Dear [Massachusetts Senators:]

As a result of false promises and unheeded warnings, Arizona is now dealing with blatant recreational use and promotion of marijuana, increased DUI, increased crime, fights to keep dispensaries out of neighborhoods, costly litigation, and threats of federal enforcement action.

Please don’t be misled by phony promises. There are many unadvertised, adverse social and economic consequences of “medical” marijuana laws.

Bait and switch. “Compassion” is the promise. “Widespread recreational use” is the reality.

Compassion? The proponent of Arizona’s “medical” marijuana initiative was the Marijuana Policy Project (“MPP”), a national pro-drug lobby out of Washington, D.C., whose only mission is to legalize marijuana in this country by whatever tactics necessary. Their disingenuous campaign tactics were ones used successfully in other states. Their campaign materials were printed in advance and their talking points were well rehearsed. Their main message was an impassioned plea to allow suffering, terminally ill people access to “medicine.” A beautiful young woman who had been a cancer patient was the official spokesperson. The media ate it up, giving plenty of free media time to the beautiful young cancer victim as a human-interest story (thus not a campaign message requiring equal time from our opposition).

Widespread recreational use! The true mission of the MPP was made blatantly obvious as soon as the campaign was over. Although the MPP promised Arizonans that the “tightly drafted” initiative would keep the marijuana program strictly “medical,” delighted proponents immediately began celebrating and supporting blatant recreational use and promotions, opening numerous marijuana “compassion clubs,” and even hosting “farmer’s markets” showcasing the “oh-so-medical” strains of marijuana like “Train Wreck” and “Purple Haze.” Compassion clubs, cooperative grow centers and indoor grow operations have sprung up all over Arizona, bringing increased crime and decreased property values to neighborhoods. Drug dealers simply can’t be regulated. Regardless of how well drafted the law, they will find a way to ignore the law, stretch the law, or challenge in court the parts of the law they don’t like in order to make as much money as possible selling their drugs. The phrase “camel’s nose under the tent” comes to mind.

Don’t be fooled by polls.

The polls predicted a rout in Arizona all the way to the end of the campaign, yet we lost by a mere two-tenths of one percent. We now understand that the conducting and releasing of disingenuous polls is another one of the national pro-drug lobby’s campaign tactics. Throughout our campaign, the nationally well-funded proponents released (or encouraged the media to conduct and release) poll after poll showing that we would lose by a landslide. The simple question — “Are you in favor of ‘medical’ marijuana?” – does not reveal the deeper (and more relevant) feelings concerning the widespread recreational use, as well as increased social and economic ills, caused by these laws. This dishonest “polling” tactic is going on all over the country. The “polls” simply do not accurately reflect the opinion of the majority on the real issues. A better gauge of public opinion is a review of the various expressions of buyers’ remorse.

Buyer’s remorse all over the country.

Arizonans were promised by the MPP that the “medical” marijuana program would not be like the ones in California and Colorado. We were told that the MPP had learned from other states and that our legislation was the best-written legislation in the country. We were told that our legislation would serve as the model for the rest of the country. Arizonans fell for it and now are paying for it. Literally.

We now know, as do others in marijuana-friendly states, that even the most ardent “medical” marijuana supporters do not want dispensaries in their neighborhoods. One of the many facts omitted by the MPP in their campaign was that in Colorado and California, for example, most counties and cities ban dispensaries! That is because dispensaries increase crime, decrease property values and adversely affect the quality of life in neighborhoods. People might support a concept, but rebel against the actual implementation when it affects them personally.

