Hello BMG community. This is Senator Jason Lewis. Seeing the recent discussion on BMG about marijuana legalization I thought I would share my perspective on this issue and why I oppose the likely November ballot question.
A year ago, Senate President Stan Rosenberg created the Special Senate Committee on Marijuana, and asked me to lead this effort. The Committee’s purpose was to conduct a thorough and objective review and analysis of the many public policy ramifications if Massachusetts were to legalize marijuana for recreational use and sale. We did a deep dive on marijuana policy, including extensive research and interviews with more than 75 expert stakeholders in Massachusetts and across the country. We also spent almost a week on the ground in Colorado, to observe firsthand the marijuana industry from “seed to sale” and to hear directly from state and local government regulators and industry officials. The Committee produced a 118 page report with our findings and recommendations which I encourage you to read (or at least skim) if you’re interested in this topic.
I began this process knowing very little about marijuana policy and with an open mind about whether legalization would be good or bad for Massachusetts. I maintained a neutral position throughout the process, and the Committee did not take a position on legalization or the ballot question (since it was not charged with doing so).
Once the Committee had wrapped up its work, given everything I had learned over the past year, I took a public position in opposition to the ballot question. I’m now active on the Steering Committee of the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts (the organization recently formed by Governor Baker, Speaker DeLeo, and Mayor Walsh to oppose the ballot question).
I know many people think what’s the big deal if an adult wants to smoke a joint now and then. It doesn’t seem more harmful than having a beer or a cocktail? So why shouldn’t we just go ahead and legalize marijuana already? Well, the proposed ballot question to legalize recreational marijuana use and sale in Massachusetts is about far more than an adult simply being able to smoke a joint. And I think that once people begin to understand how far reaching this proposal is and how many troubling issues are involved, they will conclude that the ballot question is bad for Massachusetts.
The first thing to understand is that marijuana today is vastly different from a few decades ago. It is consumed in many different ways, including smoking, vaping (similar to e-cigarettes), dabbing (inhaling highly concentrated THC), and eating or drinking marijuana-infused foods and beverages. The latter is the fastest growing part of the market and includes cookies, candy, energy drinks, and almost anything else you can imagine. Edibles present particularly challenging issues for public health and safety, such as overconsumption by adults and accidental consumption by children. The potency (THC content) of today’s marijuana is far greater than in years past. A joint in the 1970s had a potency of about 2%; the average potency of products on the market today in Colorado is 18%, and some marijuana extracts are getting close to 100% pure THC. The Netherlands defines marijuana with a potency above 15% as a hard drug. Higher potency appears to increase the risk of harmful health consequences and addiction.
The scientific evidence is now absolutely clear that marijuana is unsafe for young people whose brains are still developing. Cognitive development, physical health, mental health and career prospects may all face serious impairment. Approximately one in six people who begin using as a minor will become addicted to marijuana. These young people and their families face a terrible struggle to overcome their dependence.
What the ballot question is really about is opening the door to a billion dollar, commercial, profit-driven marijuana industry in Massachusetts. This new industry will be highly motivated to increase marijuana consumption, both by getting people to use more and by gaining new customers. They will target young people because that’s a proven strategy to win new customers and grow your business. The industry’s advertising and marketing will further normalize marijuana use, marijuana availability is likely to increase even more than today, and competition will lead to collapsing prices. All of which will increase youth marijuana use. The industry’s profits will come at the expense of public health and the wellbeing of our young people. We are already seeing this playing out in Colorado which now has more pot shops than Starbucks and McDonalds combined and where youth marijuana consumption is the highest of any state in the nation. The playbook of big tobacco will be repurposed for big marijuana.
The ballot question also has numerous other problems. It has no limits or restrictions on edibles (even products like marijuana gummy bears), no limits on potency, no details on labeling requirements, an overly aggressive and unrealistic implementation timeline, and no provision for baseline data collection and research. Local control over whether to allow different types of marijuana businesses would be significantly handicapped. The proposed ballot question would also allow home growing of up to 12 plants. A single plant can generate about a pound of marijuana, worth as much as $5,000. This is very different from home brewing. It will be almost impossible for law enforcement to identify and stop illegal growing and diversion to the black market. Issues with multi-family residences, odor, wastewater, and other problems will be rampant.
Even if the ballot question were to pass in Massachusetts, marijuana would still be illegal under federal law. This creates numerous additional challenges and complications. For example, state government would have to take on difficult and costly responsibilities like ensuring product safety and regulating pesticides, which would ordinarily be the responsibility of federal agencies like the FDA and EPA. Since banks are regulated by the Federal Reserve, most of them are unwilling to do business with the marijuana industry, resulting in lots of cash transactions and serious security issues. Employers face thorny questions when state law conflicts with federal law.
The proponents of the ballot question say that we need to legalize marijuana so we stop throwing people in jail for smoking a joint, eliminate the black market, and generate tax revenues to help fund public services. These all sound like excellent arguments, except they’re all specious. Since we already decriminalized marijuana in 2008 virtually nobody in Massachusetts is being arrested for simply possessing or using marijuana anymore. Legalizing marijuana will not end the black market; in fact it is thriving in Colorado due to smuggling across state lines and the ease and profitability of growing plants hidden within the legal market. And, finally, the expected tax revenues are not likely to even cover the required regulatory and enforcement burdens that would be imposed on our state and municipal governments as well as substance abuse prevention and treatment — and would almost certainly not be a new source of funding for schools or the MBTA.
While some of the proponents of the ballot question are no doubt motivated by social justice concerns (notably Dick Evans), the money behind the campaign comes from the national Marijuana Policy Project which is motivated far more by making profits than fighting injustice.
The final argument that I would make against the ballot question is that this is the wrong time for Massachusetts to go down this road. We are just not ready. We are still struggling to fully implement medical marijuana. Law enforcement and our courts lack clear procedures and protocols for dealing with people driving under the influence of marijuana. We lack comprehensive and reliable baseline data on marijuana use in Massachusetts. And, we need to take strong action to reverse a troubling trend among young people who increasingly view marijuana as safe for them to consume. These are the issues that we need to focus on right now, rather than struggling to implement a badly flawed ballot question that is really about opening the door to a commercial, profit-driven marijuana industry. We should continue to learn from the experience in other states like Colorado and Washington. Although we generally pride ourselves in Massachusetts on being leaders, this is one issue where it’s far better to be a follower.
Multiple sources in the advocacy community have brought this to my attention and this is a great place to confirm that rumor or put it to bed.
I’m not sure where you heard such rumors, but they are completely false. I have no relationship whatsoever with any marijuana business, in either the medical or recreational markets.
I will pass the info along to those that heard otherwise. I still disagree with your position being either rational or progressive but we can disagree agreeably.
I’ve never smoked pot in my life, but I too have looked at the facts, including the ballot question, and the facts are that marijuana is far less damaging to people and communities than cigarettes or alcohol, and it isn’t even close.
There are flaws in the ballot question, no doubt, but unfortunately I’m not seeing this as a diary that addresses those issues in a proactive way. Instead, it points out some quibbles, and then argues against legalizing marijuana completely, as if those quibbles were somehow unable to be solved or that there were no alternatives.
If this is the general consensus in the legislature, that’s fine. There’s an easy solution: work out reasonable compromise legislation passing a regulatory framework to legalize marijuana in a way that addresses concerns with THC, edibles, etc, which would avoid a ballot question. The legislature’s done this in the past numerous times. It works, and has avoided numerous ballot questions.
Ballot questions aren’t great ways to craft legislation — just about everyone understands that — but they become necessary when legislatures refuse to act.
Isn’t this a good thing? Or do we only want billion dollar, profit-driven industries when venture capitalists are behind them, or they have armies of well-paid lobbyists?
Heck, unlike some recent ‘job creators’ being welcomed into the state, this is an industry that isn’t asking for hundreds of millions in state and city dollars in order to locate here. Who’d have thought?
This ballot question would not legalize pot for minors, and would help undermine the black market that currently sells to those minors in abundance.
