Newton state Rep Ruth Balser is one of four lawmakers behind the the Cannabis Regulation and Taxation Act. The bill (H 1371) creates industry licensing, regulation and taxation standards, and establishes a Cannabis Control Authority, Wicked Local and State House News reports.
Crazy Divers: Men be like...
drivers man be like
Pat Robertson today is reported to endorse legalization of marijuana. Ruth Balser = Pat Robertson. Has hell frozen over? Good for both. Common Ground is rare these days. Maybe we can build from this.
This came as wonderful news when I read it in the Tab on Wednesday.
I have to commend Representative Balser for her open-mindedness and courage. She was smart enough to reverse course and support casino gambling, which will provide our state with thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions in badly needed revenue.
Now she’s taking another progressive step forward with this marijuana legislation, which, like casino gambling, supports personal freedom as it creates an alternative source of revenue for the Commonwealth.
Although the projection is for $18.5M in annual tax revenue from marijuana, that number is ultra-conservative. In 2009 Massachusetts took in $72M in alcohol beverage taxes [according to the Tax Policy Foundation]. That gives you some indication of just how much money legalized marijuana can generate in tax revenue. Marijuana is already the largest cash crop in America, yet it has generated 0$ to date for our state.
Are we certain that Balser actually supports this measure as opposed to one of those situations where she is filing it on behalf of a constituent?
It’s a pretty bold move to stick her her neck out unless she actually supports it. But legislators work in mysterious ways. I’d love to see Representative Balser comment on this. I have to say though, my respect level for her is at an all time high. [Not a deliberate play on words].
@Mike: How about Pat Robertson? Are you “high” on him now too?
No!… But I think a lot of us have been waiting a long time for Pat Robertson to get SOMETHING right. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
Greg asked:
It was Cindy Creem who filed something on behalf of a constituent that she herself didn’t necessarily support. I don’t think Ruth does/has done that.
I believe this issue was raised on this blog before. Marijuana may be mind altering and addictive, but so is Codeine. However, there are medical benefits as well. I believe that legalization would simply acknowledge its existence and allow us to property regulate it as we do any other substance.
I do hope we do a better job of oversight and management of this substance. I see criminalizing marijuana to be no more effective than the Prohibition Act was in the 20’s. The substance is here and it’s relatively accessible. Better to keep it “in the light” than to try to pretend that we don’t notice.
As I’d stated before I support its medical use. If it has proven medical benefits (which I know there have been numerous studies and reports that prove that it does), then it should be allowed to be used with the proper discretion and supervision of a doctor like any other strong and potentially addictive substance that we use for medical purposes.
I’d support its strong regulation. Once we’re able to acknowledge the beneficial use of Marijuana, we must also acknowledge the detrimental results of marijuana use not only to the individual, but to the community around an individual who abuses the substance (for instance, the burning of cannabis would affect everyone who must breathe the air) and therefore consequences must be put in place for abuse because it is so easy for this individual freedom to infringe on the freedom of others.
That all said, it seems that the current Bill extends past medical use of Cannabis and that does concern me. I would like to hear more arguments on why it would be necessary to make this substance available without a prescription.
As a general proposition, I support the legalization of marijuana, for a number of reasons already mentioned.
But just as with alcohol, we must have rules surrounding smoking pot and driving. I don’t know how one determines the “legal limit” on pot’s use, but that’s necessary to do, if that’s possible. Unlike alcohol, whose effects wear off in hours, pot can show up in tests up to a month after the event in question. Any experts out there on how this could be managed? What have other states done on this, where they have legalized it [are there any]?
@Greer– I’ve always known you to be an open minded person, and I appreciate what appears to be your evolving stream of thought on this topic. However, I feel the need to comment on and perhaps clarify some of the points in your post.
Let’s first differentiate between two things. Medical marijuana, and the legalization of marijuana. I support both, but I believe the more compelling argument is medical marijuana.
Proponents of medical marijuana want patients with medical conditions who might benefit from smoking marijuana, to have access to that substance through a prescription from their doctor. The way this works in most states that have approved medical marijuana, is that the doctor writes a prescription and the patient goes to a licensed clinic to purchase the marijuana. This is the way it’s done in California, and our neighboring states of Rhode Island and Maine have built their systems on that model.
The reason medical marijuana makes for such a compelling case, is because it is indisputable that marijuana offers benefits to many patients. I don’t want to make this post any longer than necessary by listing the numerous benefits, so I’ll simply point to one well documented benefit of marijuana, reducing the nausea associated with chemotherapy. In my opinion it is both illogical and immoral, for the government to deny sick people, many with terminal illnesses, the relief and comfort that smoking marijuana provides them.