Voters everywhere, not just in Arizona, are suffering buyer’s remorse. No new “medical” marijuana laws have been passed by a legislature or by initiative since 2010 and, in fact, there has been a contraction since 2008. Recently, among other significant events, (1) the people of Montana, through a grassroots campaign created by four moms, led a repeal effort (which led to repeal by the legislature, but then vetoed by the Governor, followed by a recent court ruling that Montana’s law is unconstitutional) that is expected to be successful this year, (2) the people of South Dakota soundly rejected a “medical” marijuana initiative, (3) the people of Oregon soundly rejected a “medical” marijuana dispensary component for their existing program, (4) the people of California defeated a general legalization bill, despite being outspent by marijuana advocates $3.8 million to $300,000, (5) the people of Arizona very narrowly passed a “medical” marijuana initiative, despite the fact that opponents were outspent by advocates $800,000 to $25,000, (6) a repeal bill was introduced in the New Mexico legislature, resulting in a memorial bill requiring comprehensive studies over the next year, (7) due to widespread abuse by physicians and patients, a bill was introduced in the Hawaii Legislature to severely restrict the program, and (8) vehement objections by residents to dispensaries in D.C. and New Jersey have stopped implementation of the marijuana programs in those states.

“Medical” marijuana is under attack by the federal government.

State “medical” marijuana laws do absolutely nothing to change federal law. Marijuana is a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), which makes it illegal to use, possess, cultivate or sell marijuana or to facilitate such activities. There is no exception for “medical” use of marijuana. (In fact, the FDA has found that marijuana has no accepted medical use.) Not only are users, dispensary owners, landlords, and financiers at risk of federal prosecution for participating in or facilitating participation in marijuana programs, the federal government has confirmed that state employees who facilitate the programs are not immune from prosecution.

After a period of lax enforcement spawning numerous state “medical” marijuana laws, the federal government recently stepped up its efforts to enforce the CSA. Just this past year, among other significant events, (1) acting on behalf of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), U.S. Attorneys in California, Hawaii, Washington, Montana, Colorado, Rhode Island, Arizona, Maine, and Delaware issued letters warning that individuals violating the CSA can be prosecuted, as well as those who “facilitate” violations of the CSA (state employees who issue licenses, permits or other approvals allowing use, cultivation or sale of marijuana are “facilitating” violations of the CSA and the U.S. Attorneys have said state employees have no immunity from federal prosecution); (2) the Drug Enforcement Administration is conducting raids on marijuana businesses in numerous states, seizing money and property; (3) the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms issued an open letter making it clear that marijuana cardholders may not purchase or own a firearm; (4) having been warned of the consequences of participating in “money laundering,” financial institutions all over the country refuse to accept accounts from dispensary owners; (5) the DOJ is threatening t.v., radio and print advertisers for allowing advertising of marijuana, which is illegal under the CSA; and (6) the U.S. Attorneys are making good on their threats, shutting down numerous dispensaries in multiple states by warning landlords of properties used for dispensaries that their property will be seized and they will be prosecuted if the marijuana business is not shut down.

As Deputy Attorney General David Ogden said, “no State can authorize violations of federal law . . . nor does clear and unambiguous compliance with state law or the absence of one or all of the above factors [demonstrating illegal drug trafficking activity] create a legal defense to a violation of the Controlled Substances Act.” In his recent letter to Delaware Governor Jack Markell’s legal counsel, Charles Oberly, U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, stated:

Enterprises engaged in the cultivation, manufacture, and sale of marijuana directly violate federal law. Accordingly, individuals and organizations that participate in the unlawful cultivation and distribution of marijuana could be subject to civil and criminal remedies. Moreover, state employees who conduct activities mandated by the Delaware Medical Marijuana Act are not immune from liability under the CSA. The USAO will evaluate all potential civil and criminal enforcement actions on a case-by-case basis in light of the priorities of the Department of Justice and the USAO’s available resources.

Governor Markell suspended Delaware’s marijuana program upon receipt of Mr. Oberly’s letter. This exact same scenario was played out in the state of Washington recently.

Illegal activities by states and their employees are not covered by insurance.