That’s a big asterisk. Plenty of people are arrested for selling small amounts of pot, and we could put black marks on their record for catching them… or we could legalize the industry and give people jobs. Frankly, I’d rather give them jobs, ones they’d pay state taxes on and get health insurance for, and where we could strictly regulate who they sell to, ensuring it’s not kids.
There’s an easy solution here, and one I hope the legislature will take up: Pass a bill that legalizes marijuana with a higher tax rate.
It’s always the wrong time to pass [insert bill here].
Unfortunately, this is the legislature’s fault. It had years to listen to Massachusetts residents, including many suffering from cancer who didn’t have time to wait, and pass a fully-fleshed out medical marijuana bill. It didn’t. The legislature should accept responsibility for the failures resulting from that inaction by passing a bill to legalize pot with a strong regulatory framework now, while it still can.
Again, thank you for your post. Dialog is good, and I’m glad you’ve engaged in one here. I hope you’ll take your concerns with this bill to your colleagues and ask them to pass a bill that addresses them and others, so we can get a good legalization bill passed in the leg, instead of a blunt — but necessary — one at the ballot box.
… without (I hope) slighting the cogency and force of your overall arguments I have two quibbles.
Alcohol is an immediate danger: you drink, you drive, you can die (or kill). The danger of cigarettes is cumulative. One cigarette isn’t going to hurt much, nor ten and you can drive while smoking . It’s the accumulation of smoking that is the danger and the damage.
But the use of marijuana can be both immediate (don’t drive while high) and cumulative … I have a hard time thinking that any ingesting of smoke, be it tobacco or cannabis, is a healthy thing in the long run. (and yes, alcohol is a cumulative danger to health also)
In addition, marijuana has analgesic affects. So too does aspirin, advil, tylenol, etc. And we’re seeing more and more that long term use of these things (particularly nsaids) can be damaging to health. The case for advil and tylenol many years ago was that it was safer to take than aspirin… and that mirrors claims made now that cannabis is safer than tobacco, alcohol, etc…
Because marijuana use and (as Sen Lewis pointed out) potency has been artificially suppressed, long term effects, at this time, can’t really be determined. .
I’m not saying all this as a reason not to legalize. I’m saying this as a reason to legalize carefully and as a reason not to make blanket statements.
I think just about any effort on the part of the legislature can be viewed, by somebody, as a ‘refus[al] to act.’ So I don’t think that it’s a very good test for ballot initiatives. ( It will, no doubt, come as no surprise to any that I don’t actually think there exists a good test for ballot initiatives.)
The legal status of the drug has effectively blocked ALL research into its effects for decades. That’s why we have essentially ZERO actual evidence about its effects.
I suggest that marijuana be legalized, regulated, and studied. As actual evidence is accumulated of its actual effects, I think there will be widespread public support for reflecting that evidence in an appropriate regulatory regimen.
There are some hoops and I think it should be easier, but Hillary Clinton recently made a similar claim, which Politifact rated Mostly False.
I’m happy to edit my comment to read “That’s why we have so little actual evidence” instead of “That’s why we have essentially ZERO actual evidence”.
Here are some excerpts from your cite (emphasis mine):
My point is that our regulatory framework should be based on actual research. Our current legal system and policy actively impedes that research.
In fact when I first started to read I wondered how it was going to lead to Mostly False. I guess I had taken your previous comments to mean we can’t research at all and took your word for it. My apologies if I misinterpreted.
..this diary highlights generally the problems with legislating by popular vote.
The stupid people don’t know what’s good for them & Very Serious People need to decide for them?
That’s what legislatures are for – to do the research and come up with sound policy. However, what I was thinking in this case is that Sen. Lewis implies that there are ways the law could be made better, but ballot questions can’t get marked up, amended, etc. By their nature ballot questions are take it or leave it propositions, which is not a good way to legislate.
Which is why he legislature which had ample time and publicly funded research teams to study Colorado should’ve done this job. The fact that the people have to do it instead is a failure of leadership, including from Sen. Lewis.
…isn’t this diary entirely about the legislature, and specifically Sen. Lewis’s committee, doing it’s job?
… that is beneath you.
It is possible that stupid people might not know what’s good for them, and in a representative democracy they are free to vote for representation that is equally as stupid as they are. A republican form of government does not guarantee the best, or even the most serious, outcome. The bottomless absurdity of campaign Trump is not, in fact, a failing of democracy.
A representative form of government merely tries to place as many obstacles to the knee-jerk and reactionary stupid as possible and is in fact predicated on the notion that even stupid people, given time, will recognize (re- cognize) a stupid idea. The frustrating bit for us progressives is that these same obstacles also exist in the path of the brilliant and the sublime. Every opportunity is taken to mitigate the instant-gratification-is-not-quick-enough mindset of the angry and emotional, as well as that of the righteous and the self-righteous alike.
That’s a price I’m willing to pay
…on many issues I count myself as one of the “stupid” people, which doesn’t mean that I personally could not make a sound decision if I had the time or inclination to study it. Just that I know I am not in a good position to make these decisions and would rather leave to people with the resources and charge to do it.
I am still leaning toward voting for the measure, but this is food for thought.
Draft Kings is a harmful industry that will target kids too.
so they’re the kind of billion dollar profit-driven industry we like.
If some cool Harvard drop out wearing a hoodie or hipster child of the .01% created a “start up” and built a high tech cannabis farm in Massachusetts with robots or a cool app, and had at least $1 of funding from Google or Bain Capital, I’m pretty sure pot would have been legalized yesterday.
…and no, I don’t think your prediction would come to pass.
This reads much more like a compilation of all possible defenses of the status quo than
The ballot measure isn’t as detailed as you’d like? The legislature is welcome to pass a legalization bill addressing your concerns.
Possession has been decriminalized? If having it is OK, why are we throwing the sellers in prison? The reason, generally speaking, is because the users are perceived as mostly white and the sellers are perceived as mostly scary scary black people.
If we’re going to talk about the big money on drugs, the US government spends $15 billion a year on the war on drugs – prisons, police, military, and private contractors to support all of the above. The Marijuana Policy Project’s annual budget is under $3 million. There’s definitely big money around this question, but it’s on the side of the war on drugs.
Again, you say you have an open mind, but your concerns seem narrowly tailored to support one point of view.
Which is that the legislature has ample time and tax payer funded junkets to Colorado to propose a more workable alternative or compromise than the proposal on the ballot. The MPPA is neutral on the ballot question since its non-partisan, but there is a real concern among their community that this form of legalization will make getting medicine more expensive.
The ballot question is imperfect, but at this point the legislature has had several years to propose a better solution, as Dave Rogers and Pat Jehlen attempted, and instead they have ignored it in favor of preserving an unjust and racist status quo. Not to mention leaving all that revenue on the table. As I argued here a few years ago, this will generate far more tax dollars than casinos ever will. Or anything out of GE or the foolhardy Olympics. If you had done your jobs and been forward thinking and this wouldn’t have to be passed at the ballot box. I’d rather legalize it and alter the regimen after the fact than prevent this version from being passed due to a few problematic issues. I have zero confidence the legislature has the ability or inclination to legalize in a sensible way, so hopefully they can fix any mistakes the voters enact through this policy.
comprehensive report on the marijuana legalization issue. But it does raise some questions for me. You say the committee interviewed more than 75 experts and stakeholders. Did the committee bring these people in to testify publicly? The report doesn’t make this clear, but it doesn’t appear from the report that any public testimony was solicited. I believe a public hearing was recently held on the marijuana legalization issue by the Judiciary Committee; but why not the special committee dedicated to studying the issue?
So much of what the Legislature does seems to happen behind closed doors, such as the recent substitution by your own Public Health Committee of a bill concerning medical care for persons with developmental disabilities with another bill that reduced the scope of the program and appears likely to benefit a major lobbying organization on Beacon Hill. The substitution was made with no hearing and no committee vote, as far as we can tell.
Transparency in the legislative process would increase the credibility of that process. I think your marijuana report would have more credibility if it was based on public testimony that could have been subject to public scrutiny.
I’m reminded of 1974, when some elected officials in Massachusetts offered similar defenses for why court-ordered school desegregation was bad, why it was “not the right time”, all of the problems it would cause, etc.
