as has been pointed out by some astute observers here, it expresses the public's opinion regarding an issue on which few elected leaders are willing to lead.
Question 3: Yes.
I am sensitive to the fact that jobs may well be lost if greyhound racing it outlawed. I'm also sensitive to the fact that it's a dying business in any event, and that the industry has called on the state to allow slots at racetracks. I don't see a good reason to allow (or even subsidize through liberalized gambling) a sport in which animals are abused.
If this passes, measures should be taken to help the employees of the tracks. This isn't a slam-dunk like the others, but I'll be voting yes.
it’s very well documented that it’s harmful. It’s very carcinogenic, and remember, you’re actually putting smoke into your lungs! No good! Also, it does a number on your natural seratonin levels.
<
p>I don’t think theres a question as to whether it’s harmful…thats like saying beer isn’t harmful. It’s a question of whether someone should use their personal discretion to use it or have big brother decide for me. Unless they come out with a super-pot that has similar effects on the body as heroine or meth, pot is more or less a smoking equivalent of getting your drink on.
Got any legit links to back up your claims? This ain’t RMG, bub. đŸ˜‰
Marjiuana smoke was suspected of being carcinogenic because tobacco smoke is, but all the good research on the subject found that the opposite is true.
<
p>Unfortunately, the government muddied the waters by funding some shoddy experiments for a few decades, expressly designed (and in some cases so bad that I could say “expressly faked”) to show dangers from marijuana smoke, including cancer risk. These are still quoted by some publications, including some from the government, because the studies’ findings sound real and professional. However, there’s plenty of literature examining these and it’s pretty clear that all the studies that every purported to show this were actually nonsense. And there’s no lack of good well-designed research that very solidly establishes that it doesn’t raise people’s cancer risk.
<
p>(For an example, one prominent study that claimed marijuana smoking caused brain damage, was done by pumping marijuana smoke into monkeys so aggressively they didn’t get enough oxygen. If you read about their methods it becomes obvious the brain damage was from asphyxiation.)
All sounds plausible, but I want to know sez who.
The NIDA is a solid source.
<
p>Even orgs such as norml accept that pot has health risks here.
<
p>The evidence seems to point to the same thing i said earlier: rather than being a hard drug, its closer to being beer you smoke.
Like the one in Readville. It probably depends on how much you smoke, and how much the EPA happens to be paying attention.
You won’t get liver disease by having a glass of wine with dinner every night. Smoke a joint a couple times a week probably won’t give you cancer.
2. No. “South Worcester doesn’t need any more drug dealers.” Worcester district 4 city councillor Barbara Haller. surely you’re not going to want drug dealers coming to your suburban door! Legalize and tax.
3. No. I have some trouble believing homes can be found for approximately 1,000 dogs. If a dog can’t win in MA, they aren’t being sent to better tracks.
The fact is that the racing industry either dumps most of its animals onto the laps of charities or it euthanizes them. My greyhound was lucky enough to have a home in a shelter for over a year before he found a home with us. Who do you think payed for that? It sure as hell wasn’t anyone in the racing industry. Please don’t pretend that you are voting no on 3 out of concern for the dogs welfare. If you are, you are severely misguided.
He wants to take supply out of the hands of drug dealers. Under the potential new arrangement, those who have weed and won’t get “punished” will still have obtained their weed from drug dealers who will have other bad stuff. A minor, nuanced distinction, but it’s crucial.
<
p>Basically, he does not think that this is the right solution to the perceived problem.
Until the district councillor eloquently stated that the area doesn’t need any more drug dealers. The area is slowly coming up from my lifetime of drugs, drunks, and stabbings. I know, I grew up there. Give south Worcester a chance, vote NO on 2.
On another note, I have 2 convictions/slaps for posession. I never had a problem being bonded or scrutinized. No ones life is ruined for a misdemeanor conviction.
It is very sad how our public safety officials are spreading ignorance.
<
p>Drug criminalization in fact causes the very problems they warn of, including violence associated with drug dealing.
Yes on Question 1? So the state let you down once – and I don’t mean to trivialize, I understand this was a major failing – and so you’re going to vote to make sure the state lets everybody down just as badly?
<
p>You know, that’s pretty messed up.
Studies of very heavy marijuana smokers in Jamaica found no ill health effects. No well-designed study I know of (and I put some good effort into search) has ever found carcinogenic effects – though there were a series of sham studies that pretended to, as part of a propoganda effort, when you look at their methods you quickly realize they made no sense whatsoever.
<
p>Not, it is not harmful. It is about as safe as sugar, flour, and butter. You can abuse some of those in ways that will harm your health, but they’re actually easier to do so with than marijuana is.
<
p>Beer, on the other hand, is definitely harmful, and well-documented to be so.
You’re putting SMOKE in your LUNGS. You’re never going to convince me that I could theoretically spend years putting smoke in my lungs and have it all be sugar and butter regardless of any other side effect pot may or may not have.
Fine, ignore the science and go with your gut.
<
p>You realize that marijuana prohibition laws don’t take into consideration whether it’s going to be smoked or baked into brownies or used in some other way, right?
<
p>P.S. From what I’ve seen, the main carcinogenic risk from smoking tobacco comes from tobacco leaves’ propensity to pick up and retain radioactive particles. It comes from pesticides, from the soil, etc. There are a number of common plants, some of which we eat, that concentrate radioactive isotopes in their leaves, but the problem with tobacco is that when we smoke it bits of that get lodged in the windpipe or lungs and then just stay there.
<
p>Marijuana leaves do not have tobacco’s radioactivity concentration, so don’t pose that problem, which is why studies found no higher incidence of lung cancer among habitual marijuana smokers, even high volume habitual smokers (see two long-term studies titled “ganja in jamaica”).
or you could ignore common sense.
<
p>SMOKE IN LUNGS.
<
p>Have you ever seen me say it should be prohibited in any form? No. I don’t think it should be, but I’m not going to act like it’s this risk free fun thing to do. It’s not.
When research says one thing and your common sense says the opposite, it must be “common sense” to go with the latter. I understand.
<
p>However, the point I was trying to make is that (even though you’re wrong about the smoke thing) one can ingest marijuana without smoke, and in fact many people do.