Any facilitation by the state of Massachusetts, its agents or employees of illegal activities (use, cultivation and sale of marijuana) is risky from a liability standpoint. Facilitating violations of the Controlled Substances Act could have far-reaching, adverse economic consequences for Massachusetts in that insurance coverage is routinely denied for claims arising out of “illegal activities.” Legislators should consider the adverse economic consequences of uninsured money judgments against the state and/or its employees based on strict liability, vicarious liability and products liability claims by citizens injured or damaged by pot smokers or growers licensed by the state. Any consideration of “medical” marijuana legislation should include a discussion with insurance agents and lawyers.

There will be no tax revenues to offset economic harm to the state.

Any taxes collected by states or cities on the sales of marijuana (or income taxes on marijuana businesses) are subject to seizure by the federal government (because they are proceeds of illegal drug trafficking), so any “revenues” collected by states or cities are illusory at best. Even if Massachusetts could legally tax marijuana, any tax revenues collected would pale in comparison to the social and health costs related to its use. Federal and state alcohol taxes raise $14.5 billion yearly. This covers only about 6% of alcohol’s total cost to society.

“Medical” marijuana jeopardizes federal funding.

Congress has the power to pull federal funding from states that do not advance federal laws. By authorizing violations of the Controlled Substances Act, the state of Massachusetts could lose substantial federal funding.

Legal and economic consequences of legislation should be considered BEFORE it is passed.

Given the potential legal and economic consequences to the state of Massachusetts, as well as its agencies, citizens, agents and employees, any “medical” marijuana legislation should not be undertaken without an opinion from the state’s Attorney General as to those consequences. Reasonable and prudent questions to be asked of your Attorney General include:

(1) Will Massachusetts citizens who use, possess, cultivate or distribute marijuana, or facilitate such use, possession, cultivation or distribution, including Department of Health (“Department”) and other State employees or agents, acting in accordance with the provisions of the Safe Access to Medical Cannabis Act, be violating the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 801 et seq., and, if so, will such citizens, including State employees and agents, be immune from federal prosecution?

(2) In the event money damages are assessed against the state, its agents or employees, under strict liability, vicarious liability, products liability or other claims, will those damages be covered by state risk liability insurance, E & O, D & O or EPLI, as appropriate?

(3) Will the state of Massachusetts jeopardize federal funding as a result of authorizing violations of the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 801 et seq.?

Passing a “medical” marijuana law will place Massachusetts residents in an unavoidable fray.

Despite boasts of having “16 states plus D.C.” with “medical” marijuana programs, NORML admits that no state has a fully functional program. http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/drug-law/proposed-vermont-dispensary-regs-would-cap-patient-registry-1000 In fact, three of those programs (Delaware, New Jersey and D.C.) are “in name only,” with no patients or dispensaries. Four states (Alaska, Maine, Nevada and Vermont) are “dysfunctional,” according to NORML, which means “less than 1,000 users qualify.” Due to a combination of buyer’s remorse and federal enforcement action, existing state “medical” marijuana laws are under concerted attack.

Even if Massachusetts legislators have the most noble of intentions, it would be irresponsible to pass a law that requires state employees or others to violate federal law. Not only would you place state employees (and all residents of Massachusetts, including landlords, financiers and others unwittingly drawn into this debacle, as well as those salivating at the state-sanctioned opportunity to use, grow and sell marijuana) in the untenable position of violating federal law, you would be wasting the valuable time and resources of all residents of Massachusetts in continuing down this dead end path.

The federal government, through a concerted, united effort by the Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, Internal Revenue Service and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, is actively engaged in shutting down the marijuana industry proliferating under the guise of state “medical” marijuana laws by whatever means necessary. Massachusetts residents deserve to stay out of the crossfire between federal law enforcement and drug traffickers, and state employees deserve not to be used as guinea pigs in testing the federal government’s mettle.

Thank you for your attention. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Respectfully,

Keep AZ Drug Free

The post AZ to MA: Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You…Vote No on Question 3 appeared first on No on Question 3.

According to this former Obama Administration advisor, the risks of legalization far outweigh the potential benefits—and he claims he’s got the data to prove it.