Here’s my view. I think that a substantial number of Massachusetts residents want to grow, market, or consume cannabis and cannabis products. I think that dozens of communities in western Massachusetts are desperate for ways to rejuvenate themselves, and see legalized marijuana as a significant opportunity for doing so.
I think that most of the issues cited in this “study” are the result of government intransigence at the state or federal level, are readily resolved through reasonable policy changes, and have nothing to do with cannabis itself. I think that Massachusetts prides itself leading the nation towards progressive change. Marijuana legalization is a change that MUST and WILL happen at the federal level — I would like to see my state lead, rather than resist, this needed change.
Even a quick skim of this “study” reveals its many shortcomings. Just to pick one example: “Healthcare professionals who work with teens at recovery high schools and substance abuse treatment programs indicate that substantially all of their clients use marijuana, often in addition to tobacco, alcohol, and other substances.” The same is true of milk. Shall we make milk illegal, asserting that it is a “gateway” substance? This kind of self-serving nonsense has been part of the “war on drugs” for decades. Including it a report published in 2016 is an embarrassment to the authors of the report. What’s next, the inclusion of “Reefer Madness” in educational material distributed to schools?
There are several pages of “Studies, Publications, and Reports” (pp 108-113). I’d like to know how those were gathered, what experts reviewed those, and what process the committee followed to ensure that it was receiving unbiased scientific evidence.
I note the following section on “Economic Impacts” (emphasis mine):
Hmm. Half a billion dollars in new in-state revenue. Hundreds of small to medium size businesses. Tens of thousands of jobs. Have you been paying ANY attention to what’s been happening in western MA?
There are discussions and hand-wringing from time to time about why Massachusetts loses so many people — especially young people — to places like California and Colorado. The reactionary hokum presented in this “study” provides a good example of an aspect of that flight.
Nowhere in this “study” or in your thread-starter do I find recognition that the desire to enjoy the recreational use of marijuana is a legitimate expression of the “pursuit of happiness” of many Massachusetts residents. The “study” cites more than 800,000 users even while it is illegal — the likely number of residents who would choose to use marijuana if it was legal is likely to be even higher. The puritanical and moralistic tone of all this strikes me as yet another throwback to the 1930s.
Here’s what I want my progressive legislators to do:
1. LISTEN to the people. Massachusetts residents WANT legalized marijuana
2. Identify and then solve issues that arise. When concerns such as those raised in this study are raised, present alternatives for addressing them rather than citing them as excuses for inaction.
3. LEAD, rather than follow, on issues that remain unresolved long enough to provoke ballot measures.
In short — please go back, do your homework, and try again.
The “think of the children” part of this piece stood out to me. It may be earth-shattering news for some, but teenagers already smoke pot. About 2/3 of the kids in my lily white, affluent suburban high school had at least tried it (I was an exception–and would still be if such a survey were done today). With marijuana legalized for those over 21, it is no less illegal to sell to teenagers than it is today. And one would think that establishing a legal framework would make it more difficult for teenagers to obtain it.
If teenagers want to smoke pot, they will find a way, and that’s immaterial to this ballot question as far as I’m concerned. What is material is the numerous lives that have been destroyed by the drug war.
If you have problems with the ballot question, then you have every right to offer legislation to legalize marijuana with a tighter regulatory framework. I, for one, would support a ban of edibles and a distribution model akin to those of the “state stores” in my home state of PA (which abolishes the profit motive in retail). If you want to mitigate the problems you say, that would be the sound approach. I’m waiting.
Teenagers will experiment with pot no matter what policies we pass, but they are more likely to experiment in a safe and controlled environment at an appropriate age if it is legal. All of the alcohol I consumed illegally in high school and prior to turning 21 was still produced in accordance with strict FDA guidelines and wasn’t laced with any products not on the label.
It’s far less likely teenagers will be using laced products or going to emergency rooms under a legal regimen. Massachusetts already has some of the strictest rules against OUI and selling alcohol to minors and it’s fairly easy to apply these rules to marijuana, which this ballot initiative already does explicitly.
… for a teenager. So there is no safe environment. Whatever the safety of marijuana, the combination of psychotropic and developing brain is always deleterious.
We know enough about the developing brain to know that the earlier a person starts consuming drugs and/or alchohol, including marijuana, the more damage to the brain and skewing of development occurs.
Throwing up your hands and saying ‘since they are going to do it anyways’ we might as well make it safe is predicated upon the notion of static brain and marijuana purity the only variable. This is not the case.
the ‘safest’ marijuana in the world is still a problem for the developing brain.
and the ‘safest’ sex in the world still has risks associated with STDs, pregnancy (sometimes), and emotional baggage for the developing brain.
I’m sympathetic with petr’s claims, but I don’t argue for abstinence only sexual education. These two ideas aren’t perfect parallels, but surely there’s some commonality there, and I’m having trouble squaring the circle on recreational pot by high school kids and recreational sex by high school kids.
..actually do think that abstinence should be strongly, but truthfully, encouraged among teens. It should be taught as reality rather ideologically based, however.
Abstinence-only was a spectacular failure as public policy. It is a case study in how to worsen the problem it purports to solve. Reality about sex is driven by hormones and biology, and abstinence is a purely ideological (not to mention religious) response.
The case against marijuana use by adolescents is stronger than the case against sex, and is still weak.
Those of us who have raised teenagers know that the most sure-fire way to encourage a particular behavior is to prohibit it — the stronger and more arbitrary-seeming the prohibition, the more likely the adolescent will violate it.
The fact remains that a HUGE portion of the population consumed marijuana regularly during the Vietnam era (not just whites, by the way, for Christopher’s edification). There is zero scientifically creditable evidence that there were any significant public health consequences of that use. That, alone, suggests to me that these draconian “any-use-is-bad” approaches are rooted in something other than objective reality.
I agree that abstinence should be encouraged among middle and high schoolers, but it should not be the only thing they’re told. I grew up in CT, and they presented it as the only 100% effective option to prevent STDs and pregnancy, but then also told us the effectiveness of all the other methods like condoms, spermicide, etc.
We should treat marijuana and other drugs the same way – encourage teens not to use them, but tell them how to reduce the harms if they do.
… or, put another way, it is either the inevitability of climax or the climax of inevitability….
Pointing out differences (or, as you say, ‘squaring the circle’), and not advocating for teenage sex (as I’ve advocated against it in the past) I will say two things:
1) One of the important differences is that the goal of biological, emotional and mental development is to prepare the body and the mind to have and handle sex. Despite my Catholic upbringing, I have come to the conclusion that every living teen should look forward to, someday, engaging in sexual activity. The question of ‘when’ is what is to be discerned and the quantifier ‘if ever’ is not a margin particularly a part of the calculus. The same can’t be said for marijuana: getting high is not a biological imperative and, in fact, abstinence is the default posture. The goal of ‘growing up’ is not to be able to handle your liquor. That’s a side affect.
2) Sexual activity occurs along a spectrum and can be good or it can be bad and its impact can be neither be quantified nor easily predicted. Two people who’ve smoked a joint together will walk away with, essentially, the same impression of the experience. Two people who’ve just had intercourse could walk away from the act with two wholly separate understandings of what went on. The biology and the inevitability makes sexual activity a singularly complex activity and likely the more difficult ‘problem’ of the two. The very fact of a satisfying sex life being a vital component of a healthy mental and emotional adulthood indicates the power of it and underlines the danger of messing up a healthy mental and emotional development.
I wish I could add more stars.
When I was a teen, there were certain parents who succeeded in “not noticing” that there were teenagers in the basement consuming beer and booze, with the result that there was at least some supervision, and assurance that no one would be driving home that evening.
In the present legal environment, no parent can do that, ever because there is a “zero tolerance” policy. The result of this isnt the eradication of teen drinking, but rather the removal of same to venues that are completely devoid of supervision. In my view, the “zero tolerance” policy causes a steady stream of teenage deaths, due to alcohol poisoning or drunk driving. That’s just dumb policy, based on the same “there is no safe environment” fear-mongering exhibited in this thread.
I remain opposed to manifestly dumb policy-making.
things could go very bad for you.
