30 votes

Also on the ballot in MA: Medical Marijuana. What do you think?

Apparently this is going to pass, as is the Right to Die. With the Medical Marijuana question, my understanding is that they don't want it to become a free-for-all, like it did in Colorado. They want tighter control over licensing both who can sell it, and who can get it. To wit, look at the conditions it is prescribed for:

This proposed law would eliminate state criminal and civil penalties for the medical use of marijuana by qualifying patients. To qualify, a patient must have been diagnosed with a debilitating medical condition, such as cancer, glaucoma, HIV-positive status or AIDS, hepatitis C, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, ALS, or multiple sclerosis. The patient would also have to obtain a written certification, from a physician with whom the patient has a bona fide physician-patient relationship, that the patient has a specific debilitating medical condition and would likely obtain a net benefit from medical use of marijuana.

I don't see depression or insomnia on that list, though I'm sure they'd be happy to write you a pharmaceutical prescription for either of those (non)debilitating conditions.

Boston Magazine has had a cover story worrying about this on the stands for the last month. The author's vague worry is that with marijuana more available on the streets, he's likely to smoke more himself, and he doesn't think that's necessarily a good thing. It is a very self-indulgent article.

But it does raise the points that based on what happened in other cities, street prices tend to come down, and quality goes up, simply because there are leaks in the supply chain, looking to find the market. And considering that this is Massachusetts, the leaks in this supply train will be big enough to drive Mac trucks through!

Here's some more of the proposed law:

The proposed law would require DPH to issue a cultivation registration to a qualifying patient whose access to a treatment center is limited by financial hardship, physical inability to access reasonable transportation, or distance. This would allow the patient or caregiver to grow only enough plants, in a closed, locked facility, for a 60-day supply of marijuana for the patient’s own use.

In other words, they'll grant you a privilege to grow your own (a "cultivation registration"), under certain conditions. Everyone will be scrambling for one of these certificates. I can see the scam growing already.

But anyway - it is a step forward, and I'll take it.

What do you think? My home boy state Washington is about to legalize marijuana outright if I'm not mistaken. Along with Oregon I think. Anyone know?

Marijuana is reaching a tipping point. Good thing, or not?

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ever seen a "Federal Police" car?

My husband passed one on his way home from work yesterday. We are a little creeped out by it.
I presume such an officer would not care much about state laws, and have no "jurisdiction" boundaries to hinder him from protecting you from the ravages of an herb that never killed anyone (but threatens to kill the medical industrial complex.)

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

What passes in any form will probably be moot as

The Obama administration is using federal supremacy (there is a federal anti marijuana law) to raid and close legal medical marijuana shops in California

If Romney is elected he will be tougher - remember that video of romeny telling the wheelchair patient he didn't believe in medical marijuana


Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

Think very carefully

On the right to die vote. It is s a slippery slope. I worked as an Elder Care case manager for 13 years. They were already starting to implement end of life counseling, and wanting us to get clients to sign very basic advance directives.

People should really think about writing very detailed Advance Directives. The Terry Schiavo case was a classic case.

All info is being collected into State data bases. They are already trying to push out family members who have been designated as Health Care Proxy which by the way means jack shit unless an MD invokes it.

What will happen is somewhere buried in a data base will be an flimsy Advance Directive that will be interpreted by the attending MD. All control will be taken from the family and the death drugs will be administered. Beware People

henry9's picture

To hell with the medical language!

I have to go with Dr. Jill Stien on this one.

"It is dangerous because it is illegal."

And, of course, Dr. Paul: "No one has a right to tell you what you can or cannot put into your body."

This is such a dog and pony show it almost makes me to want to smoke a bowl.

I think

the penalties and prison sentences are going to increase dramatically. I think people are going think "legal" and get busted for not being legal, or not being able to afford to be legal.

Decriminalizing it is a good

Decriminalizing it for medical purposes is a good start, but it should never matter if you have a medical condition or not. Limiting its use for medical purposes is misguided and keeps millions of people who are recreational users classified as criminals.

Washington and Colorado

have the best chance of passing marijuana initiatives.

Oregon and Arizona 50/50 it will be close there.

Hope you are right and MA voters pass it.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Denise B's picture

I will be voting

yes on this one. Although I don't think it goes far enough (pot should be legal without exception in my view), it is at least a small step in the right direction...

Legalize Marijuana not Death.

that's all I've got to say about that.

Unnatural products promoted. Natural vegetation banned?

it makes no sense.

"We the people" have to limit government. Governments are not good at limiting themselves.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

they will legalize once they have all the states setup as needed

The fed is getting things how they want it with marijuana BEFORE they give the go ahead. They want all their state/fed laws for it to be ironed out so they can "fix" it federally in one fail swoop to fuck us later.

There is nothing good coming from the laws if more regulations and stricter licensing ( which only means more expensive) comes about. Just wait to see what the price of marijuana will be once the fuckin fed is in charge of it AND how many patients and growers would then be locked up in jail due to breaking the NEW marijuana laws.

they keep taking more and more from us here in California and at one time I thought NOTHING would stop our medical marijuana progress but now I don't see a SINGLE collective in a city that used to have over 20.

http://shelfsufficient.com - My site on getting my little family prepped for whatever might come our way.

http://growing-elite-marijuana.com - My site on growing marijuana

Michael Nystrom's picture

Can you tell us more

About how things went down in California? What happened to the 20 collectives?