Tomorrow, voters in three states will decide whether or not marijuana should be legal. For some people, even those in recovery, marijuana use presents a net benefit in society. They believe that others can enjoy a joint once in a while without suffering significant consequences. For others, marijuana represents a serious health and social problem. I was senior advisor at the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and this was the conflict we in the Obama Administration faced when we put together the President’s first drug strategy: What do we do about the “marijuana problem?”

The first thing my boss—the drug control policy director Gil Kerlikowske, a.k.a., the Drug Czar—did was tell the Wall Street Journal in 2010 that the “drug war is over,” and that we would be pivoting drug policy toward a more balanced, health-oriented approach. Some took that to mean that the administration was in favor of marijuana legalization. But it actually meant that we would use the best evidence available to address the many, complex aspects of drug policymaking. At the end of the day, that evidence pointed away from, not toward, legalization.

We in the Obama Administration concluded that for the broad swaths of society, marijuana use is a large and growing public health issue with significant costs. Of course, every public policy has costs and benefits. But neither of the two most common options—legalization and throwing users in jail—seemed to make much sense. Indeed, there exists a third way between legalization and incarceration that will bring sanity to the nation’s treatment of marijuana and its millions of users.

So this Tuesday, I am joining both major presidential candidates, not to mention groups like the American Medical Association, Colorado Education Association, and other organizations in opposing the marijuana legalization ballot initiatives. Here’s why:

This is not your father’s “Woodstock Weed.”

In a landmark 2010 report, the nonpartisan RAND think-tank, an organization often critical of US drug policy, concluded that if California legalized marijuana, the price of marijuana would fall dramatically, and therefore we would see a significant increase in use. This corroborated everything that economic theory has taught us about how price correlates with use (and why Big Tobacco and the Liquor Lobby fight price hikes tooth and nail—more on that later).

So why is this a problem? After all, legalization advocates claim that marijuana is essentially harmless, right?

One of the first tasks we undertook in the Obama administration was to review the scientific literature on marijuana published in the past thirty years. We found the scientific evidence to be highly nuanced, to say the least. For example, we still don’t know definitively whether marijuana, like tobacco, causes lung cancer. But one clear finding is that today’s marijuana strains are a totally different drug from the “Woodstock Weed” that baby boomers smoked. To intensify the high, growers have manipulated THC levels. In fact, levels are now 3 to 4 times higher than just twenty years ago. With profit maximization the goal, it is unsurprising that growers have made their product as strong as possible. A policy question follows directly from this: “What policy helps keep high-potency marijuana use, and its consequences, more manageable: some form of legalization or some form of prohibition?” This is the major question we tried to answer.

Most people who smoke weed will not become addicted or have major problems—indeed, many stop after using it once or twice. But a minority of users will experience significant negative health ramifications. In fact, the recent science on this issue is nothing short of stunning: Significant negative effects on the adolescent brain; significant loss in IQ and poor learning outcomes; lung damage; mental illness; a doubling of the risk of a car crash. Correlation, of course, is not causation, but it is important to note that treatment providers are already reporting that although use levels are similar to what they were 15 years ago, more kids are seeking treatment. Marijuana is now the number one reason kids enter treatment—more than alcohol, cocaine, heroin, meth, ecstasy, and other drugs combined. How did this come to be? The most likely culprit is the increased potency of marijuana.

If Big Tobacco is in favor of legalization (they are), we should be wary.

According to internal documents released during its historic court settlement, Big Tobacco considers marijuana legalization a golden opportunity. “The use of marijuana…has important implications for the tobacco industry in terms of an alternative product line. [We] have the land to grow it, the machines to roll it and package it, the distribution to market it. In fact, some firms have registered trademarks, which are taken directly from marijuana street jargon. These trade names are used currently on little-known legal products, but could be switched if and when marijuana is legalized. Estimates indicate that the market in legalized marijuana might be as high as $10 billion annually.”

