Hey, there! Log in / Register
Court clears way for recreational-pot referendum this November
By adamg on Wed, 07/06/2016 - 10:34am
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that a ballot question on ending the prohibition on recreational marijuana use is good enough to go before voters in November.
The court denied a challenge from opponents that the measure was overbroad and that Attorney General Maura Healey's official description was wrong. At the same time, the court also denied a challenge from proponents who said Healey's description was unfair. Still, the court did order a change in the official wording summing up what a "yes" vote would mean, to:
A YES VOTE would allow persons 21 and older to possess, use, and transfer marijuana and products containing marijuana concentrate (including edible products) and to cultivate marijuana, all in limited amounts, and would provide for the regulation and taxation of commercial sale of marijuana and marijuana products.
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete ruling | 149.9 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Oh, great
Initiative petition. You know, that thing that kept beer and wine out of the grocery store. We're going to let people who voted for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders in a primary decide this? Jesus.
Yeah man
Fuck democracy
Democracy?
Weed existed before democracy did. So did fire.
It's democracy that led to us having a ban on plants, fire, and inhalation in the first place.
Yes, people who disagree with
Yes, people who disagree with you get the same vote as you do. Or, to put it another way, even those of you who don't believe in democracy get to vote. However, this is not Australia, so you don't *have* to vote, if you think the process is hopelessly corrupt.
You put your weeeeeed in
You put your weeeeeed in there!
Every petition comes down to
Every petition comes down to which side spends the most money, which side is backed by heavy spenders. Baker and Walsh are puritans with lots of cash available, so it will be an uphill battle for the legalization side to outspend them.
That's true for less
That's true for less understood topics. But every voter already has an opinion about legalizing weed. There isn't a lot that backers or opponents can do to "educate" voters about the issue. And the presidential election means that low turnout will not be a factor.
One side can lie or cheat,
One side can lie or cheat, which is aided by more money to swarm the media with false ads. Look at the anti bottle redemption people who used false statistics to change the views of people on a simple topic, something an overwhelming majority believed in (expanding bottle redemption) before the ad blitz. Also true with the selling wine at grocery stores campaign, where the liquor store organziation illegally used a police chief in uniform in ads to make dubious claims about the apocalypse of widespread gas station mini mahts selling of wine that would ensue if the measure passed. That also saw a huge swing to the no vote. Money buys votes.
The expanded bottle bill was
The expanded bottle bill was a horrible idea and it's good it the initiative was voted down. I say this as someone who financially supported the passage of the Expanded Bottle Bill introduced in the 1990's.
Curbside recycling is the way to go today. New Jersey has a higher recyling rate (for all materials) than Michigan. That's the model to follow.
You don't think Baker could
You don't think Baker could come around? He admitted pot use himself in an everybody does it way. It's such an odd position to concede everyone does it and yet think it should be illegal.
He's changed his mind on other things. Look at the transgender restroom bill. And his softening position on immigration.
Of course he could come
Of course he could come around, he's like Romney and Brown, changing positions all the time. But now he is one of the leaders of the anti legalization lobby. Just because someone flip flops a lot doesn't mean that you can't criticize them for their current position, they have to own their position while they have it.
Ah yes...
When a Republican changes his thinking on an issue, (s)he's a flip-flopper, when a Democrat does the same thing, their position has "evolved".
Yep like how Obama's position
Yep like how Obama's position on same sex marriage "evolved" since the 2008 presidential campaign. Just lie and say whatever you have to to get elected, I guess...
You'd think Baker would be
You'd think Baker would be all over a new stream of tax revenue that everyone expects to pay and isn't going to piss anyone off.
Maybe
Then again we have a Nov presidential election with Trump on the GOP ticket. That's going to lead to high progressive turnout, and its going to be hard for the no vote to come out in force.
I think we will see this pass with a clear majority. CO was the test bed for what would happen, and its been a huge success and a boon to state coffers.
And as soon as the government said weed is cool, kids saw it and said, hey that's not cool. Youth use is down!
That said, the thing to worry abiut is the medical use cartels that the state legislature gave away to cronies. They'll be fighting this tooth and nail with all the puritan bullshit that was lobbied at them before they existed. They have a state sanctioned racket to protect. We've seen it with the states stance on this ballot measure.
Except that the "medical use
Except that the "medical use cartels" get the first shot at opening retail stores with this ballot question. I doubt they'll be against something that hands them a first to market business strategy. Which is why it's a shame that the other legalization referendum couldn't get it's act together.
revenue
You would think the revenue alone would convince the pols. Colorado is making something like $70 million in taxes on marijuana. That should be part of the discussion.