An unpleasant overnight in the St. E’s ER during the first week of college strongly suggests that you are right in this.
..and continues 20 years later! Not for moral or health reasons, just anytime I have tasted alcohol I haven’t liked it.
How many times do we need to remind you that your experience is NOT typical?
Let me tell you who he IS talking about. He is talking about kids who have never been exposed to hard liquor. Some of them think they know how to drink because they drank themselves sick on beer at keg parties in high school.
They get to college, a friend pours them a 16-oz tumbler of vodka, and they drink it down like beer or water. Still sitting down, they laugh and ask for another — thinking they are showing how cool they are.
Not too many minutes later, the find themselves — hopefully — on the way to the ER, with a lethal dose of alcohol circulating through their body. The less fortunate ones are dead by the time medical help arrives.
Beer typically has about 6% alcohol, wine about 12%. Vodka typically has about 40%. A liter of beer will make a typical person drunk and sick. A liter of vodka is likely to be lethal.
My first wife worked at Saint E’s (she was an Occupational Therapist) and frequently spoke of precisely this phenomena.
Seriously, people — NO amount of marijuana can kill the way a liter of hard liquor does. The conflation of the two is itself a reflection of the puritanism that interferes so much with rational policy making.
MG made what I took as a bit of a wisecrack and I responded in kind, but since you brought it up I don’t believe I have ever objected to a little bit of wine under parental supervision. Then again, the only alcohol my parents kept around was a bit of cooking sherry. I think their idea of setting an example was not to drink around us. I never witnessed my father have a beer until I was an adult and I still can’t think of any time I’ve seen my mother with alcohol. I’m not sure I sympathize though. Maybe kids haven’t been exposed to hard liquor, but drank themselves sick in HS, but that’s no excuse. They should not have been consuming at that rate in high school! Staying away from that stuff just isn’t that hard!
I apologize for getting more worked up than is appropriate.
Alcohol poisoning is a bit of a hot button for me, because so many young people die from it and those deaths are so unnecessary.
I’m not sure you get my point, still. Children fall down a lot while learning to walk. Too many first-year college students think that because they drunk themselves sick on beer and got over the hangover that they therefore know how to do drink and know their limits.
Whether 18 or 21, someone who doesn’t know how to drink and who doesn’t know how potent hard liquor is can all too easily cause themselves serious harm by drinking what seems to a “reasonable amount”. If a person’s intuition about alcohol concentration is is trained by beer and wine, then that intuition is badly incorrect when the liquid in front of them is 86 proof hard liquor.
My objection is to your paternalistic and judgemental attitude towards people who make different choices from you. Whatever they “should” or “shouldn’t” do in high school, somebody who legally drinks three tumblers of hard liquor at their 21st birthday party celebration does not deserve to die for their “sin”.
At one point I remember being taught (couldn’t repeat it now without looking it up) what the various equivalencies were among alcoholic drinks. Maybe I’m just more risk-averse than some, which is why I just find it easier to abstain entirely in a variety of contexts.
the really important point here is that there is no comparable effect with marijuana.
The most that will happen to someone who smokes too much weed is that they will fall asleep and have — um — unusual dreams. There simply IS no toxic dose of marijuana comparable to hard liquor.
… not true. I myself have never developed the enjoyment for weed as its soporific effect, upon me, is pronounced: Within minutes of a puff I go right to sleep and have no dreams!
All seriousness aside: what you say might be true for smoking but is not true for ingesting marijuana infused edibles and the symptoms of ‘overdosing’ are possibly quite severe.
Tylenol will kill if someone takes enough of it, as will aspirin. Neither is illegal. Cake and ice cream will make anyone sick if they eat enough it of, and I have no doubt that if we collect a large enough sample over a large enough period we can find examples of people who have died from choking to death on the resulting vomit. We don’t make cake and ice cream illegal. People die from choking on steak, and we don’t make possessing beef with intent to distribute a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for years.
The opposition to marijuana seems to me to be rooted in our puritanical opposition to anything that makes us high, and very little else.
All the more reason for the legislature to pass a bill with a robust regulatory framework, one that strictly limits the amount of THC that can be in edibles, and ensures that all packaging includes how much can be safely consumed in one sitting before it would be immediately dangerous, and other measures that help ensure people are well informed.
You are right to raise this as an issue when Colorado has had several incidents of people who have become dangerously sick because they consumed too many edibles, but I’m not aware of a single case in Colorado where the person consuming those edibles was properly educated on how much was safe and how much wasn’t, and Colorado certainly didn’t force retailers to include that information on the packaging, or even for retail workers to be broadly knowledgeable on the subject so they could inform consumers.
Were Massachusetts to pass a law that legalized marijuana with a robust regulatory framework that accounted for edibles, it seems doubtful to me that our state would have any real problem with people who devoured too many pot brownies or guzzled down too cannabis ‘energy’ drinks.
and hope that when they finally have a key to get out, they’ll be blind enough or naive enough not to run into any problems.
For some kids, that will work. You suggest it worked for you. You were lucky that it did, because for the vast majority it won’t.
It’s important people are informed about dangerous things they are likely to do before they do it. If we educated kids about sex and drugs and alcohol in an honest and transparent way — not in the patronizing, dishonest ways we currently do as a society — giving them all the facts, it would help a large number of them avoid things like STDs, alcohol poisoning when they first start drinking, etc. For certain, we should make sure they know that abstinence is the only 100% safe thing, but they need a full education on all these matters, including knowledge about how much they could consume of any one thing before it would become very dangerous or even deadly. It’s basic information that can save lives.
I was thoroughly educated on a variety of these matters, thank you very much, which is why I have come to the conclusions I have.
that certainly explains why humor is in short supply here.
Since there are no present barriers of any significance to prevent teenagers from buying it already.
Legalizing pot to kill the most of the black market for it and creating a strong regulatory framework to make it difficult for teens to be able to buy that pot may very well reduce the numbers of teens using it, and reduce the frequency in which some use it.
… I wonder why youth football and youth hockey are still legal.
Whooda thunk it?
I’ve supported your past campaigns, but based on this, I cannot imagine ever supporting you again. I do not use marijuana, but promoting the continuation of the militarized war on drugs is extraordinarily regressive. A huge for-profit drug industry already exists, and what you propose is to ensure it remains as is – criminal. This harms our safety, drives racist imprisonment, keeps poor communities poor, and insults our sense of justice. I’m sorry that I cannot take the argument that marijuana is harmful to health has honest; we all know that alcohol is far more harmful, as are other legal things. It’s fundamentally dishonest to continue the racist, crime-promoting, war on drugs on health grounds. I just cannot respect that nor can I respect people who give that argument enough to think that they ought to hold elected office. I am deeply disappointed in you.
Most politicians don’t need your vote.
Where did the Senator anywhere suggest he supported continuing a militarized war on drugs, or racist policies, etc. Why does this have to be all or nothing with so many people. I know people hate when I use the “Tea Party” analogy, but if the shoe fits…
Senator Lewis is being exactly the kind of legislator favored by Edmund Burke, not substituting his judgement for your opinion.
Continuing prohibition is continuing all of those things. Pretending otherwise is unrealistic denial. And his judgement here is so deeply fundamentally flawed and harmful to me and all of us, that it disqualifies him from office in my view.
On this issue Sen. Jason Lewis has shown the courage of his convictions, they just happen to be the wrong convictions. He has been a big advocate for the medical marijuana community which has some legitimate concerns about this bill.
That said, I share the disappointment. Fortunately it’s not his call to make anymore, he lost his chance to make a better bill. We will all have an opportunity to pass the progressive policies he failed to advocate for on this issue at the ballot box, and I am confident most Massachusetts voters will do just that.
I have next to no patience with that attitude. I count myself among those who oppose both legalization and the extreme manifestations of the war on drugs, thank you very much. It’s not at all inconsistent.
He writes a thoughtful, nuanced argument and you say that disqualifies him from any public service? Someone studying an issue carefully and coming to different conclusions than you is not “deeply flawed judgement”? Nowhere in Sen Lewis’s post does he call for locking people up. We decriminalized pot here years ago and no one is suggesting reversing that.