No wonder that Altria, the parent company of Phillip Morris, recently bought the domain names “AltriaCannabis.com” and “AltriaMarijuana.com.” If this sounds frightening, it is: Big Tobacco tried for decades to conceal the harms of the drug and millions of lives were lost as a result. We are naïve to think they wouldn’t try the same thing with marijuana.

The Liquor Lobby also has skin the game. Adjusted for inflation, alcohol is taxed at one-fifth of what is was during the Korean War. Naturally, they oppose any increase, and they also rely on the heaviest drinkers to goose their profits. They have major incentives to encourage, not discourage, drinking among kids and adults alike (and they do—aggressively). The point is, these two industries—Tobacco and Alcohol—are the only examples of government-regulated purveyors of legal, addictive substances, and they are a cautious tale of the impact of legalization, American-style.

We will still have underground markets. And the cartels won’t bat an eye.

According to a recent study, most of the cigarettes bought in the Bronx were from the illegal market. In fact, black and grey markets for tobacco abound. If marijuana is legalized, should we expect it to be any different? The drug trade today is so profitable that even undercutting the taxed price—that’s what’s happening in the Bronx—would leave cartels with a handsome profit. In a legal market, where marijuana is taxed, the well-established illegal drug trade has every incentive to remain. The truth is, marijuana legalization would do nothing to diminish the power of the cartels, primarily because marijuana accounts for a tiny share of revenues gained by drug trafficking groups. For them, the big money is found in sexier illegal trade, such human trafficking, kidnapping, extortion, piracy and other illicit drugs. Producing marijuana en masse at home is also much easier to do than with tobacco or alcohol. We can expect a thriving grey market, too.

Reaping the benefits of taxing marijuana is a red herring. Wasn’t the Lottery supposed to save public education?

A cure for cancer! No more drug violence in Mexico! And tax money to pour into our schools! Of all of the wild claims made about marijuana, the latter is perhaps the most ludicrous. But it sure polls well: Colorado and Washington legalization advocates point out ad nauseum how much money marijuana will bring state coffers. Putting aside the fact that the federal government may well seize what are, in their eyes, illegal funds, the notion of marijuana as a boon to the economy is about as half-baked as its proponents.

To begin with, the total social costs associated with our legal drugs—alcohol and tobacco—are roughly $200 billion per substance, numbers that far outweigh any tax revenue we receive from their use. In fact, these costs—from health care expenditures due to alcohol and tobacco use to the loss of productivity or accidents that come from use—is10 times greater than any tax revenue the U.S. and its states receive from these two legalized drugs.

Under legalization, more people, not fewer, will be ensnared in the criminal justice system.,

A fact most people do not know is that alcohol, not cocaine, heroin, or marijuana, is responsible for 2.6 million arrests every year. That is one million more arrests than for all illegal drugs combined. The reason? Alcohol is used so much more commonly than illegal drugs. People are being arrested for violating liquor laws, driving while intoxicated, and public drunkenness (the 2.6 million number doesn’t even include violent crimes that result from alcohol use). If marijuana were legal, and more people used it, we’d have more people driving high, growing marijuana in their own home, using underage, and violating all sorts of new regulations.

We don’t live in a black and white world. The choice shouldn’t be between prohibition and legalization.

We should not legalize pot with all of its attendant social costs, nor should we damage the future prospects of pot smokers by prosecuting and jailing them. Rather, we should shift our emphasis to education about the newly revealed health dangers of pot use. We should also invest seriously in interventions and treatments targeted to those users who find they are unable to quit on their own. We do not need to penalize people for smoking small amounts of marijuana, saddling them, for example, with criminal records that hinder employment or access to social assistance. A misdemeanor marijuana arrest shouldn’t be a life sentence to anyone trying to vote, get a job, or access a college loan. Before we go ahead and legalize marijuana, we ought to first try these kinds of evidence-based reforms.

In the Obama Administration, we determined that a policy of marijuana legalization would pose too many risks to public health and public safety. We asked ourselves, “Do the potential benefits of legalization outweigh the potential risks?” After reviewing the evidence, the answer we came to was an emphatic no. Indeed, we can reform the worst part of our current laws without increasing rates of addiction and harms.

