Ron Newman (
ron_newman) wrote in
davis_square2008-09-24 04:20 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Entry tags:
Somerville rocks, so why does our Mayor oppose Question 2?
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?
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?
no subject
Maybe I'm just confused about Prop 2, but I thought the penalties for minors stayed the same, as did the penalties for driving while high?
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Well, other than caffeine, tobacco, and alcohol of course. Those are fine. Allowing drugs in the neighborhood -> more gangsters in the neighborhood -> more crime in the neighborhood -> drugs in the neighborhood. Repeat.
At least I think that's the rationale... I think it's bogus, but I think it's the argument...
alternatively: more pot -> more skaters. Skaters are annoying. Therefore against pot?
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
A + B = press conferences like this one.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
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.
no subject
I'm against it and Kudos to our mayor.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
Potheads for 2 unite!
Re: Potheads for 2 unite!
Re: Potheads for 2 unite!
Gratuitous picture of a pothead
I'm still voting 'yes'