I’ve spoken with several people who are considering voting no on the ballot question even though they favor legalization. Do you think all these folks are disqualified from public office? We don’t need to accept the first terrible, badly drafted law you come up with. Legalization will happen eventually, it’s worth holding out for a better law
First of all, Senator Lewis, thank you for not only responding to my post but doing so in great detail. I appreciate having a dialogue here, and am going to respond to respond to your points one at a time:
Potency & Edibles
You are absolutely correct that the average potency of marijuana today is higher than it used to be (which it’s worth pointing out was driven by prohibition, as more potent drugs are easier to smuggle – same reason we had “rum runners” and not “beer runners” during alcohol prohibition). While it does come with more potential for dosage mistakes, education about these products is the most important thing. People know that you drink 12oz of 5% beer but only 1.5oz of 35% liquor – many tourists in Colorado don’t know that 5mg is the standard dose, so seeing a 30mg label means nothing to them. Education like the industry “Start Low, Go Slow” campaign is the best way to alleviate this problem. And while it is a problem, luckily it’s impossible to fatally overdose on marijuana, unlike alcohol – people who consume too much will have a bad time, but their organs won’t shut down and they won’t die. Additionally, a legal marijuana market allows for greater variety of dosages, as many people prefer less THC, just like many people prefer beer or wine over shots of liquor. The black market incentivizes potency, legal markets incentivize variety. There are many low-THC products on the market in CO and other states, as there will be in MA post-legalization.
Young People
I and everyone on the pro-legalization side agrees that marijuana use is not healthy for young people with developing brains, and don’t want youth consuming marijuana. That’s why the bill sets the minimum age at 21. Some think that legal marijuana will inevitably lead to increased youth use, but this just isn’t true. The Netherlands, which have had de facto legal marijuana for decades, have significantly lower rates of youth use than the United States. This could be chalked up to cultural differences, but also important is that while youth marijuana use is at a 30-year high, youth tobacco and alcohol use are at 30-year lows. We didn’t decrease youth use of these drugs by banning them for everyone, we just told youth the honest truth about the harms associated with them and enforced minimum ages strictly. We can do the same for marijuana.
Commercialization
Yes, the initiative does allow for businesses to sell marijuana, just like we allow for tobacco and alcohol. But like with those other drugs, there are strict laws banning the advertising of drugs to children. Society has learned from allowing Joe Camel to go so long, and is not going to let that happen with marijuana. There will be very strict advertising restrictions, much moreso than we have for a drug like alcohol that’s allowed to sponsor stadiums or run television commercials (neither of which marijuana businesses will do). Another major difference between the marijuana and tobacco industries is that the marijuana industry has a huge activist contingent that is involved because they want to see it done right (myself included), rather than just being in it for the money. The industry has been much better at shaming bad actors, and I will personally continue to do so as long as I live. Even moreso than the general public, the activists who created this industry don’t want it to be taken over by Goldman Sachs or Marlboro types who want to make money by any means necessary.
Ballot initiative details
It’s true that many of these items are not explicitly in the initiative, but that’s because including every nitty-gritty detail of legalization in an initiative would be both impossible and undesirable. It creates the Cannabis Control Commission, which would be in charge of creating regulations that address specific concerns. This is a much better place for those details to be considered, as Commissioners will be experts, and regulations are easier to change than laws.
Federal issues
Yes, marijuana is illegal under federal law. But Massachusetts is already breaking those laws by allowing medical marijuana, and in the eyes of the feds, adult use marijuana is no different – they’re both completely illegal. Luckily, as more states legalize, the federal government will come around and eventually start regulating it nationally. We’re already seeing this with medical marijuana, with the CARERS Act gaining serious traction in Congress, and I think we’ll see full federal legalization in 5-7 years (depending on who the president is).
Incarceration, black market & tax revenues
True, no one goes to jail for marijuana possession anymore, but there are plenty of people going to jail for cultivation and distribution, which this initiative would stop. The black market in Colorado is not thriving – it’s not dead, but it’s a shadow of what it used to be. It’s stronger in Washington, where taxes are so high that it still makes economic sense to buy on the black market instead of from legal stores, but luckily CRMLA would avoid that problem. And as for tax revenues, I wholeheartedly disagree that the taxes will barely cover the costs of regulation. Here’s how Colorado spent the ~$85 million it got from marijuana last year:
– $30M annually goes to the “Best Fund” (public school construction fund)
– $16.5M goes to substance abuse treatment centers
– $10M is allocated for school projects like mentoring and after school programs
– $15M goes to public education around marijuana
– $14M goes to regulation efforts (only 16.5% of the taxes)
Motivations
The primary motivation for legalization is social justice. Most of us who are advocating for reform have been doing so for far longer than there’s been a legal industry, and my progressive values are what led me to get involved with the drug policy reform movement. And no, the Marijuana Policy Project is not concerned about profits, they’re a nonprofit advocacy organization that has also been working on this since long before there was any money in it. And as an advocacy group, all the money they collect is spent on more reform work, not lining their pockets.
Timing
I understand that this is somewhat new, which makes it scary for some people. But Colorado and Washington legalized four years ago, and we’ve already learned a lot from their experiences – I think enough to start doing it ourselves. And there is a real sense of urgency for passing this now: if we do it this year, we will be the first state in New England to do so, and that will come with a lot of benefits. Colorado saw a huge boom in tourism and their larger economy post-legalization, and we would get those same benefits. If we delay, Vermont and Rhode Island will probably beat us to it and get all of those benefits instead. To me, this is much more about justice than about economic stimulus, but the economic benefits of legalization – especially of legalizing early – are nothing to sneeze at.
Senator Lewis, I appreciate you engaging on this issue and hope that we can keep an open, respectful dialogue on here and through other channels. While I expect you’ve already made up your mind and can’t be swayed before Election Day, I’m always here to talk if you would like to discuss your concerns, and I look forward to working with you on implementing this as responsibly as possible once it passes in November.
That’s a very thoughtful and detailed reply that I also quite respectful of the Senator and his objections. This is the kind of debate we should’ve had, and didn’t, in the legislature. I too share Sam’s confidence that the legislature will do a better job implementing a better policy when we force them to at the ballot box this November.
and I think it is worth making into a separate diary, directly in response to Senator Lewis’s well-put (but, in my view, ultimately wrong) arguments for his position. You don’t want this to get lost in the comments.
I would add that I think the most important line is this:
Ultimately, that’s what this is about: Massachusetts’s actions in itself won’t make a large dent in combating the excesses of the “War on Drugs,” but it will be another small step in getting some semblance of rationality in our criminal justice system.
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/2016/04/a-response-to-senator-lewis-on-marijuana-legalization/
I have read recently that the Netherlands is tightening up its laws on consumption of marijuana. (I think in the Economist, but what I’m finding is this Newsweek piece from ’14 or a more recent Fusion article.
If the Western country with the greatest experience in allowable marijuana use is backing off a bit, what does that tell us? This is a sincere question.
in part because the Netherlands, and in particular Amsterdam, have long had an odd approach to the issue where marijuana is tolerated but still illegal. This is not a policy that the US or any state should emulate, and it is precisely what Colorado and Washington State avoided (though, of course, marijuana is still illegal under federal law).
Just like anywhere, the Netherlands has conservatives who don’t like marijuana for a host of reasons, from the alleged impact on children to the notion that usage is a sin against God. Conservatives in the Netherlands have generally had the upper hand in recent years, so it’s not surprising to see them advocating tightening marijuana consumption laws. Whether this policy is actually based upon evidence, rather than morals or general dislike of drugs, is another question.
Most of the conservative-led restrictions in Amsterdam have been directed toward tourists. My impression of what’s going on there is that you have conservatives in government who don’t particularly like pot, and absolutely hate the idea that the world views them as the pot brownie capital.
I’d like to chime in on the black market angle. This is an issue that may not be affecting 90% of the communities in this state, but it does affect poor urban areas.