Hi Micheal :)

Blessings my friend - sorry I've been away for a while but I'm back as this is one of the few places I can freely express myself and forward the ideas of peace, liberty and prosperity.

On right to die: If you believe in liberty - while this may be unpopular or something you don't like... folks commenting about people being "counseled" to off themselves should be "protected" by voting no on this are missing the point and giving into the areas of grey. It is a socialist position to not allow others to do whatever they want - as long as they are not physically or financially harming you - PERIOD - there are NO EXCEPTIONS.

Not all the ideas in the "freedom" category are popular. The Bill of Rights was penned to protect unpopular freedoms... not popular ones.

On Medical Marijuana - I don't vote anymore - period. Mostly because I will not grant limited power of attorney to "represent" me as my "representative" in the corporate structure:


It's against the law to forcibly control what people put into their bodies. There's is nothing in the constitution which grants government these powers. Those powers are only given by consented contract to be "represented" - which give statutory "color of law" the FORCE OF LAW by the consent of the governed.

Instead I believe we need to IGNORE this "dummy corporation" and instead hold our own elections - at our own electoral establishments - with our own ballot boxes and our own paper ballots which are counted in FULL PUBLIC VIEW. Nothing will really change on a major basis until we've established an actual government OF THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

That being said, I am going

That being said, I am going to vote yes for this measure, because I do believe it is a small step in the right direction.

On a side note, I wish the other measures would have been better. I would have liked to see the Citizens' 9/11 Commission question on the ballot and definitely would like to see a measure to label (ban would be better) genetically modified foods in the next election.

Why don't they stop tiptoeing

Why don't they stop tiptoeing with MMJ and just legalize; we already know how many people are going to try and fake diseases to get access. I'm pretty sure in some states they used to prescribe for ADD, a fictitious disorder. I see that MA is not prescribing for "disorders" like that because they would rather keep writing those people prescriptions for Big-Pharma pills like Adderol, which have adverse effects.

It's amazing to me...that they poison kids with all the additives in junk food that cause mental disruptions and lead to lack of concentration, and then give them pills for a problem they created to make Big-Pharma even richer. Problem-reaction-solution.

Same goes for well over half the "disorders" in the DSM (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders/ the "psychiatric bible"). They are made up, no joke. Multiple personality disorder? That used to be so rare before the media started hyping it up and it eventually became known as dissociative identity disorder, that it was unheard of amongst the psychiatric community.

The typical remedy for mental disorders:
"Give em some lithium/flouride infused pills and it will go away!" (not really, but it will stunt brain development and line our pockets)

Question 1?

Do you have any thoughts on MA question 1 by the way? I'm not sure if my instincts are correct to say it is imposing new regulation and thus bad (thus vote no), or I'm thinking this through poorly and access to information is good (thus vote yes).

I'm pretty sure I'm going with No on question 4 in Somerville.

Michael Nystrom's picture

You live in Somerville?

No on question 4. The majority of the money is going towards more government subsidized "affordable housing." That is the last thing this city needs. We need to attract more business, rather than just trying to survive off the crumbs of Cambridge and Boston. Boston has finance; Cambridge has biotech and Somerville has ... Affordable housing?

This city has a 30% home ownership rate. 30%! With 70% renters, I'd say housing is plenty affordable already.

I can't say I fully understand question 1.

This proposed law would prohibit any motor vehicle manufacturer, starting with model year 2015, from selling or leasing, either directly or through a dealer, a new motor vehicle without allowing the owner to have access to the same diagnostic and repair information made available to the manufacturer’s dealers and in-state authorized repair facilities.

The manufacturer would have to allow the owner, or the owner’s designated in-state independent repair facility (one not affiliated with a manufacturer or its authorized dealers), to obtain diagnostic and repair information electronically, on an hourly, daily, monthly, or yearly subscription basis, for no more than fair market value and on terms that do not unfairly favor dealers and authorized repair facilities.

It is more government intrusion & regulation. And then there is that whole campaign to "skip Question 1" - it is already done. No need to vote on it.... Weird. I'll study it some more.

Yes, I live in Somerville

Just bought a house this year. So I'm not eager to pay more property taxes. :)

I was more open to it when I thought it was only for parks and open areas, but I agree that the requirement for affordable housing spending does not make it appealing to me.

tasmlab's picture

I thought this smelled of protectionism

Anytime they want to impose new costs and regulations on an industry, my first instinct is "who can easily afford these changes?" and "who is going to see these as significant costs?"

Being required to provide this information will likely require a new software system, or a subscription to a database service, or maybe even a new staff member.

I'm sure Ernie Boch and Herb Chambers find this delightful and all of the mom and pop shops suffer.

That the language says "manufacturer" I'm not sure is here nor there, they could still push the costs to dealers.

And, frankly, as libertarians, any regulation put on a voluntary transaction as innocuous as buying a consumer good such as a car should set off alarms.