Kevin A. Sabet was the senior adviser to President Obama’s drug czar from 2009-2011. He holds a doctorate in public policy from Oxford University, and currently serves as director of the Drug Policy Institute at the University of Florida and an assistant professor in the College of Medicine.

The post Weed Should be Illegal–Here’s why & why you should vote “no” on Question 3 appeared first on No on Question 3.

YouTube owes our campaign — and Massachusetts voters — some explanations. Fast.

At 10:14 a.m. this morning, we received a message from YouTube, explaining that the social network owned by California-based Google had removed this video we produced about Question 3. As you’ll see, our 3-minute video is well done — and fairly vanilla by political standards. The video is an important part of our message. It is now hosted at Vimeo:

Get the Facts on Ballot Question 3 from Vote No On Question 3 on Vimeo.

Here’s the initial message we received from YouTube, banning our video:

We know there are many people who will stop at nothing to ban what we have to say — so we weren’t at all surprised to learn that the “YouTube community” flagged our video as inappropriate. However, it never occurred to us that the “YouTube Team” would find anything remotely inappropriate enough to remove from the network. After all, we’re talking about drug-abuse prevention. We’re talking about improving child health. We’re talking about public safety.

And YouTube literally features hundreds, maybe thousands, of videos like this one featuring an underage boy and titled, “Smoke weed in your room without getting caught.” You can watch that in 8:32 here:

Or maybe you’d like to see Smoking Weed Ep.2, featuring a young man lighting a joint that’s in his mouth and rambling through his drug-induced haze:

We immediately appealed this ban of our content. YouTube responded with this message, delivered under the subject line, “Decision on Your Video Appeal:”

It turns out that we actually don’t understand. We have reviewed YouTube’s community guidelines, including this one: “Don’t post videos showing bad stuff like animal abuse, drug abuse, under-age drinking and smoking, or bomb making.”

We also realize that our 3-minute video about drug-prevention briefly features a still image of one teen who is just about to light a joint dangling from his mouth.

We also understand that YouTube features thousands of videos of young people actually getting high — like the two featured above — videos that, for some strange reason, don’t violate the network’s standards. We used stock photography, and that was unacceptable? Really?

Cambridge lawyer John Sofis Scheft, a supporter of the No on Question 3 Campaign, has examined this matter for us, and here’s his brief analysis:

We agree — and we demand that answer of YouTube and its parent company.

The post You have to be kidding, YouTube. appeared first on No on Question 3.

“Our kids are going into treatment, getting clean and getting sober and when they come out they’ve nowhere to go. They go back to their old people, places or things, their old schools and they were relapsing at really high rates.” — Roger Oser, Principal of  Ostiguy Recovery High School in Boston.

Recovery high schools started 7 years ago with North Shore Recovery High School, William J. Osterguy High School in Boston, and Liberty Academy in Springfield.

Our fourth opened in Brockton last year and we are working hard on opening others on the Cape and in Worcester to provide environments of positive peer and academic support for kids after rehab.

“The young people around them and the messages in society about marijuana, about alcohol, push them away from recovery and sobriety.  But they’ve made the choice to go forward with sobriety, get help, get treatment, have each other as support, and develop a peer group.

“Recovery High Schools have been successful because of that peer aspect. They are all quality schools, all run as public schools where the focus is on academics, but everything is built on a foundation of recovery culture.

The students are drug tested randomly, with mandatory drug testing once a week.

They have to work outside plans of recovery, but most important of all they have each other, support each other in groups outside of school, because things like Question 3 send the wrong message to them.

The decriminalization of marijuana sends the wrong message.  You can’t walk downtown through Downtown Crossing without smelling weed.  You can tell that gets me a little bit angry.  You have to walk outside and be exposed to this which, for some of them can be a trigger.