Since pot is illegal, but people still want to buy it, the only way to get it is on the black market. Who sells on the black market? Marginalized people who don’t have the opportunities to participate in society and who have little to lose. Since they are marginalized, because they are shut out by society of other opportunities, they don’t particularly care about society’s rules. They make their own rules, and those rules often include violence, particularly over territory. So in a community like Springfield, we have street gangs, and those gangs inevitably wind up in battles that involve violence, including guns. Kind of like 1930s Chicago and prohibition.
We have learned, via decades of policing, that this isn’t a finite mess that can just be cleaned up via some arrests. It is never-ending because the demand doesn’t go away when you disrupt the supply, and is destroying more than a few communities in the state. Most people don’t see this because their towns have shoved the poor and marginalized out of their own borders.
We need to disrupt those markets and ideally replace them with opportunities for the people who need them. Obviously if we just dry up the market for black market pot and replace it with a bunch of suburban storefronts, there will still be marginalized people in urban areas and they will just figure out what other non-societal activity to participate in. This is something to consider.
The “Medical Marijuana” movement seems to just be attracting well-connected larger players. I agree with your concern that legalizing pot will attract “big business”, but you are the legislature: you can enact laws that prevent this (similar to the “you can only own 2 liquor licenses” law which prevents massive liquor store chains and provides more opportunity for small locally-owned stores).
If you travel outside of the tourist places in Mexico, or anywhere in Columbia, Panama and Guatemala, you quickly learn about what locals call America’s addiction to drugs.
Our country is the world’s biggest market for weed and other much worse drugs. Our use of those drugs f’s-up the economies of other countries. Our big consumer bucks provide what every good capitalist knows is the market incentive to produce drugs instead of food or other agricultural products.
The US policy on guns compounds the problems in Latin America by shipping weapons back to the producing and trans-shipment locations, countries that mostly prohibit the sale of heavy weaponry. You cannot legally buy an AK in Mexico, but if you ship weed to the US then you can take payment in a mix of cash and guns and smuggle them back along the same route you brought the drugs.
Americans tisk-tisk the gangs in Mexico, the narco-traficantes in Columbia but they only exist because a large part of our country likes the drugs and buys the drugs.
I do not smoke weed. I won’t in the future. My lungs are too important to me. But there are a lot of countries in this world that I love and are being killed by our drug policies. If this country legalized weed, and I am talking about home-grown weed too, then the economies of the developing world would grow legal produce for world markets, like corn, quinoa and carnations (did you think those flowers came from heaven, manna?). There is a reason quinoa has become expensive, and it is not because of a bunch of WholePaycheck shoppers: quinoa growing areas are being replaced by drugs. Yes, a lot of it is cocaine but it only happens because there is a wide pipeline. Close the weed pipeline by making it legal in the US and you narrow the coke pipeline. Bolivians will return to quinoa and corn.
If MA, NY, CA, FL, TX, WA, and MI adopted a legalization policy, Latin American markets would change. The gangs that terrorize San Salvador, the murder capital of the world, would have less money and less clout. The gangs of Guerrero (which includes both the old American beach favorite of Acapulco and my favored places in the mountains) would have less power and the fascist gangs supported by corrupt local police might be prosecuted by the national government (I like the Mexican army in this battle).
I hope nobody interprets my words as a criticism of nopolitician, just a positive add-on. S/he lives with the local problems that cannot be addressed locally. The problems are too big. And this post should not be interpreted as a commentary on opiates or meth, which are killing my South Coast community.
Sam Tracy makes a cogent, persuasive argument for ending prohibition. Jason Lewis claims to have been neutral during his committee deliberations. However, he opposed decriminalization in 2008 and he opposed medical marijuana in 2012. His neutrality claim does not wash. Second, no one in the regulate campaign is claiming that a primary motive is to stop the arrests for simple possession, contrary to Lewis’s claims. They already know those arrests aren’t occurring. Jason Lewis, though thoughtful, is a prohibitionist, plain and simple.
I appreciate all the thoughtful comments and feedback. Let me offer a few clarifications and responses to points that have been raised in this discussion.
First, as I think my original post implied, I’m not fundamentally opposed to marijuana legalization. I’m opposed to legalization with commercialization which is the approach taken by the ballot initiative (as well as by Colorado and Washington). There are actually a wide range of policy options along the spectrum from prohibition to a commercial, profit-driven market. For example, a state-operated supply chain and retail stores (similar to the structure of the alcohol market in some states). Or Spain’s system of cannabis clubs which provide access to a safe product without encouraging consumption. No approach is perfect but we don’t need to just accept that we should open the door in Massachusetts to another predatory industry that will profit from addiction, particularly among young people. Part of the reason that the rate of youth consumption is lower in the Netherlands is precisely because they don’t commercialize marijuana (no advertising, strict limits on products and retail outlets, limits on potency, etc.). I appreciate that there are many people with good intentions who believe that a marijuana industry in Massachusetts can be “contained” and “shamed” into good behavior, but this is unfortunately naïve. Once the industry is established it will flex its economic and political muscle and push back hard against restrictions that are intended to protect public health and safety but constrain their ability to make a profit. They will hire lobbyists. They will argue commercial free speech rights. We have seen this playbook with the tobacco industry (and are seeing it once again with e-cigarettes). And, we are already seeing this type of behavior in Colorado, with the industry starting to bring lawsuits against regulations they don’t like.
Second, the argument that marijuana is safer than alcohol and we should just regulate it like alcohol makes no sense to me. Alcohol takes a terrible toll on our society — including alcoholism, domestic violence, drunk driving, healthcare costs, lost productivity, etc. It is estimated that the total taxes collected on alcohol sales are less than one-tenth of the cost that alcohol consumption imposes on our society. And, alcohol consumption among young people is much higher than marijuana consumption. So why would we want to regulate marijuana in the same way? Yes, people do not die from marijuana overdoses, but talk to any high school principal or addiction specialist and they will tell you about too many teenagers and their families whose lives have been ruined by marijuana addiction. If the ballot question were to pass, commercialization of marijuana would almost certainly lead to increased youth consumption (due to further normalization of the drug, expanded access through the existence of both a legal and black market, and lower prices due to scale economies of production and competition).
Third, it is misleading to point to the tax revenues in Colorado and Washington and suggest that there would be anything close to these amounts of money collected here in Massachusetts. This is because the tax rate in the ballot question is far lower than in these other states, we do not tax medical marijuana in Massachusetts, and (at least in Washington) home growing is prohibited. The analysis done by the Senate Special Committee on Marijuana suggests that the tax revenues would barely cover the necessary regulatory, legal, enforcement, and public health and safety costs, and would not be a new source of revenue for other public needs (see page 66-70 in the Committee’s report).
Fourth, I would like to address the understandable desire to see the state legislature proactively take up this issue and come up with an approach to legalization that better protects public health and safety. The reality, however, is that there is almost no support in the legislature for legalization of any kind. The bill filed by Rep Rogers and Sen Jehlen has just 15 co-sponsors. In my experience, there has been very little organized effort to educate lawmakers and persuade them to go down this path. Until the current debate got underway in the last few months, I had never heard from a single constituent asking me to work on marijuana legalization! So, while some people may feel that this debate has been going on for decades, I would argue that there has really been no serious, concerted effort on the part of advocates to engage with the legislature. I, for one, would welcome this engagement which I think the work of the Special Senate Committee has encouraged.
Lastly, I don’t believe it’s fair to say that if somebody opposes the commercialization of marijuana that he/she is perpetuating the failed war on drugs. I’m just as committed as other progressive Democrats to reforming our criminal justice system, including drug sentencing laws and policies.
I look forward to an ongoing dialog on this important issue.
I appreciate your willingness to stay with this exchange.
The first thing I would like to see from my legislators, including you, is the explicit recognition that consuming marijuana is a perfectly legitimate, healthy, and moral way for an adult to spend an enjoyable evening. Whatever limits we impose should be restricted to those to which the state has a “compelling interest” in imposing.
Second, while I appreciate the flexibility you’ve already shown, I suggest that you open your eyes wider still. For example, you write “talk to any high school principal or addiction specialist and they will tell you about too many teenagers and their families whose lives have been ruined by marijuana addiction”.
