A new poll from Western New England University found that 57% of Massachusetts voters support the ballot question to legalize marijuana for adults over 21, with only 35% opposed. 7% remain undecided (1% declined to give an answer). Full results here.
This 22-point lead bodes very well for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, and makes sense given that the state approved both marijuana legalization and medical marijuana with 63% support. Other states’ forays into regulating marijuana are going very well, so voters are comfortable with Massachusetts following their lead and realizing the tax and justice benefits seen in Colorado, Washington, and Oregon (Alaska has also passed legalization, but dispensaries have not yet opened).
Also today, it was announced that Governor Charlie Baker, Mayor Martin J. Walsh of Boston, and House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo are forming a committee to campaign against the initiative, claiming it will increase youth use and worsen the opioid epidemic. These are both demonstrably false, as Colorado and Washington haven’t seen an increase in youth use and states with legal marijuana actually have fewer, not more, opiate overdose deaths.
Only time will tell what opposing a highly popular initiative with tired, incorrect fear-mongering does for the popularity of the three politicians.
Not on board with full legality – sends the wrong message IMO.
I understand that there will be various problems switching and that the substance can pose dangers, especially when overused by adolescents, but the fact remains that marijuana is significantly safer than alcohol.
The country is moving in that direction. Massachusetts should get on board and try to make sure that legalization can be done responsibly. (It’s also an economic development opportunity.)
…that it is affirmatively OK to consume such a substance. I see decriminalization as saying I guess we’ll look the other way, but legalization as saying it is a positive good. I’m not convinced from what I have read that it’s less harmful than alcohol, and economic development arguments are going to fall flat with me on something like this.
Tobacco, alcohol, gambling – I disagree that legalization necessarily means it’s a positive good. It’s something that responsible adults can be trusted to use, but I don’t see legalization as an endorsement, and to the extent it puts it in the same range as tobacco and alcohol, that’s fine with me.
What have you read on the harmful effects that lead you to that conclusion? I would like to see that evidence.
I could attach thousands of articles showing marijuana’s relative safety compared to alcohol, but here’s an ok snapshot that took 5 seconds to find.
Addiction, overdose, public health costs, risk to others – the science is quite clear that alcohol is more dangerous, especially on the public safety/public health front. There are serious concerns about marijuana, especially with use by those whose brains are still developing. All of that is the harder science and doesn’t even begin to cover the issues related to marijuana being an illegal substance and the black market infrastructure (and government response) that has been disastrous for so many communities.
I’ll be surprised if MA passes it this time, but we should. The country is moving in that direction. We can and should help lead the way on how to do this responsibly.
Alcohol is consumed by most people in moderation and may have some benefits. I’m open to marijuana for tightly controlled medical purposes. If I could be a dictator I would in fact ban cigarettes. Gambling is not a drug and I have always thought of that differently anyway, addictive qualities notwithstanding. I’m not doing this again. You are welcome to go back to other threads, but all I will say is I refer my honourable friend to commentary I’ve made previously on this issue.
If pot were already legal banning it would not necessarily be a high priority of mine, but in my mind there is no compelling reason to affirmatively say that another drug is OK because freedom or something. You might not take it as an endorsement, but some will and I’m especially concerned about kids. (Yeah, I know, there will be an “age restriction”. How has that worked out for cigarettes and alcohol?)
The same exact thing goes for marijuana (although with likely more significant benefits for many people). The big difference is that the people who use significant amounts of marijuana won’t die from liver disease in huge numbers (and cost everyone else tons in health expenses). They also won’t kill as many people driving under the influence.
How has keeping it illegal worked for pot? Use rates are still high across age groups but we also have all the horrible effects that come with prohibition – crime, cartels, unjust incarceration, etc. etc. Allowing drinking at 18 caused a lot of problems. We raised the age. It changed things.
We’ve done prohibition. We know it doesn’t work. We should stop fooling ourselves into thinking we can make it work.
…the way I do cigarettes. I’ve never had to ask someone to kindly keep their pot smoke from blowing my direction. I’m not asking for heavy incarceration. I did say decriminalization was OK, remember. Your first quoted line is what I anticipated which is why I said medical might be OK, but the fumes of cigarettes and the intoxication of alcohol is not a combination there is any compelling need to affirmatively legalize. Of course, if you really did want to look back at what I’ve commented previously you will find that I have already responded to every single issue you raise. There is nothing new here and I have made up my mind.
you don’t get out much
…since it means determining points in light of precedent.
Given that the most obvious precedent hat comes to mind is Prohibition…
I don’t want to legalize another substance yet at the same time am not champing at the bit to ban already legal substances.
…rather than legalese. A reasonable person might make a conclusion in a way precisely opposite from your intended meaning.
Stare decisis does not mean “leaving things be”; it means looking at and citing (legally) decided examples from the past.
Remember that legal terms are meant to be specific within their context. The context in this sense is political, but nevertheless a reasonable person will presume that the precedent (Prohibition in this case) makes a case to abolish criminalizing intoxicants.
By using “stare decisis” you employed a term that undercut your argument.
…which Prohibition isn’t currently. I guess it wasn’t clear that I was meaning it literally rather than as legal doctrine in a court context. (That’s what five years of Latin, the closest I have to a second language, gets me.) The current legislative decisions are that alcohol on cigarettes are legal while pot is not.
You’re not going to win with a “reefer madness” style campaign. You need to convince the voters that this particular law is bad. Go after the control board full of hacks, the loss of local control, etc.
Now I’m older and I’m less interested personally ( and would be fired if I failed a drug test) it’s NBD.
Do we really think more stoned people is a positive thing for our society?
I think we think that less black market is.
Fully-legalized marijuana could transform marijuana farms in western Massachusetts into a tourist destination for pot smokers in the same way that Northern California wine country has become a nationwide tourist destination for wine lovers.
Marijuana could be a significant cash crop, and could bring much needed revenue back to desperately struggling western Massachusetts property owners.
The possible harmful effects of legalized marijuana pale in comparison to the well-documented impact of the predatory casino gambling industry that we are currently inviting into the state.
The only difference under the proposed law is that now they are taxpayers and small businesses contributing to the economy instead of taxeaters in prison cells contributing to cartels causing violence and mayhem south of the border.
One of the more egregious canards about marijuana is the claim that it is a “gateway drug” that introduces adolescents into other more dangerous habits.
Most of the alleged harm attributed to marijuana is, in fact, a consequence of its prohibition. The “war on drugs” launched by Ronald Reagan had several immediate effects:
1. It raised the street price of weed so that far more dangerous drugs (such as cocaine) were price-competitive
2. It took the amateur weed dealers out of the game, so that adolescents bought from full-bore agents of organized crime rather than friends and peers
3. It made weed traffic far more profitable for organized crime, so that it became much more aggressive in eliminating amateur competition.
The effect of legalizing marijuana nationwide will be to reverse these. The effect of THAT will be, in fact, to raise — rather than lower— the barriers separating marijuana consumption from other more dangerous drugs.
More stoned people on weed is much better than less stoned people on harder drugs. It’s especially true in poorer neighborhoods.
At our town meeting they passed a “just-for-show” resolution trying to avert a dispensary that already has a permit to open here. The next evening, I was at an event with a bunch of pharmacists, and they were laughing at some of the arguments that had been presented. These are people that have been on the front lines of the opioid crisis and seen it all. They just could not see getting upset about cannabis when some doctors have been handing out legal heroin like it was candy.
Something important to remember to put into perspective the concern trolling and fear-mongering from the prohibitionists.
(Bumped).