So whether its decriminalization, legalization of medical marijuana, the science, as Dr. Knight said, shows the negative impact it has.   We want more and more young people accessing treatment if they need it and as long as young people are accessing treatment Recovery High Schools are a place for them to go afterwards, so they can continue their recovery, continue their academics.”

Join the trend towards no.

Take just 3 minutes to understand the law.

Informed voters vote “no”

The post Recovery High School Principal says legalizing medical marijuana sends wrong message appeared first on No on Question 3.

Join the trend towards no.

Take just 3 minutes to understand the law.

Informed voters vote “no”

The post [video] Massachusetts Police Chiefs urge “Vote No on 3″. This is not about medicine… appeared first on No on Question 3.

Compared to other New England states, this law presents a wide open system of marijuana production and distribution that is rife with loopholes and open to abuse.  If you take 3 minutes to understand this 6 page law, you will find that:  Question 3 has:

• NO strict definition of debilitation medical condition.
  The “other conditions” category is what opens marijuana use up to the other 95% of marijuana card holders in California and Colorado who do not have the severe conditions listed in Question 3, but who regularly purchase and  use marijuana anyway.
  
• NO minimum age limits on marijuana card holders. 
• NO parental consent required.
  
• NO limits on an amount prescribed – simply and undefined 60-day supply.  In Washington State a 60-day supply was recently defined as 24 ounces, or about 800 joints.
• NO ban on smoking in the presence of children.
• NO limit on the number of users a grower can grow marijuana for.
• NO expiration date on a marijuana card.
  Until our beleaguered Department of Public Health scrambles to write an set of regulations for an entirely new system of production and distribution of a drug outside our regular pharmacy system, growers and users can proceed on January 1, 2013, with a signature from one willing physician and a certified letter sent to DHP – with no regulation at all.
  
• NO tax revenue to support an inspection and enforcement program to root out drug diversion. The stores will be non-profit.
• NO licensed pharmacists in the marijuana stores.
  These “treatment centers” will require no medical staff whatsoever — only sales staff 21 or over with no record of a felony drug offense. 
• NO requirement for marijuana store license renewal.
• NO limits on where marijuana stores can be sited.
• NO requirement to track pot purchases through the prescription drug monitoring program, so multiple store purchases cannot be tracked.  

There has to be a better way to help the truly suffering.

Here’s the table that compares the New England States

We urge you to Vote NO on Question 3.

www.MaVoteNoOnQuestion3.com

The post The most open and UNRESTRICTIVE medical marijuana law this side of California. appeared first on No on Question 3.

Boston – MaVoteNOonQuestion3.com today held a press conference in Boston making the case that once voters become aware of the dangers of a proliferation of “medical marijuana” they choose to vote no.

Suffolk University/WHDH Poll points now shows that support for Question 3 is down nearly 20 points to just 54% with a 3.78% margin of error.  Question 3 gives any physician the ability to supply a “marijuana card” to virtually anyone, of any age, for any reason.  The card is good for life and there is no maximum amount a cardholder can purchase.

“Question 3 is not about giving the gravely ill the access to marijuana, all of us support compassionate care; but the system Question 3 creates goes way beyond what any responsible citizens wants for the Commonwealth,” said John Sofis Scheft, Esq. of The Bellotti Law Group who successfully challenged Question 3 before Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

Attending the press conference were dozens of students from Boston’s Ostiguy Recovery High School—one of five recovery high schools in Massachusetts serving students with a history of substance abuse, predominantly marijuana.

Speaking about their personal experience were Lisa and Bill Brandon of Acton, MA, parents of Connor Brandon, who died of a drug and alcohol overdose at a concert at the Comcast Center last summer that received media attention for the dozens of youth who were hospitalized for substance overdose.

Connor was an honors student and athlete at Acton-Boxborough High School who just completed his first year at the University of California, San Diego—where the family noted that medical marijuana dispensaries were everywhere.  They went into one and were given free pot samples and pot brownies.