I’m sorry, but neither of those are reliable sources for actual facts about how addictive or dangerous marijuana actually IS. Far better is to insist on scientific sources drawing on peer-reviewed publications. One important reason to legalize marijuana at the federal level is to enable just this kind of research.
For example, there is widespread evidence that a common mechanism for addiction is an unrelated disorder that motivates the sufferer to inappropriately associate a particular substance or behavior with feelings of well-being. An “anti-symptom” approach that, for example, attempts to deny the victim access to marijuana (or potato chips, beer, sex, pornography, or a myriad of other distractions) will only change the vehicle of the addiction from marijuana to something else.
Adolescents who present as “addicted” to marijuana are, therefore, frequently in the grips of some other disorder or disorders. Their “addiction” is not caused by marijuana and is not cured by depriving them of access to marijuana.
I fear that you have put the cart before the horse regarding revenue. In my view, the opportunity is to create prosperity for Massachusetts residents — especially residents of western Massachusetts. My view is that increased tax revenue will follow from this prosperity. We do not build highways so that they will generate tax revenue for the state, we build them because the residents of Massachusetts demand them.
Whatever we do about the “war on drugs”, we need to go all the way back to the top of my comment — we need to STOP grouping marijuana with heroin, cocaine, opium, and other dangerous drugs. That categorization is an unhappy accident of the peculiar history of drug regulation, and had and has NOTHING to do with the reality of these various substances.
I join you in hoping that dialog on this issue continues.
Legitimate and moral are judgement calls, I guess, but HEALTHY!? You’ve got to be kidding. It’s one thing to argue its not as dangerous as it’s cracked up to be, but if you are making the affirmative argument that it is somehow good for you I just can’t take that seriously. Even for medical usage it should, IMO, be under more strict controls than an ordinary prescription. I continue to believe and argue that there is a compelling public health interest, which Sen. Lewis has articulated much better than I could. I’m sorry you don’t trust those who see the effects, such as principals and especially addiction specialists. Surely the latter especially know what they are talking about.
When someone has a “healthy” appetite for sex, it doesn’t mean that intercourse improves their health. I’m making the argument that desire to enjoy marijuana is “healthy” in the same way that similar desires for sex, food, entertainment, and so on are “healthy”.
I mean that the desire to enjoy marijuana is NOT a “symptom” of some disorder.
I don’t think principals have the information, training, or incentive system to perform objective science. Some “addiction specialists” may — it depends very much on the specialist.
I think you, Mr. Lewis, and the authors of the 118 page report are providing an example of confirmation bias rather than anything approaching a rigorous or objective study.
In my view, the purpose of science and research is to replace belief (as in “I continue to believe and argue that …”) with fact. I think our discussions about marijuana have FAR too much belief and not nearly enough fact.
…besides the product of significant research? Belief is more than just gut opinion; it’s often backed up by facts. For example, I BELIEVE that there has been significant climate change largely manmade because that is where the preponderance of the evidence points.
It doesn’t sound as though you’ve read many truly objective scientific reports. The 118-page report is a case study in how to wrap truthy-sounding words around the pre-existing beliefs of its authors or sponsors.
Were there any hearings to explore the scientific evidence offered? Was there an opportunity to hear ALL the evidence? Where is the record of those hearings? Who was invited to participate?
Climate change is an excellent example. The peer-reviewed literature is chock full of solid evidence — data, theory, and history, comprising a compelling causal case linking anthropogenic CO2 emissions to accelerating global warming.
There is NO counterpart regarding marijuana, and the 118 page report does not add to it. In fact, it has more in common with a screed found on a denier website than with any factual evidence. Marc Morano, while he worked for Mr. Inhofe, was famous for publishing documents that included lengthy lists of publications or individual researchers that, by implication, supported the climate-change denial case he was making. It turned out that those lists were pure hokum — the cited papers said something entirely different or weren’t used at all. The individual researchers (he once offered a list of climate-change “skeptics”) had no idea they were on the list, many were not scientists at all, and most said they fully accepted the scientific consensus on climate change.
This paper offers several pages of references — yet I see no footnotes in the text, no effort made to connect casual statements about cause and effect with cited research. I see, in fact, the same disconnect between content and scientific fact that I saw in Marc Morano’s publications.
If there is a objective case to be made that marijuana is harmful, this 118 page report fails to present it.
First, the committee did not come down on the side of never, no way, no how. They expressed several concerns and advice caution if we move forward on this. I was actually quite impressed by how even-handed the report was in its presentation of the current facts on the ground and the state of our scientific knowledge in this regard. You may have noticed that those in the industry were among those consulted. If their goal was to generate a one-sided piece of propaganda they failed miserably.
The report does not strike me as “even handed”.
Nowhere in the report is there a mention that a significant number Massachusetts adults simply enjoy the recreational use of marijuana. The report certainly was NOT “even-handed” in its presentation of the current state of our scientific knowledge.
Your definition of “even handed” and mine seem to differ.
…though maybe that was teens. Look, you vote your way and I’ll vote mine. We obviously disagree and there’s nothing left for either of us to say that hasn’t already been said.
Indeed, the report states that 885,000 Massachusetts residents used marijuana in the past year — despite it’s being illegal to grow, buy, sell, possess or consume. It also says that 2.5 million residents have used marijuana in their lifetime.
Here is the frame of those numbers:
The fact that is strikingly missing from this narrative (and the entire report) is any recognition of WHY so many people choose to enjoy this substance. The stance of the entire report is overwhelmingly negative and judgemental. Negative aspects are emphasized, while benefits and gains are minimized.
Consider, for comparison, the stance of North Carolina towards “Industrial Hemp“:
Even if your mind is made up about this, others besides you read these exchanges here. In my view, an even-handed view of marijuana would more explicitly recognize the appeal of marijuana to a significant number of Massachusetts residents, would more positively describe the opportunities for growth in western MA, and would frame the entire topic in language that was less judgemental and more objective.
Even if every adult in the state did it just because they like it doesn’t make it healthy.
…I saw no evidence of a moral judgement, though I’m not sure the purpose of the report was to state what the law is so much as show what the effects of a new law might be.
Elected officials in a government that claims to be “of the people and for the people” should care. When significant numbers of people want to do something, and when a government’s stance against that is not supported by objective evidence, then making it illegal is a symptom of dysfunctional government.
I refer my honourable friend to previous comments, and speaking of parliament I’m a Burkean when it comes to representation so I don’t see representatives defying the will of the people as a system of dysfunction at all.
Here’s the stipulation:
1. A significant number of people want to do something’
2. The government’s stance against it is not supported by objective evidence
3. The government nevertheless keeps it illegal.
What you call “Burkean”, I call something else. The result is the same, whether we use a high-falutin word that nobody knows or more common words that everybody who has been subjected to a capricious and hostile cop, manager, or teacher knows all too well.
Burkean refers to MP Edmund Burke, who is known for stating the following:
So by all means, listen to constituents, but ultimately make the call. Burke favored allowing Americans to elect their own MPs.
While I appreciate the explanation, I’m familiar with the meaning of “Burkean”. My point is that, as Shakespeare so famously observed, changing the name does not change the entity being named.
It is interesting that you challenge item 2. Call it “Burkean” if you will, but in the absence of item 2 the result is simple tyranny. Given the desire of people to use a substance (as in item 1), then the presence of item 2 provides the basis for comparing the substance in question with the range of substances that are already legal.
We know that a significant number of people drink soda, eat junk food, and choose to live sedentary lifestyles. We make none of those illegal (we don’t even regulate them), yet each of those causes objectively demonstrated harm — harm that claims many more lives than marijuana abuse, and harm whose evidence is many times more convincing. Even tobacco and alcohol are legal (and heavily regulated), and the harm they cause is extensively documented.
It therefore seems to me that the weight of objective evidence must demonstrate that the harm of an illegal substance EXCEEDS alcohol or tobacco, and the evidence itself must be compelling. This standard is easily met by opioids, cocaine and its derivatives, and prescription drug abuse. It is not met by marijuana.
This is why I argue that your stance against marijuana is arbitrary and tyrannical (even if you prefer to call it “Burkean”). We should legalize marijuana and focus our already-strained investigative and enforcement resources on prescription drug abuse.
