AG Maura Healey strongly stated her case to vote No on Question 4. Noting that “Question 4 isn’t just about legalization — it’s about commercialization” and detailed concerns with unregulated levels. I am voting No on Question 4, but I wanted to post as this was something that I was not aware of.
The measure’s language includes no specific limits on the potency of THC, the pyschoactive chemical in marijuana, for products sold in the state. Critics say today’s marijuana is generally at least six times more potent than it was in the 1970s.
Healey as the AP report phrased it “Massachusetts’ top law enforcement official” had previously shared her thoughts and conversations with law enforcement in Colorado and Washington which noted no impact in drug trafficking.
Marijuana companies have already signaled their intent to fight any restrictions, Healey said.
“Potency limits might actually be better for people, but they are bad for profits, they’re bad for the bottom line and they’re bad for a billion-dollar industry that will always put profits ahead of people,” the attorney general said.
Once they are in they will continue to gnaw away at any regulations we might try to put in place. Why is that a risk worth taking here? Also, Healey doesn’t strike me as a law enforcement official who would want to keep something illegal just to give her more to do.
I’ve met Maura Healey. I like her.
I think she’s wrong on this. I plan to enthusiastically vote “yes” on question 4.
And my vote on #4 was “Yes”, but I can’t say I will be excited or disappointed with any outcome. It’s just not on my radar.
I knew she was against it, but I didn’t know this was her argument.
N/T
. . .if her record on other issues were not so dismal.
As I’ve written before, bait and switch seminars on the Trump University model operate openly in Massachusetts, and the AG does nothing.
Healey’s record on enforcing the state’s FOIA law is equally miserable. Check the Weekly Dig’s website for details.
An official who cannot handle her current responsibilities has no business campaigning against hypothetical future actions.
Both campaigns are the result of legislators failing to do their homework and pass sensible, compromise legislation. All of these policy objections could have been addressed in a policy package that actually solves the underlying issues. Instead, in both cases, legislators failed to do their job and a more radical proposal goes to the ballot.
In the case of Question 2, the proponents were the folks rejecting a sensible compromise from Stan Rosenberg that would’ve raised the cap but done so in a responsible manner while addressing funding disparities. Proponents were absolutists who said no to that and went to the voters instead.
In the case of Question 4, legalization proponents were willing to compromise and modify the proposal and opponents, including folks like Sen. Lewis who still insist in the face of all evidence to the contrary that they are ‘open to legalization done right‘, abandoned their responsibility to do it right and left it up to the voters.
No on 2/Yes on 4 is not only a vote for my preferred policy outcomes but it’s a great way to send a message to this legislature to do their freakin jobs.*
*Sen. Edridge, Sen. Jehlen, Dave Rogers, Sen. Chang-Diaz and Sen. Rosenberg all did their jobs and kudos to them and the legislators that voted with their proposals to raise the cap and legalize marijuana responsibly
Legislators have been full-ostrich when it comes to pot legalization. We all knew this ballot measure would be coming if they did nothing, but they did nothing. We desperately need a legislature that gets the basics done. These ballot questions should serve as a clarion call this it’s time to primary our reps and senators.
Though Question 2 is a little bit different because I’m fairly sure the big money proponents want to be able raid high per pupil expenditure suburbs. I’m not sure there was a compromise to be made.
by the marijuana industry.
She’s right that proposed statute doesn’t expressly set potency limits, but it does direct the regulating agency to adopt “health and safety standards” for the industry, which could obviously include limits on THC amounts. (The law also requires that edibles be labelled with the amount of THC in the package as well as per serving.)
Regulations have the same force of law as statutes, so potency limits adopted by the agency would be no different from limits expressly included in the statute.
The AG’s premises are that the industry wants no potency regulations and that it would be sufficiently powerful to resist any efforts by the agency to impose them. I’m not sure about the first of these premises but as to the second, if and when the time comes to regulate marijuana, I have confidence in her ability to make her voice heard.
And did not. She hasn’t hesitated to endorse gun control legislation and ethics reforms, which is why we love her, but her leadership on this issue has been vacant and her protests ring hollow.
