Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

  • Shop
  • Subscribe to BMG
  • Contact
  • Log In
  • Front Page
  • All Posts
  • About
  • Rules
  • Events
  • Register on BMG

Voters support marijuana legalization; Baker, Walsh, & DeLeo don’t

April 14, 2016 By SamTracy

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.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0
0

Filed Under: User Tagged With: ballot-initiatives, Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, charlie-baker, election 2016, marijuana, marijuana legalization, marty-walsh, robert-deleo

Comments

  1. Christopher says

    April 14, 2016 at 4:46 pm

    Not on board with full legality – sends the wrong message IMO.

    • doubleman says

      April 14, 2016 at 10:55 pm

      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.)

      • Christopher says

        April 14, 2016 at 11:24 pm

        …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.

        • doubleman says

          April 14, 2016 at 11:57 pm

          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.

          • Christopher says

            April 15, 2016 at 12:33 am

            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.

            • Christopher says

              April 15, 2016 at 12:39 am

              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?)

              • doubleman says

                April 15, 2016 at 8:32 am

                Alcohol is consumed by most people in moderation and may have some benefits.

                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.

                (Yeah, I know, there will be an “age restriction”. How has that worked out for cigarettes and alcohol?)

                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.

                • Christopher says

                  April 15, 2016 at 8:37 am

                  …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.

                • centralmassdad says

                  April 15, 2016 at 9:48 am

                  you don’t get out much

              • paulsimmons says

                April 16, 2016 at 5:26 pm

                …since it means determining points in light of precedent.

                Given that the most obvious precedent hat comes to mind is Prohibition…

                • Christopher says

                  April 16, 2016 at 7:28 pm

                  I don’t want to legalize another substance yet at the same time am not champing at the bit to ban already legal substances.

                • paulsimmons says

                  April 16, 2016 at 7:56 pm

                  …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.

                • Christopher says

                  April 16, 2016 at 10:14 pm

                  …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.

  2. marcus-graly says

    April 14, 2016 at 8:40 pm

    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.

  3. merrimackguy says

    April 15, 2016 at 12:25 am

    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?

    • centralmassdad says

      April 15, 2016 at 9:49 am

      I think we think that less black market is.

      • SomervilleTom says

        April 15, 2016 at 7:56 pm

        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.

  4. jconway says

    April 15, 2016 at 8:16 am

    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.

  5. SomervilleTom says

    April 15, 2016 at 8:05 pm

    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.

    • merrimackguy says

      April 15, 2016 at 9:25 pm

      More stoned people on weed is much better than less stoned people on harder drugs. It’s especially true in poorer neighborhoods.

      • rcmauro says

        April 15, 2016 at 10:31 pm

        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.

        • jotaemei says

          August 31, 2016 at 5:22 pm

          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).

Recommended Posts

  • No posts liked yet.

Recent User Posts

Predictions Open Thread

December 22, 2022 By jconway

This is why I love Joe Biden

December 21, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Garland’s Word

December 19, 2022 By terrymcginty

Some Parting Thoughts

December 19, 2022 By jconway

Beware the latest grift

December 16, 2022 By fredrichlariccia

Thank you, Blue Mass Group!

December 15, 2022 By methuenprogressive

Recent Comments

  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftSo where to, then??
  • Christopher on Some Parting ThoughtsI've enjoyed our discussions as well (but we have yet to…
  • Christopher on Beware the latest griftI can't imagine anyone of our ilk not already on Twitter…
  • blueeyes on Beware the latest griftI will miss this site. Where are people going? Twitter?…
  • chrismatth on This site (will be disabled on) December 31, 2022I joined BMG late - 13 years ago next month and three da…
  • SomervilleTom on Geopolitics of FusionEVERY un-designed, un-built, and un-tested technology is…
  • Charley on the MTA on This site (will be disabled on) December 31, 2022That’s a great idea, and I’ll be there on Sunday. It’s a…

Archive

@bluemassgroup on Twitter

#mapoli

brianna_asavage Brianna Aloisio Savage @brianna_asavage ·
2m

Alongside YW Boston, I am grateful for Rep Nguyen, Rep Shand, and Sen Miranda's leadership on #ParityonBoard, filed this month! #ParityonBoard #mapoli #equity #representationmatters https://lnkd.in/efxNCWAk

Reply on Twitter 1620117417677524993 Retweet on Twitter 1620117417677524993 Like on Twitter 1620117417677524993 Twitter 1620117417677524993
homesforallmass Homes for All Massachusetts @homesforallmass ·
3m

“A group approx. 25 Lynn activists drove to Boston Sat morning, where they rallied outside the State House — alongside dozens of housing justice advocates, labor union leaders and tenants — in support of a legislative rent control package.” https://www.itemlive.com/2023/01/29/lynn-activists-rally-for-rent-control/ #MApoli

Reply on Twitter 1620117240896163841 Retweet on Twitter 1620117240896163841 1 Like on Twitter 1620117240896163841 1 Twitter 1620117240896163841
andreabaldy55 Andrea Baldwin @andreabaldy55 ·
4m

Too funny @massgop #mapoli #DumpJimLyons

Kenneth Glennon @kennethglenn06

Jim Jones Lyons @JimLyonsMA team of Spaceballs are running out of time to further take the @massgop from suck to blow! Don't get your Schwartz twisted, Lyons, Door-Dash Diehl and Motormouth McMahon are preparing to jump to LUDICROUS speed to finish the job! #DumpJimLyons #mapoli

Reply on Twitter 1620117094988931073 Retweet on Twitter 1620117094988931073 Like on Twitter 1620117094988931073 Twitter 1620117094988931073
alisonkuznitz Alison Kuznitz @alisonkuznitz ·
11m

"We are taking every single precaution and really sparing no expense to ensure that both patients and providers can feel safe, that their personal information will not be shared." #mapoli https://www.masslive.com/politics/2023/01/mass-launches-abortion-legal-hotline-in-new-push-to-defend-reproductive-care.html

Reply on Twitter 1620115202388955137 Retweet on Twitter 1620115202388955137 Like on Twitter 1620115202388955137 1 Twitter 1620115202388955137
bncordeiro Brock N. Cordeiro @bncordeiro ·
15m

Rep. Rodney Elliott of the 16th Middlesex district is the newest cosponsor (34th) of An Act to reduce incidence & death from #PancreaticCancer (House Docket #393/Senate Docket #264) THANK YOU! #magov #mapoli @ACSCANMA @PanCANBoston @PanCAN @letswinpc @lustgartenfdn @worldpcc

Reply on Twitter 1620114111085559810 Retweet on Twitter 1620114111085559810 Like on Twitter 1620114111085559810 Twitter 1620114111085559810
prof_eob Dr. Erin O'Brien @prof_eob ·
18m

Compared to state leg districts in MA, districts in other New England states have higher likelihoods of women running for office:
- 108% higher likelihood for Connecticut
- 183% for Maine
- 412% for New Hampshire
- 90% for Rhode Island
- 314% for Vermont

#mapoli #NEpoli

Reply on Twitter 1620113407197446145 Retweet on Twitter 1620113407197446145 Like on Twitter 1620113407197446145 1 Twitter 1620113407197446145
Load More

From our sponsors




Google Calendar







Search

Archives

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter




Copyright © 2023 Owned and operated by BMG Media Empire LLC. Read the terms of use. Some rights reserved.