Interestingly, prescription drug abuse is perpetrated by and claims victims from prosperous whites. Funny how this aspect of our “war on drugs” perpetuates our starkly disproportionate punishment and harassment of poor blacks.
My understanding is that is a legal doctrine courts apply when there is a possible constitutional argument against a law. However, I see no either state or federal constitutional right to possess or consume pot. Therefore as a democratic republic we as a society are free to prohibit it just ‘cuz.
People want to consume marijuana. That’s the starting point. We live in a republic. That’s another starting point.
Until Lawrence v Texas, the same argument you make against marijuana was true for sodomy. It was Lawrence v. Texas that demonstrated that consensual sex between adults in the privacy of their bedroom WAS, in fact, constitutionally-protected behavior. Thankfully, those intrusive sodomy laws (many are still on the books here in Massachusetts) were destroyed.
I get that you claim the right to abridge the freedom of others “just ‘cuz”.
I’ve said before that I will find it hard to support you were you to run for public office. This comment exemplifies why. Your comment demonstrates a callous lack of awareness of how damage an ignorant majority can do against a minority. It exemplifies an attitude towards regulation, law, and — yes — morality that prevailed centuries ago and that, thankfully, most civilized societies left behind decades ago.
I completely reject your premise that “just ‘cuz” is an appropriate standard to apply to anything we might consume or, for that matter, do — especially here in Massachusetts.
…there were constitutional issues of privacy and it was discriminatory against a class of people based on who they are. We can still argue on the merits BTW, but I doubt any court will strike down a drug prohibition based on Lawrence v. Texas or any other grounds.
FWIW, Alaska’s Supreme Court actually legalized the personal possession of marijuana in the home decades ago because they believed it fell under the state constitution’s right to privacy. I think it would be reasonable for SCOTUS to rule the same way (though of course, I’m not holding my breath).
You earlier wrote
so why do you keep writing about the subject? You could stop.
All of your concerns are solvable and can be addressed with even a little thought and effort. We already ban cigarette advertising and limits on alcohol advertising; there’s no reason the legislature can’t do the same with marijuana.
The concern of a new industry that preys on addiction flexing its muscles once established didn’t stop the state from establishing casinos or allowing DraftKings to begin operations, so it’s hard to see any legitimate reason for the legislature to suddenly be concerned about it when it comes to cannabis (which by any calculation is far less addictive than cigarettes or alcohol, and by many calculations is not physically addictive at all, and certainly doesn’t have the devastating economic impacts of people who have gambling addictions).
Further, given that the cannabis industry would be mostly or entirely local and homegrown, the worry about armies of well paid lobbyists or big time donors seems overblown. I also don’t see the legislature timid about allowing other industries because those industries may have lobbyists.
This is because the legislature isn’t listening to residents, which is why the people are taking it to the ballot. This isn’t a reason to oppose the ballot question, it’s the reason why the ballot question exists.
If the legislature listens and passes Sen Jehlan’s and Rep Roger’s bill (including with amendments to address any legitimate concerns), then I am certain those who are proposing the ballot question would be more than willing to drop it.
It should not be a prerequisite that there be large numbers of advocates engaging with the legislature to get something done, because that provides every advantage to organizations that can afford large numbers of lobbyists and campaign donations and every disadvantage for small grassroots movements who may not be the most politically aware, or trusting of the system (and often for legitimate reasons — some of these people have been arrested and thrown in jail for smoking or selling small amounts of pot).
That this ballot question exists and seems poised to pass demonstrates clearly where this state is at, so I think the onus should be on the legislature at this point to reach out to pro-legalization activists and work out a compromise.
Why not put those regulations in place now? Were you one of the 25 co-sponsors? It really sounds like your throwing your hands up and sticking with a terrible policy status quo over a flawed reform. We are often told how incrementalism has to be the way progressive policy is conducted, in the national debate and especially under the Golden Dome. But isn’t this a classic example of making the perfect the enemy of the food?
Is that not the Washington state model? It’s close to it, and how hard would it have been to work with the ballot initiative proponents and bring that kind of proposed language into their bill? How hard would it have been to sponsor that as its own competing ballot initiative if you really thought that was a)the best policy and b) your colleagues don’t have the capacity to consider it.
I do not view this as you absconding of your responsibility but it’s a profound indictments of your colleagues and seems to indicate that you would prefer the inaction of the flawed status quo to modifying any pitfalls from the flawed ballot initiative through legislative fixes down the line.
I’d rather then tax eater into taxpayers and cartels and dealers into law abiding regulation following small businesses. I want marijuana growers to complain about how intrusive the state is and how high their taxes are. It’s still preferable to locking people, predominately of color, up and spending the kind of resources we are doing to do so. You’re thoughtful responses have not addressed the underlying criminal justice issues either. View this as an opportunity to do better and to force your colleagues to do the same.
That’s what comes with posting too early in the morning.
…is that in this time when the issue of opioid addiction and overdosing has come to the fore, do we REALLY want to deal with another substance which could be harmful entering general circulation? Even medically it needs to be very closely watched so we don’t get into the overprescription habit that has brought about the opioid crisis. I just think that there are so many unintended and unforeseen consequences for which this is ripe.
Marijuana has NOTHING to do with opioids!
The issue of opioid addiction and overdosing is, in fact, an excellent example of why we should NOT muddy the water by diverting our resources towards a harmless (in comparison) substance.
Perhaps we should make milk and apple pie illegal. After all, there is strong medical evidence that overuse of each creates serious health problems. If we’re not careful, then the same carelessness that created the opioid crisis might create a cholesterol epidemic by allowing people to overdose on milk and apple pie.
This spurious attempt to link marijuana to opioids exemplifies the hysteria that we need to leave behind.
..but it seems very contradictory to me that we are loosening some and tightening others. Milk and apple pie are silly arguments. Sure there’s the whole gambit of health value or lack thereof among food and drinks, but they are still ultimately food and drink. We need to eat and drink to survive; drugs – not so much. I’m pretty sure, with the possible exception of diabetics or those with allergies or other intolerances, that nobody has suffered from an “overdose” of food or drink other than alcohol. You sink your credibility quickly when you make such comparisons.
The premise that we can somehow stop marijuana from “entering general circulation” denies the reality all around us.
Marijuana is already in general circulation and has been for at least fifty years. In fact, it is time to admit that reality.
Yes there are people who use pot (or so I’ve heard:); I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I have even smelled pot in the vicinity. I’ve smelled cigarettes and been the presence of alcohol countless times because they are, you know, LEGAL. By general circulation I mean sold in public like liquor at the local package store or like cigarettes at the convenient store. I simply do not want that to become the case with pot. No good can come of it and possibly (probably) some bad. I have made up my mind on how to vote, which is my right in a democratic republic since as I pointed out above there are no constitutional objections as far as I can tell. That argument is more libertarian, which is fine philosophy to have. Just don’t insist it’s progressive.
Senator Lewis,
Most of your criticisms are well-founded, but they are issues the legislature is able to deal with if it takes initiative and legalizes marijuana itself.
I recognize the flaws in the initiative petition, but I am still going to vote for it if I have to pick between that and no legalization. I suspect there are a lot of others like me. If you want to stop the ballot initiative, you need to come up with a proposal that legalizes it and does a better job than the initiative. Otherwise, shut up and get out of the way of progress.
…and you present a false choice: legalize it your way or legalize it my way. So I guess those of us who oppose legalization don’t get a choice?:(
The majority rules. The majority supports legalization. So legalization is going to happen. The question is how, not if. I’m willing to vote against the initiative if, and ONLY if, the legislature passes a better proposal. You’re free to vote against any form of legalization as a voter, but legislators need to come to terms with political reality. And in reality, their choices are legalization controlled by the legislature, or legalization controlled by the people who wrote the ballot initiative.
Sometimes the polls are wrong. I’m a Burkean and a republican anyway, so I don’t necessarily agree that the whims of the majority should always govern. I’ve never been a fan of legislating by popular vote.
it was an amazing comment up until then.
Remember, we want the legislature to have a dialog with us, and get more of them on board with a good bill that legalizes it.
This might be an example of moving from a 6 to a 5.