Just Say Yes on Question 4
function share_this(num) {
 tit=encodeURIComponent('Just Say Yes on Question 4');
 site = new Array(5);
 return false;

Just Say Yes on Question 4
Posted by CN Staff on October 27, 2016 at 08:55:40 PT
Boston Globe Editorial
Source: Boston Globe
Massachusetts -- The opponents of Question 4, which would legalize recreational marijuana in Massachusetts, have inadvertently provided the best reason to vote for the measure. Those opponents include virtually every elected official and law enforcement officer in the state, from Governor Charlie Baker and Attorney General Maura Healey on down, and their lockstep opposition (with the lonely exception of Senate President Stanley Rosenberg) sends a clear message that Beacon Hill will not legalize marijuana on its own, no matter how little popular support prohibition may have.
And thatís too bad. If the political leaders of the Commonwealth showed even the slightest interest in legalization, it would probably make sense to wait for lawmakers to produce a better-crafted proposal than the current ballot measure. But Question 4 is all weíve got. The Globe endorses the yes campaign, despite the proposalís many flaws, because the harm stemming from continued inaction on marijuana would be even greater. Massachusetts decriminalized marijuana possession in 2008, but that left the drug in a kind of legal netherworld ó not quite legal, not quite illegal. Users couldnít go to jail for possessing less than an ounce of pot, but it remains illegal to sell. Decriminalization has been an untenable policy, keeping murderous drug gangs in business.Question 4 would create a legal marketplace and, its authors say, end the black market. Legalization would also allow the state to tax marijuana sales, creating a new revenue stream for the state and for municipalities. And it would create business opportunities for marijuana entrepreneurs, who could apply for licenses to cultivate and sell marijuana from a new Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission.Opponents of the referendum stumbled out of the gate with scaremongering about the dangers of the drug. Marijuana isnít harmless, but not all risky behaviors must be illegal. An ad from opponents raises the specter of pot shops ó but taking drug sales off the streets is a feature, not a bug, of legalization. Nor would the law lead to pot shops on every corner, since the referendum allows municipalities to restrict their number. As for the risk from drugged driving, that already is, and will continue to be, a real problem. But the risk posed by impaired drivers is a reason to enforce traffic laws, not to ban pot (or, for that matter, alcohol).The more compelling criticism of Question 4 is that it executes a good idea in a bad way, and will create a mess that the Legislature will have to spend time cleaning up. The referendum language was written by marijuana-industry advocates, and it shows: The referendum would create a regulatory system that seems tailor-made to create a new class of entrenched special interests that will fight against further regulation.If the question passes, the Legislature should act quickly to raise the tax ó before the new industry can start hiring lobbyists. The referendum calls for only a 3.75 percent tax (in addition to the state sales tax), compared with the 37 percent tax rate Washington state enacted when it legalized marijuana. The regulatory body the referendum question sets up would fall entirely under the control of the state treasurer, much like the Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. Thatís a recipe for regulatory capture ó the tendency of regulatory bodies to fall into revolving-door relationships with the industry theyíre supposed to regulate. To build more checks and balances into the system, the attorney general and governor should also get appointments to the board.Additionally, the provisions of the referendum that give preferable status to medical-marijuana license-holders smack of anticompetitive restrictions, and should be removed. Indeed, passage of the legal marijuana referendum would call into question the need for a separate licensing system for medical marijuana, which would become redundant if Question 4 passes. The Legislature might want simply to abolish a system that will no longer serve a purpose when any adult can buy marijuana with or without a prescription.The restriction on personal possession should also go, as it replicates the current half-legal, half-illegal status quo. There is no limit on how much beer the stateís residents can keep in their fridge, or transport in public. The lesson from decriminalization is that half-illegal doesnít work; if residents vote to make marijuana legal, it should not be subject to restrictions that would be unique for any legal product in Massachusetts. Under different circumstances, all of those defects would be reasons to wait for the Legislature. Some opponents of legalization, including state Senator Jason Lewis, who has emerged as a leader in the No on 4 campaign, have implied that the Legislature would take up legalization soon, if only voters wouldnít rush the process by passing the ballot question in November. Lewis himself may sincerely believe that, but all the available evidence suggests it would be foolish for voters to hold their breath waiting. Baker has been against legalization, and so have influential political leaders like Mayor Marty Walsh.A related complaint from lawmakers is that if Question 4 passes, theyíll have to clear their busy schedules to fix the legislation. Respectfully, todayís Legislature is by and large the same group of lawmakers who somehow found the time to write legislation for the horse-racing industry. They can survive the inconvenience that their constituents may impose on their calendars. Using marijuana isnít completely safe, and it isnít completely harmless to others when users drive. But a social consensus is clearly emerging that potís real dangers just arenít great enough to merit outlawing it anymore. While the authors of Question 4 could have written a much better law, they at least got the big picture right. Legal marijuana is coming. Letís get on with it. Newshawk: Sam AdamsSource: Boston Globe (MA)Published: October 27, 2016Copyright: 2016 Globe Newspaper CompanyContact: letter globe.comWebsite: -- Cannabis Archives 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help 

Comment #5 posted by Sam Adams on October 28, 2016 at 11:17:55 PT
another good one!>>
Countering the anti-pot hysterics with a Yes on Question 4By Margery Eagan  OCTOBER 28, 2016Enough about the children.What about me, an aging baby boomer who'd love a legal marijuana buzz 
from a big ole' bong in the privacy of my living room?
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #4 posted by Hope on October 27, 2016 at 16:36:04 PT
"Every one of those words rang true"
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #3 posted by The GCW on October 27, 2016 at 13:39:49 PT
We are winning
There's a good change all 5 states will win legalization.The medical issues should win too
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #2 posted by FoM on October 27, 2016 at 11:41:45 PT
We are winning!
[ Post Comment ]

Comment #1 posted by Hope on October 27, 2016 at 11:23:37 PT
This is an admirable editorial.
This is a remarkable editorial. I like it a lot.It's never cute or condescending. It's amazingly logical and down to the line real. There are no dark forecasts of the sky falling or a zombie/pothead apocalypse of some sort. Oh my gosh!These are appearing all over the place lately. Washington. Boston. New York.What's going on?Things change, don't they? And sometimes they actually get better. I'm so thankful.
[ Post Comment ]

Post Comment