It's Good to Live in a Two-Daily Town

In a rare spasm of agreement, the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald have both editorialized against Massachusetts Ballot Question 3, which would legalize medical marijuana in the Bay State.

Boston Globe editorial (boink! sorry, paywall):

Medical marijuana raises too many unanswered issues

Seriously ill patients who feel that marijuana eases their pain should have an opportunity to get legal access to it. Those skeptical of its benefits should consider the claims of cancer patients that marijuana curbs the nausea associated with some forms of chemotherapy. Then there are the people with many different conditions who insist that marijuana provides faster relief, with fewer side effects, than more powerful opiates.

That’s why so many states, including in New England, are seeking ways to make medicinal marijuana legally available. The question is how to do it. States like Colorado and California jumped ahead of the pack in allowing medical-marijuana clinics, with dubious results; their loosely written laws made the drug so widely available that there are 1,000 clinics in Los Angeles alone. The ballot measure facing Massachusetts voters contains more safeguards: There would be a maximum of 35 nonprofit treatment centers across the state in 2013; patients would be required to have a relationship with any doctor who recommends marijuana as a painkiller.

But the measure leaves voters with a number of other substantive questions: How can the state guarantee a safe supply of marijuana? And under what terms is marijuana usage safe?

The answers, unfortunately, aren’t clear enough . . .

And so the Globe editorial board urges you to vote No on Question 3.

As does the Boston Herald editorial board:

Sanity up in smoke

Yes, the latest polls in Massachusetts show that the ballot question that would allow the so-called medical use of marijuana — the very phrase is a matter of some controversy — is a runaway winner. Which only proves that you can indeed fool a lot of the people a lot of the time.

On the surface Question 3 is one of those feel-good measures that Bay Staters just love. Really, who would deny some terminally ill patient a little relief? Problem is this isn’t about terminally ill patients, it’s about an open-ended definition that includes “other conditions as determined in writing by a qualifying patient’s physician.” Depression? No problem. How about migraines, fibromyalgia? Whatever.

And come Jan. 1 it would allow up to 35 “treatment centers” — yes, you could call them pot shops — to be set up on a street corner near you, but that could be increased in coming years too. It’s almost mind boggling that folks who feared the opening of three resort casinos in the state would end civilization as we know it, would give a wink and a nod to 35 pot-dispensing storefronts.

So that would be a be a No vote, yeah Heraldniks?

Just to reinforce the point, here’s the Herald’s companion editorial cartoon from Jerry Holbert:

Definitely a No vote, yeah?

This entry was posted on Saturday, November 3rd, 2012 at 6:42 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.