Medical marijuana yes, physician-assisted suicide no

The Globe has the results for the two questions - and that third one about car repair.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Non-Physician Assisted Suicide

By on

My 80 year old Dad has Parkinson's and I am all for assisted suicide now that I'm seeing his disease progress and knowing what horrors are coming in the next few years.

This was a bad proposal. First of all, how does a doctor know that someone has less than six months to live? They told my aunt that when she was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and she lived three years after that.

Thinking about the experience I would want my Dad to have, it's not the one in this ballot. Having a doctor prescribe 100 seconals for him to go home, dump the contents of the capsules in water, drink it down and hope it's enough to kill him? What if he has a seizure instead? What if it's not enough to kill him? I don't want to see my Dad go down like that.

Again, I'm completely FOR physician assisted suicide, just not this ballot initiative.

See this law in action

It was very closely modeled on a law that has been in place and studied very closely in Oregon for about 20 years.

Commercials

By on

You listened to the commercial against this too much. Your information is wrong, it isn't like this at all. You get two sets of pills, you take one set.. and if oyu change your mind, they can give you an antidote and you won't take the rest.

I thought it was exactly like it was said in the commercial... until I actually read the Ballot Book yesterday.

This is Mass we're talking about

By on

It's going to be so regulated and full of red tape to get one of these cards and your supply, its going to be pointless.

You know that is how they are going to counter-act this, now, law. Make it so difficult for you to get, its not going to be worth it.

I also love how the DPH will decided how much 'two month supply' is. I'm curious to know where they are going to get these numbers from because depending on the grade and how habitual a smoker is will change how the pot will effect them.

BUT I agree this is the step in the right direction. I do see in 10 years, it will just be legalized nation wide. We're getting to that point, look at what happened last night. WA & CO legalized it totally. I think CA will eventually be next.

Baby steps

By on

First decriminalization, now medical, soon tax & legalization.

MA would love the tax revenue from pot, and we've already moved away from policing of small possession which makes enforcement lax.

The weed vote.

I was looking at the Boston.com interactive map which shows each town/city and how they voted in every race (pretty cool actually). I was suprised to see only two towns in the entire State vote against the medical marijuana, Lawrence and Mendon. I have to admit that I was baffled that Lawrence voted that way, not because I think Lawrenceites like to smoke, but it just seemed odd to me.

Any thoughts?

I would think they would be for it actually.

When drugs get decriminalized, courts tend to more leinent for appeals, sentencing, etc. (See case law in MA already which throws out previous contraband search procedures because weed isn't criminal anymore to possess) If you were a weed dealer and wanted to grow it yourself, you are better off in a state that has some sort of legal groundwork in place already.

I see your point...

By on

particularly about the court system effects, but legal weed takes the actual operations out of the hands of the kids on the corner, and into a business which needs to be run as such. Their supplier will probably not be part of the system either, so now they're faced with red tape, taxes, and a whole new distribution model.

With that, they'll likely want to stay in the black or grey side of the market, and their customers will all go line up for prescriptions and with that, legitimacy. The dealers are then effectively shut out of the legal market, save those who are presumptuous enough and ambitious enough to legitimize themselves. Right now the amount of MJ that's grown in state and sold at retail (not talking about the kid with a plant in the basement for personal use... cant really know how many of them there are) has got to be extremely low, just based on the small amount of reportage I see on grow houses being busted. Stinky pot farms are hard to hide and make great news when they're busted.

If this were California, I would say the dealers could straighten themselves out, but here the supply is all out-of-state. The new system I think is going to require in-state grow/manufacture/processing, to stay far afield from the DEA and their inter-state trafficking laws. Therefore, local black market dealers will be shut out of the market for those in society who would want to be lawful in their consumption.

This is a good thing, and in regards to my flip comment above about Lawrence being against it, I was just being snide. I don't think that the weed dealer demographic is large enough to swing Lawrence against medical MJ (at least I hope not). What could be going on is that cities with larger than average drug problems, which Lawrence clearly is, are possibly more risk averse when it comes to legalization. Or perhaps another demographic was in play: perhaps the Catholic diocese in Lawrence came out against it.

Thats assuming

By on

weed dealers care more about costs, than profits.

High risk, high reward in the black market drives them. You also get police knocking down supply/competition every few months. Ultimately it's a economic issue.

Same reason entrenched medical growers in CA are against legalization now. They like their high margins and "protected status" via current law.

I'm coming to the conclusion we need to legalize the harmless stuff, decriminalize the hard stuff, and just up sentencing for OUI violent crime. Get high, keep to yourself, and don't get violent or grabby with ppls personal stuff; and what the hell do I care. You'll devastate the financial vehicles that drive the worst gangs, cartels and organized crime.

Globe ballot question maps - may contain errors

The Question 1 map is solid green statewide, except for three little red towns, one of which is Arlington. If you believe Boston.com, Arlington defeated question 1 by a vote of 2455 to 1966.

Except they didn't. After I e-mailed a friend in Arlington, she quickly directed me to the town's unofficial results, which show question 1 winning, 19668 to 2455.

Oops, Someone dropped a digit when entering these data at Boston.com. I wonder if the other two anomalous towns (Salisbury and Groveland) are correct, either.