“What we learned is that 21^st century pot is 8 to 10 times as potent as the marijuana we knew when we were young and  it’s highly addictive,” said Lisa Brandon.  “In California, marijuana use is a pervasive culture and Connor was caught up in it, smoking pot every day.”

Tragically, Connor was supposed to have a phone interview with McLean Hospital to begin a drug treatment program on the Thursday he died last summer because he chose to go to a concert instead.  Connor died of a cardiac arrest that night from an overdose of marijuana, drugs and alcohol.

“We know that relaxed marijuana laws, including medical marijuana laws, increase the supply and availability of marijuana to young people—and it is a new marijuana that is more potent, dangerous and addictive than we ever imagined,” said Bill Brandon.

“We never imagined that smoking pot could take our son from us.  We don’t want more kids to die.  What was dangerous for my son was not only the easy access to pot, but the message that it was OK to use it.  We deeply believe that Question 3 is ill-conceived, will increase the supply and risk for kids in our state, and that it is a reckless law for Massachusetts,” the Brandon’s stated.  “We want you to vote NO on Question 3.  For Brandon, and for every young man like him.”

# # #

The post Ballot Question 3 in Statistical Dead Heat; While Parents of Deceased Teen Say “21st Century” Pot Led to His Death appeared first on No on Question 3.

“Two factors predict marijuana usage rates among young people: Availability, and how harmful youth perceive the drug to be. If the medical marijuana statute for Massachusetts is passed, very potent marijuana will become far more available, and in states that have passed these laws the usage rates go way up.”  Watch the video…

Voters in increasing numbers are switching their vote to “NO” on becoming informed of the loopholes in the medical marijuana law proposed under Question 3 for Massachusetts on election day 2012.  Watch this 3-minute video to learn of  the pitfalls of the law that will likely lead Massachusetts to the same place as other states.

________

Dr. John Knight is an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School (HMS) and the Associate Director for Medical Education at the HMS Division on Addictions. He is Director of the Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research at Children’s Hospital Boston. Dr. Knight has served as Principal Investigator of studies on primary care office management of adolescent substance abuse funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Knight is a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and is serving his third term on the AAP’s Committee on Substance Abuse. He has published more than fifty original scientific articles, clinical reviews, book chapters, and curricula. Dr. Knight has served on expert panels for NIAAA, NIDA, the President’s Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. In 2004 he received a K07 Academic Career Award from NIAAA.

The post “Consider the Science” when you vote on medical marijuana says Dr. Knight appeared first on No on Question 3.

In a thoughtful, balanced and incisive look at the medical marijuana law proposed for Massachusetts in ballot Question 3 The Boston Globe, in its Opinion published on Tuesday, October 29th concludes:

“Despite some persuasive arguments in favor of marijuana’s medicinal properties, voters should check “no” on Question 3.

[Click here to Read the full Opinion at bostonglobe.com]

The Globe recognizes that while the law proposed for Massachusetts appears more carefully drafted than many medical marijuana laws in others states, yet it leaves too many unanswered questions and opines: “in the end, Question 3 isn’t the right answer to a complicated policy issue.”

The Globe gives the architects of the law a nod in making a “solid effort to learn from the mistakes of California and Colorado“.  But ultimately agrees that “the only truly safe way to legalize marijuana will be through the FDA, with doctors providing prescriptions and licensed pharmacists dispensing the medication.”

Read the editorial, and consider joining the trend towards no among informed voters.

The post Boston Globe’s Opinion: Voters should check “no” on Question 3 appeared first on No on Question 3.

The title of the bill is “Humanitarian Medical Use of Marijuana” but don’t be fooled, there’s a lot more to it than that.  The 6-page bill is vague and full of loopholes.

Please take 3 minutes to watch this video before deciding how to vote.

Get the Facts on Ballot Question 3 from Vote No On Question 3 on Vimeo.

Need more?: watch “Not this law, not this way” below:

Consider joining the trend towards voting No on question 3.

The post Question 3 in 3 Minutes appeared first on No on Question 3.