I voted "no".

Currently consuming: Morehouse's "Better off free", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Michael Nystrom's picture

Good points

Any time there is new 'regulation' intended to help consumers, it helps big business for exactly the reasons you state: The mom + pop providers can't afford to upgrade to whatever new technology or standards are required.

I'm going to study it some more, but will likely vote no.

Do you know what/who is behind the "Don't vote on Question 1" push? Talk about fishy. That smells fishy.

Denise B's picture

I could be wrong but

from what I understand, I think the need for question 1 came about in the first place because mechanics would have people bring in their newer vehicles for repair and when they contacted the manufacturers to get information on repairing the vehicles, the manufacturers declined to give them the information necessary, so the mechanic was unable to make the repairs and the customer was left with the only option of going to an "authorized" dealer for repairs. Anyone who has brought their cars to "authorized" dealers for repairs is aware of how much more these repairs can cost, as opposed to bringing them to a local mom & pop repair place.

I have mixed feelings on this one, but am leaning toward a yes vote. I think when a person purchases a vehicle, they should have the right to get the necessary information to fix their vehicle whereever they see fit, and althought I don't typically like government intervention, in this particular case it seems to me that not having the "right to repair" laws will create a bad and expensive situation for consumers. If it gets to the point where you can only go to a Toyota dealer to get repairs on your Toyota (or Chevy, or whatever), that frees it up for Toyota to charge ridiculous prices and leaves the consumer with no real option other than to pay them. In essence, it creates a monopoly for the dealer and ultimately will put a lot of mechanics out of business over time, because eventually there will only be the "newer" models on the road that they are unable to make repairs on because they won't be able to get the information necessary to repair....just seems like a bad situation to me.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Ok - thanks

Thanks for the perspective.

What about the "Don't Vote on 1 because it has already been settled" push? Do you know who/what is behind that?

This agreement was reached and signed into law after the deadline to remove the issue from the ballot. You will see ‘Right to Repair’ appear as Question 1 on your ballot, but you can ignore it.
The best way to support the Right to Repair law already in place is to skip voting on Question 1 on November 6th.


TwelveOhOne's picture

Sounds like "you can vote by phone"

Sounds like those campaigns that are lying to the electorate: "you can vote by phone"; "Republicans vote on Tuesday; Democrats vote on Wednesday"; and "you need a photo ID in every state in order to vote", all three of which are lies that I heard on NPR this morning.

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

Denise B's picture

Honestly, that is the

first I have heard of it and will have to look into it some more...On the surface, it sounds a little questionable to me because why would Question 1 have even come about if there was already a law in place that addresses it? Something definately seems a little off with that...I will spend some more time looking into it and see if I can get to the bottom of it....thanks.

my outlook:medical mj

my outlook:

medical mj passes, people abuse the system. more propaganda is produced that discredits marijuana as being a gateway drug for crime, and the govt develops a monopoly on the medicinal market and keeps decriminalization an impossibility. the movement is set back by a decade.


like what happened with Prohibition, so many people abuse the system that the government just has to give up and accept it, because it's impossible for them to stop it.

I don't play, I commission the league.

It is not so restrictive on the conditions IMHO

The definition of debilitating medical condition includes the catchall:
"...multiple sclerosis and other conditions as determined in writing by a qualifying patient's physician"

Qualifying patient means, "a person who has been diagnosed by a licensed physician as having a debilitating medical condition."

Written certification means, "a document signed by a licensed physician... Such certification shall be made only in the course of a bona fide physician-patient relationship and shall specify the qualifying patient's debilitating medical condition(s)."

Taken together in the context of the propsed legislation, it appears that a doctor can recommend medical marijuana for any medical condition that he feels would help the patient. The list of (very serious) debilitating conditions is more for appearances.

I think this law is a step in the right direction, but I am in the treat herbs as herbs camp.

Text of the question:


Initiative 502 for marijuana legalization is on the ballot in WA

We've had medical marijuana legalized for some time now, with some abuse but mostly success.

I just read an article about Rick Steves, a WA travel guru, who is traveling around WA campaigning for legalization.

He said: "I'm a hardworking, churchgoing, child-raising, taxpaying citizen," he said. "If I want to go home and smoke a joint and stare at the fireplace for two hours, that's my civil liberty."

I am going to take an educated guess

and conclude that most of the abuse is coming from the fact that prohibition is still in in place. Although, even with all bans lifted, abuses will still happen. There's a lot of alcoholics out there who could be poster children for being unable to manage a substance. (she types as she casually lights a cigarette, french inhales and releases the smoke onto the computer screen)

Of course - marijuana is still illegal - but 502 might

change that - if it passes.

By "abuses" I mean that all marijuana outlets do not follow all the rules. But for everyone that I know that uses it for medical reasons, it has been a success.

I have two friends who use it for insomnia. I have used it for insomnia, and it works great. I can't use it now, because my current job says that if they drug test us and we show positive for marijuana, we will get fired, even though we have a prescription. But as soon as I leave that job, I'm going back to using it for sleep. I've had insomnia all my life, even as an infant, and I do not like to use sleeping pills. They just make me feel funny, not rested.