Somerville rocks, so why does our Mayor oppose Question 2?

[ron_newman]

Somerville has a well-deserved image of being a haven for offbeat and creative types, so I'm confused and disappointed to see Mayor Joe take part in a press conference opposing Question 2.

As the city's press release itself points out, "Question 2 would decriminalize marijuana use and make possession of small amounts of marijuana punishable only with a fine similar to a traffic violation." (Actually, the police can also seize the marijuana.) That seems to me like just plain common sense. It saves the city money by not wasting police and court time on prosecuting a victimless "crime".

The campaigners against Question 2 call themselves the "Coalition for Safe Streets", but this question has nothing to do with either safety or streets.

Why did you do this, Mayor Joe?

Comments

[thetathx1138.livejournal.com]

Definitely. You'll have to settle for lemon pepper.

[ilai]

I've been trying to figure out where I stand on this. In theory I don't have a problem with decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. But I think I read in the Globe or some other paper (I'm having trouble finding the article now) that the policemen in Boston oppose the question on the grounds that it takes away a major tool they have in fighting crime--sometimes marijuana possession is the only charge they can get to stick, when they're trying to get some people they've been tracking for more serious charges. And I've been trying to find more information about this but I'm failing.

[ron_newman]

Fixed.

[gwodder.livejournal.com]

Yep, that's some bad government all right!

The emphasis on "not sending the wrong message to our youth" by ending jail sentences for victimless acts tells you everything you need to know.

He thinks the only way to prevent young people from doing something is to have the government threaten to harm them if they try...

It's a nice illustration of the general lack of regard for the character and human rights of citizens that seems endemic to our Massachusetts government.

[sonofabish.livejournal.com]

Shit, now I have to go buy a different wine. Bastard!

[lbmango.livejournal.com]

you can do that? You can manually change the time stamp of a post??? neat.

[duffless2323.livejournal.com]

Well played!

[ron_newman]

Yep

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

my point being that driving impaired doesn't really seem to address the problem. people keep doing it; pull their license - they will drive without one/etc.

how many? millions, i'm sure; personally? most of them. they DO have jobs to goto ;)

delivery? costs extra. tips? no way! bogus! some of the stoners i've run into are cheap bastids too ;)

#

[purpless77.livejournal.com]

I'm so proud to say I voted for him. If he was for question 2 he would DEFINITELY lose myself and many others as his supporters. Marijuana IS a serious drug and should be treated as such. It might not cause death by one use of unlaced marijuana but in many people it does cause serious lasting illnesses such as panic attacks, anxiety, etc. Which ARE serious. It's almost like cigarettes. It harms some but can leave others unharmed. There are many marijuana smokers who admit it as a gateway drug and an addictive drug. We need to start putting the well being of people in front of "saving money". They're already too leniant on marijuana smokers and dealers.
I'm against it and Kudos to our mayor.

[nathanjw]

I always wonder if it's "QF Mart" or "Q Mart F".

[ron_newman]

I voted for Mayor Joe too, and will likely do so again, as I'm not a single-issue voter.

"It harms some but can leave others unharmed" can apply to lots of things -- drinking alcohol, skateboarding, downhill skiing, climbing Mount Washington, etc.

LiveJournal is addictive and can cause anxiety. Should we penalize it?

[magid.livejournal.com]

Out of curiosity, if you see marijuana as similar to tobacco cigarettes, do you think they should be illegal too?

[sonofabish.livejournal.com]

An interesting point- alcoholism and the compulsion to get drunk is pretty well-documented, but getting high on weed has not been shown to be physically or psychologically addictive or the source of destructive behavior. They do claim, however, that it's a "gateway" drug that leads to other more destructive drugs.

Which is sometimes true because once kids get stoned and it doesn't turn into "Reefer Madness" or any of the other bullshit things they teach in DARE programs, kids wonder if the things they're told about other drugs are a pack of hysterical lies as well.

Ultimately, the failure of "drug educators" to tell kids the truth about drugs and instead blanket them with "just say no" causes more harm than good. It would be like teaching kids they can get pregnant from kissing and after they find out they don't, well, they figure the story about getting pregnant from fucking is a lie as well and they end up knocked up like the underage unmarried daughter of a vice presidential candidate.

[perspicuity.livejournal.com]

i really don't have any faith in "studies", that's been a load of bull for decades nows. see: nutritionism ;) if we can't get FOOD right, what do we know?

can't speak to gateways or other antics. people do what they do, and you can only blame their parents and society; see: south park the movie.

let it be known: kissing WHILE fucking can lead to pregnancy!

and the father of that child... nice!

#

[sonofabish.livejournal.com]

All "drugs" are serious- alcohol, marijuana, caffeine, aspirin, and have the potential of negative side effects. I'm addicted to my morning coffee and if I don't have at least 2 cups to get my caffeine fix, I am not at all pleasant to be around and I then develop blinding headaches and stomach cramps from withdrawal.

So by your standards, caffeine should be outlawed as a physically and psychologically addictive substance.

Which is silly. It's my body and I should be allowed my morning cup or two of Joe. Who's it hurting?

Why not the same for marijuana? If a person wants to sit in the privacy of his or her own home, smoke a bowl, and huddle in a corner with candles lit contemplating their belly button, who is it hurting?

I dare you to find me one single credible source that shows marijuana to be anywhere near as dangerous as alcohol in terms of deaths directly related to the substance- either through overdoses/poisoning, criminal assault/murder, or driving while impaired.

You can't.

For the police to spend their time and resources hunting down harmless stoners who aren't a threat to anything except a bag of Doritos and divert their efforts from more serious transgressions against the law- drunk drivers, burglers, rapists, gangs- to me is a very skewed sense of priorities.

[exsplusohs.livejournal.com]

Was just wondering the same thing.

[anotherthink.livejournal.com]

My (fairly uneducated!) guess is that people who want to have less than an ounce of marijuana in their home even though it's technically illegal already do so, and that this change wouldn't make more people stoners so much as it would mean that the unlucky small percentage of current casual users who get busted would be less unlucky. This could be wrong of course!

I support legalization, but it's a long way from being politically expedient. Hopefully this minor change will be a palatable and (IMO) positive step.

[genesayssitdown.livejournal.com]

EXECUTIONS FOR ALL DRUG OFFENDERS

[arrowintwolakes.livejournal.com]

Ok there, troll. Do you have a rotary phone too? Do you still wear hats out of doors? Must suck to be you, friend.

[teele-sq.livejournal.com]

(http://www.mnftiu.cc)

[prunesnprisms.livejournal.com]

You totally left out refined sugar.

[joifulgurl.livejournal.com]

zing!

[redcolumbine.livejournal.com]

Victimless crimes create work (and therefore jobs) for police. Police unions will politically slaughter anyone who champions a bill like this one. It's up to us Mere Citizens to take the initiative.

[nungnung.livejournal.com]

This is an ongoing topic of conversation between my husband and I. Today, we're convinced it's "Q Mart F." Tomorrow, who knows?