Like all the officials in Colorado, she is taking an absolutist prohibitionist stance until the voters give her permission to regulate marijuana responsibly. Remember, this law won’t take effect until 2018, communities can vote to keep commercial marijuana out of their own jurisdiction, and the legislature and AG Healey will have two years to make their recommendations and fixes. The risk in rejection outweighs the risks of enactment.
There’s a new article in CommonWealth Magazine, calling out AG Healey for misrepresenting what the pro-Q4 folks have said. Sadly, she is either listening to people who lie about what advocates have said (without confirming their claims), or is lying about it herself — either of which have diminished my respect for her.
The most relevant parts (though I recommend reading the whole article):
I don’t see it. Maybe Fine didn’t say it, but if the AG says someone did say it, I believe her.
That said I tend to think the industry would accept limits. Even if we assume they’re evil and just in it for the money … I don’t see what their motivation is to make the pot stronger.
I wish that article followed up on the Mass Medical guy saying marijuana is addictive. I’ve always heard it isn’t.
The reporter quotes Fine disputing the quote.
I’m sure Fine is telling the truth, and I’m sure Healey is too.
I’d rather question 4 passes on its merits. We don’t need to accuse the AG of lying based on the word of one guy (who might be wrong).
The reporter said “But Healey was not accurate in her portrayal of the interview,” and then Fine is quoted later. Agree or disagree with the reporter, but it’s clear that he is stating that Healey is in the wrong on this one.
The reason this is frustrating is because the AG’s comments are feeding a false narrative that the industry is opposed to being regulated. If you look at Colorado, Washington, or any other state with legal cannabis, there are regulations on potency, labeling, packaging, etc. Massachusetts will definitely have all of those too, and it’s frustrating to see our AG misrepresenting what a post-legalization world would look like instead of arguing it on the merits.
…between saying that Healey’s comments were not accurate and saying that she was lying. There is a moral judgement to the latter which suggests she knew what she was saying was false at the time she said, but said it anyway in an attempt to deceive. In my book, you never say the latter without absolute proof, and err on the side of the former if it is adequate for making your point.
… is to keep it controlled by drug gangs who are much better at controlling the THC level and put people ahead of profits?
Is it perfect? Of course not, but only by bringing it out into the open can we begin to address these issues. The alternative is to continue with our fingers in our ears yelling “LA-LA-LA-LA-LA.” It isn’t going away no matter how much Healey and Baker want it to.
I won’t get into the liar or not liar debate. I do think her purported concerns are disingenuous. Knowing that this issue was on the ballot and that voters would be the ultimate decider’s in a presidential turnout year-lawmakers should’ve anticipated the possibility of victory and created a legalized regimen they could live with.
This is exactly what responsible policy makers like Sen. Jehlen, Sen. Eldridge, and Rep. Rogers tried to do. More skeptical lawmakers like Sen. Lewis and a law enforcer like AG Healey had the opportunity to consider any workable alternative to this bill. I am only disappointed that someone who could get so creative on we ways of enforcing against unsafe weapons on our streets couldn’t be creative about regulating a substantially less harmful one.
…that they WANTED a legalized regimen they could live with.
Since that’s what they said. That’s what Healey says here and what Lewis said on BMg. Their words, not my assumption.
There is also the argument that the voters will pass this anyway so let’s beat them to it by passing something smarter and better than what’s on the ballot. That’s what leaders do, and sadly most of our lawmakers are not in that category.
Is there a reason to assume that both parties are talking about the SAME interview? They can both be telling the truth.
I’ll be stunned if Q4 doesn’t pass. It’s polling at 61 percent according to Western New England University poll.
Too many of our supposed progressive leaders have been swayed by the pearl clutchers on this issue. Credit to Michelle Wu, Jamie Eldridge and Marjorie Decker for being among those who’ve stepped up for Yes on 4. If Healey wants to challenge Charlie Baker in two years, and she may not, this would have been a great issue to separate herself.
Total cluster#%^*. I’m sure that there are good reasons why each specific drug is illegal, but the War as a whole is an international disaster.
It’s time that we all pull our heads out of the sand. Legalizing marijuana is a start.
It would also be good if the War on the 99% ended, which would reduce the the number of people with shattered lives who look for solace in drugs. We need a fair economy, policed by honest politicians.