And, yes, I will be voting in favor of recreational use.
Prohibition vs tolerance
In the early 1990's there was a eye opening museum exhibit called "Altered States" covering the world history of drug use, going back past the middle ages. My takeaways from the exhibit were that drug abuse is a very old problem, and every 20 to 25 years, societies swing back and forth between tolerance and prohibition. I don't know what drives it, maybe people want to legalize drugs when they're young, then when they're older they don't want their kids doing drugs like they did.
The 20 year cycle doesn't seem to apply any longer. It may be because before the 20th century the most common drugs were opium and alcohol. German chemists hadn't yet invented the hard stuff. American industrialists hadn't yet invented big pharma. Columbian entrepreneurs hadn't yet invented the cartel.
Legalizing weed might be the most stable and least worst option available now.
Columbian entrepreneurs
You trying to say that cartels were born in a university in New York City?
Roar, Lions, roar!
Roar, Lions, roar!
Or possibly a movie studio?
Or possibly a movie studio?
I knew, being a Colombian myself, that someone would bring up my home country.
Fun fact: Americans consume more drugs than anyone else on the planet.
Super fun fact: it's fucking spelt Colombia with an O.
Colombia
Era gol de Yepes.
Maybe. Who greenlighted
Maybe. Who greenlighted Narcos?
If Alcohol is legal, there is
If alcohol is legal, there is no reason that pot shouldn't be. It's that simple.
Alcohol is unfortunately grandfathered in.
We know that alcohol does a lot of damage to society. It makes no sense to expand the number of legal substances that cause great harm to society just because of some perverse sense of fairness.
Having consumed both, in my
Having consumed both, in my opinion pot is less damaging than alcohol. Less addicting, less wrecker of families.
That shouldn't be the
That shouldn't be the standard.
Standards
What should be the standard?
I absolutely agree. It's
I absolutely agree. It's hard to imagine what would happen to our society and our children if we stop fining and incarcerating minorities for drug possession.
Won't anyone think of the children/society?
Patricia, If I drink a glass
Patricia, If I drink a glass of wine or a beer, it does not impact neighbors in the apartment building where we live. If someone in the building smokes pot, it impacts pretty much everyone. We've had a lot of problems over the years with a handful of pot smokers who don't seem to understand that most people in the building do not wish their apartments to smell like a dead skunk. It's not just on the weekends, it's sometimes nearly every day, morning, noon and night. We don't live in a student-heavy neighborhood like Allston/Brighton -- otherwise I could see people claiming 'Well, what did you expect!' There are families in most apartment buildings -- why should one person's right to get stoned be more important then other people's rights NOT to be exposed to weed, including pregnant women, children and babies? Pot smoke seeps into other people's units, the common areas... especially on sticky hot summer days it's extra putrid. We open the windows, turn on the a/c, nothing clears it out.
I have the same problem in my
I have the same problem in my townhome. Discusting
I guess the same
I guess the same consideration as noise in multi family dwellings (?). Not sure what the answer is, but if pot is legal, then they have every right to enjoy :).
I understand your predicament and am not trying to sound flippant, but some people enjoy smoking and maybe it would have to be prohibited in a dwelling like yours? Like cigarettes?
Also, I think you'll find it's not just college age people that enjoy smoking. You'd be surprised how many professional middle age and up people partake. Many of us grew up with it.
That must be why
cigarettes are illegal in the lower 48.
Can't that be handled by
Can't that be handled by building management?
What is this "smoking" you speak of?
Honey, take a look at what has happened in other states before you run your mouth about smoke and smokers and and and
Because, as somebody who owns property in one of those states, I'll just say this: CHOCOLATES!
Well, edibles actually. When pot was legalized, guess what? The smoke in the apartment complex DISAPPEARED. That's because people munch their weed.
Colorado was entirely unprepared for this effect, but Oregon and Washington were ready. The market is enormous for THC that you don't smoke because not smoking means discrete portability and clothing that doesn't reek.
It also means a lot less smoke at concerts - if any! I went to a concert at the Crystal Ballroom, chocolate in pocket. It is a very old venue and rigidly enforced no smoking rules. I sat on a bench near a trash can to chomp down and somebody handed me a cutter on a string to open the pack (they are bombproof to keep kids out of them). All set up as a courtesy in the venue. Others moved in and out of the area, using the cutter. This also meant that there was no gauntlet of weed smoke outside, either. No muss, no fuss.
When I'm in Portland, I now smell a hell of a lot less pot smoke - on my property and out in public - than I did before weed was fully legal, and it is all due to edibles. The sales figures for these products tell that story quite well, too.
