MA voters
 

Question 3.... What say you? :stir: :read:

Do you have Hypoglycemia?

Im not in MA but I am all for it. Crazy that this is not legal in all states.

I'll say "no" most likely.

If it ends up being yes, maybe I'll try it for the first time..................

Will employers have to change laws for testing etc? Wonder what the larger implecations on this would be......................................

That will be a Yes. Asinine that it is not flat out legalized taxed and regulated. I would have thought cig companies wouldn't have pushed to swap their crops.

Question 3???
You mean there are ballot questions?
You mean that this election is not solely about Warren getting Teddy boys seat back? That it's not just about the evil Republicans attacking womens' rights (a rehash from '08)?

Thank God there's something else to consider besides the candidates and the "half-truths" and fairytales they spin!

At least Scott Brown hasn't sunk to their level of mudslinging and mis-representation.

Isn't funny that a politician is finally honest and intelligent, HE gets slammed by the opposition, yet the opposition makes ridiculous cliams (that can't be substantiated) and all SHE can do is claim that he is lying!

If Warren wins, the only change for this state will be an empty seat will be filled with an empty suit!

It'll be legalized for MEDICAL use after meeting certain criteria, and only through state sponsored dispensaries.

Jeeze, this isn't full legalization.

People will smoke it regardless. So voting against it is just costing the state money if they have to fight it in the field and in the jail system. Biggest waste of time. The question should be about banning OC's which are accounting for multiple bank, store robberies and home invasions in Fall River alone every week. The gov't hasn't found a way to monopolize without freaking everyone out yet. Once they do it will be a done deal. Let the states legalize without their consent until we the people are comfortable with it and used to it for a while. And once we are they will step in and take over the business and own the crap out of it. It just sucks it has to go down like this and be such a process because the gov't has no balls. Get it over with already.

I thought that at first, with a defined list of qualifying conditions (as I believe is the case in RI) but reading the full text of the question, in Section 2(c) the last part of the sentence is "and other conditions as determined in writing by a qualifying patient's physician", which I interpret to be more in line with the law in California.

Yes, it is certainly NOT full legalization, and that in part is why I am still undecided on question 3. Some opponents of MMJ laws give as their reason that they believe such laws to be an underhanded effort to "normalize" MJ use and eventually bring about full legalization. I think that if that were true, it was not a very well thought out plan. I think it could possibly have the exact opposite effect. They have really screwed it up in CA and CO, and I think in the process have given the anti-legalization folks plenty of ammo. Those who are approved to grow it are at risk of being robbed, injured and killed by those who are not approved to do the same, with the intent to profit from selling it and/or using it recreationally themselves.

I'm NOT advocating the use, misuse, or abuse of ANY intoxicating substance, legal or otherwise. I simply think there is a huge discrepancy in the laws relative to the cost to society attributed to their use. I don't think a week went by this summer where I didn't read about a state trooper or innocent civilian being injured (or worse) by a drunk driver. Oxycontin is "legal" when prescribed by a physician, yet it is responsible for ruining countless lives through addiction and OD deaths. Cigarettes are legal, though no one denies the serious effects on both the health of the individual and the cost to society as a public health issue. What about the costs to society by keeping MJ illegal? Assuming XX million people are going to use it anyway, (that's not a hypothetical number, XX million people are already using it illegally) by keeping it illegal, those that are (understandably) afraid or unable to produce their own or find a trusted domestically grown supply turn to whatever they can find. More often then not this is a product of inferior quality grown by Mexican cartels who care little about what chemical fertilizers or pesticides they spray on it to maximize their yield. (Not to mention the violence associated with their never-ending battle for their share of the US market, or, in the case of cartel grown weed on public land in the US, the chemicals that they inevitably spill that can find their way into our waterways) Efforts are even being made to restrict access to large sugary drinks because of their public health costs. (Childhood obesity, diabetes, etc.) I just think it's time to admit that we are NEVER going to curb the demand for MJ in the US and that it would be more helpful in the long run to treat it as a healthcare issue. I know some have expressed worry that it would send a mixed message to kids, but that horse has already left the barn. Kids aren't so stupid that they don't recognize hypocrisy when they see it. Keeping it illegal doesn't make it harder for kids to get, in fact I think it's just the opposite. I don't want my kids, your kids, or anyone else's kids smoking weed (or drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, etc.), I just think that what we are doing doesn't seem to be working...

Amen! Last sentence should read is NOT working.

well said BMScotty!

You must not have ever been to California or Colorado. I'm providing the technical production for a conference on medical marijuana use in Denver this November. "Medical use" means that you just have to jump through a couple hoops before getting your script.

Think about the conflict of interest here: State Sponsored Dispensaries means that the state has an incentive to make the drug available to the masses. Millions of people in this state are already smoking pot. If the state can port those people to semi-legal measures of sourcing that will provide revenue, all the better.

Unfortunately this state isn't CA or CO, and will DEFINITELY screw it up royally!

When you put drugs and money on the table, and the state and federal "gubermint" is sitting at that table, both will end up in their pockets!

This would be so fraught with abuse and misuse, it would overshadow even the Big Dig fiasco!

Now the more important ballot questions are #1 and #2.