The other potential pathway is the legalization of marijuana, which would end the prohibition of marijuana altogether, and establish a set of rules governing its use, in much the same way as we now have rules for tobacco and alcohol. Legalizing marijuana would also in effect legalize it’s use for medical as well as recreational purposes. So marijuana legalization would eliminate the need to pass corresponding legislation for medical marijuana. If marijuana we’re legalized, patients desirous of using it should still consult their doctor, in the same way one might ask about the use of alcohol while taking a medication under a doctor’s care. But presumably no written prescription would be required, and marijuana would be accessible in a venue more mainstream than a clinic. People who wanted to use marijuana recreationally, would simply purchase it from a retail venue, as is now done with tobacco and alcohol.
I like to start any conversation about the legalization of marijuana with a question… I always ask the person I’m speaking with if they support the current status of alcohol as a controlled, recreational substance, or would prefer to reinstate prohibition? Anyone who believes the prohibition of alcohol was a good thing, ignores both history and the facts, so they will not be persuaded to support legalized marijuana.
Alternatively, anyone who supports the status quo enjoyed by alcohol as a controlled recreational substance, cannot make a logical argument why marijuana should be more restricted than alcohol. In general marijuana is far less intoxicating than alcohol, and most knowledgable sources do not consider marijuana to be an addictive substance. In the known history of the world, there has never been a single death attributable to marijuana overdose, yet there have been millions of deaths [including overdose] directly and indirectly attributable to alcohol. So any fair comparison of marijuana to alcohol, would show marijuana to be significantly safer than alcohol.
Comparing marijuana to opiates like codeine on the other hand, simply defies logic. It lumps two things together that cannot be fairly compared on any level. Codeine is a narcotic. It is addictive, and dangerous enough to warrant the tight controls that currently exist on its use. If as a society we were to control marijuana in the same way we control codeine, there would be no benefit to anyone. It would effectively delay accessibility to patients for up to a decade, by necessitating multi-stage FDA approvals, and provide a legal exclusive to large pharmaceutical companies [who have been the primary obstacle to medical marijuana for years].
In my opinion, the best possible scenario is for legalized marijuana to be sold through liquor stores, using the current age controls, similar labeling, and consumer protection standards. The most significant benefit would be the tax revenue, which I personally believe would approach 50% of the revenue currently generated annually through the sale of bottled alcoholic beverages.
@Dan–Enforcement of driving rules would remain unchanged, as it would still be illegal to drive under the influence of marijuana as it is today.
Mike, “pot” is illegal now, but in the absence of pot in the vehicle, how is the police officer to know the driver is under that influence, and if he is able how does one determine that it has impaired his driving [what’s the standard?] So I don’t agree that there isn’t a need for rules around the use of “pot” when driving. With alcohol, as a practical matter, it’s not illegal to drink and drive as long as your blood alcohol level is under .08.
There are ramifications, and i don’t profess to know what they all are, but we ought not to blithely dismiss them.
Dan– Great points and excellent questions. I don’t have all the answers. But I do want to correct you on a factual point.
The voters of Massachusetts have been way ahead of the legislators on this issue. Voters decriminalized up to an ounce of marijuana through a state-wide ballot initiative a couple of years ago. So while it remains illegal to possess larger amounts, or to sell small amounts, possession of less than an ounce is not illegal for adults. It’s a civil penalty that caries a $100 fine. I’m not trying to nitpick, but I think it’s an important distinction.
It’s also worth noting [for no other reason than to provide context], that there have been 19 pro marijuana ballot initiatives over the last two years or so in different areas of Massachusetts. All 19 have passed.
As far as operating a motor vehicle under the influence of marijuana, that is certainly not something to be dismissed. But it is clearly something that is taking place right now. In my opinion, legalizing marijuana is not going to increase use, because marijuana is already widely available. So I don’t see this legislation exacerbating an existing problem. If anything, it’s taking a completely uncontrolled situation, and at least applying some controls to it, like a minimum purchase age.
It seems to me that police have a pretty good sense of how to deal with the issue of impaired driving. And again worth noting, while we often hear about horrific accidents caused by drunk drivers, I’m hard pressed to recall the last time I heard anything similar regarding a driver under the influence of marijuana. I certainly don’t know this for a fact, nor would I ever want to see someone test the theory on the roads of the Commonwealth, but I suspect it has to do with the difference in the level of intoxication between alcohol and marijuana. I’ve often heard the term “falling down drunk.” I’ve never heard anyone referred to as falling down stoned.
Driving under the influence of marijuana is a similar issue to people driving under the influence of prescription drugs, or illicit drugs for which there is no equivalent to a breathalyzer. Presumably an officer makes the initial traffic stop, and then conducts a field sobriety test if they feel that it’s warranted. I wish there were a better answer than that, but I don’t have one. Perhaps science will eventually provide a better method. I don’t see this as an issue that should derail legalization.