PS - there are such things as nonsmoking apartment buildings. No smoking means no smoking of ANYTHING. Legalization gives alternatives, but doesn't change your leverage in a non-smoking building. Complain to the landlord already!
What is it that prevents
What is it that prevents these people from doing edibles now?
As somebody who prefers
As somebody who prefers edibles over smoking every time: it's a lot harder to find somebody selling it edible. Edibles in a non-legalized state means somebody - the dealer - had to sit around in their kitchen and bake for hours. Or they can take it and sell it in a plastic baggie and be done with it.
When it's legalized, economies of scale and corporate production come into play and it's a lot more effective for stores (no more dealers) to carry them.
Edibles
The edibles are made by companies and sold legally in stores. Those companies are not selling their products in Massachusetts.
Home made edibles can be
Home made edibles can be unpredictable. When MA approves this, we will hopefully see edibles being sold.
Some other thoughts
There will always be people who lack awareness of their effect on people around them. That's not a pot problem. That's a personality and culture problem. Disregarding those folks, polite people who smoke tobacco are willing to go outside to do so. If pot smokers could legally do so, the smoky apartment issue would be diminished.
The comparison in the earlier post isn't entirely congruous either. A more apt comparison would be "If I drink to excess all day long, how does it affect my neighbors?" Well, it might not. OTOH, your neighbors might not like finding vomit on the sidewalks or in the hallways (former Allston, Brighton, and Brookline resident here). They might not like listening to the sounds of shouting, singing, fighting, dancing, crying drunks all night. They probably won't like dying on their way home from work when you t-bone them on a packie run.
If you have a glass of wine or beer, it impacts your neighbors just about as much as your neighbor eating one pot brownie.
Consideration, objectivity, empathy, and responsible consumption are important in either case.
Gutless Legislators
Don't bother them with the facts, they have moral grandstanding to do!
In MA, we only get referendums on things that the legislature is too gutless to vote on themselves, or when they are incapable of making the right decision.
A whining, gutless, gullable populace sometimes, too.
The result of the gas tax indexing referendum stands as a conspicuous counterexample of your point. That was a time when the Legislature made the right decision and some subset of the population was incapable of making the right decision.
Excellent, a retail pot store
Excellent, a retail pot store in Boston may be open by America's 250th birthday!
I guarantee the Boston City
I guarantee the Boston City Council will use every possible reason (zoning, permitting, union labor, whatever) to prevent a retail pot store from opening up. Thankfully the initiative lets everyone grow their own.
I'm sure there will be some
I'm sure there will be some issue with non union workers in the potential pot shops...
Why don't we tell Marty Walsh to fund BPS or we will create the revenue stream to do so.
OUI is, er, where the rubber will hit the road.
I don't much care one way or the other which way the referendum comes out, BUT, I do want increased enforcement of OUI laws for all substances. I have noticed a substantial uptick in smoking pot while driving and I find that incredibly irresponsible.
Given the Commonwealth's record on OUI enforcement, and what I believe will be a slow roll out of OUI field testing equipment for pot (there is a lot of trouble with non-alcohol OUI evidence and prosecution), I am not optimistic that increased enforcement is forthcoming. Accordingly, I am anticipating an uptick in OUI incidents if the referendum passes. I am hoping that my family and I will not be affected (by others - I have no interest in consuming pot in anyway).
Substantial Uptick?
You have noticed a substantial uptick in smoking pot while driving?
Where and when are you noticing this? What date range are you comparing against?
I have always seen a lot of
I have always seen a lot of pot smoking in cars. It is not new, maybe you just notice it more?
roughly in the period since medical use became lawful
I do not remember regularly smelling pot out on the roads prior to the legalization for medical use. I encounter it regularly now. I encounter it mostly on the highways, but not exclusively.
Somewhat interestingly, I don't remember noticing an uptick after the decriminalization several years prior to the legalization for medical use.
OUI on Pot
One of the reasons why it's harder for law enforcement to spot people driving while high is that it doesn't make you reckless in the same way driving does (drifting out of your lane, taking risky turns, etc). I can tell you that from experience. If anything, I go more slowly than usual.
A highlight: "Media reports and anti-pot legalization advocates have hyped the idea that “drugged driving” would wreak havoc on the roads now that states are beginning to legalize marijuana. In fact, highway fatalities have gone down since Colorado legalized marijuana."
We need a bit more info than that.
This reassures me not one bit without a hell of a lot more information, e.g., perhaps seat belt usage in Colorado has gone up since recreational marijuana was legalized.
I am well known for not calling for stats, but I'm sure Swirly has some.