Ballot Questions 1-3

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

It's Election Day. Some time back I'd posted some quick summaries of the three statewide ballot initiatives; ron_newman asked me to post them here closer to election time, and, well, you can't get closer. This is slightly modified from my original analyses.

Question 1 is popularly called the Right to Repair law. Currently, independent auto shops do not get 100% of the data needed to completely diagnose problems with the current fleet of cars, and without legislation cannot count on most manufacturers to let them purchase or rent that data. I had heard that Toyota was an exception to this manufacturer bloc in this regard.
This question, if passed, would require auto manufacturers to provide the same data to independent shops as it does to dealerships, for (presumably the same) fair market value, and require industry-wide standards. The industry is paying close attention to what happens here, because we'd beat California for once. They're also spending a lot of money to oppose the bill, citing large costs that they claim would need to be passed on to consumers, and saying it's based on using old on-board computer systems to get across the diagnostic knowledge, which would then be locked in and prevent on-board computer updates. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has asked Toyota how much providing this extra information adds to the price of a car, but honestly (as a layman) I'd be surprised if it broke three figures. Personally I'm siding with the local repair shops, and suspect the manufacturers are blowing a certain amount of smoke.

A vote for Question 1 means that independent auto repair shops will be able to purchase the same critical data needed for car repairs without car owners being forced to go to a dealer for certain repairs. A vote against means no change to current law.

Question 2 is a Right to Die law. Currently, someone who is diagnosed with a life-threatening incurable illness and is given no more than 6 months to live must stay until the bitter end. This bill, if passed, would give a very limited set of circumstances that would allow a person to ask their doctor for a medical dose that would be self-administered (though witnessed) that would allow them to end their lives. They need to be of sound mind (though they do not need to see a psychiatrist), be deemed incurable by their doctor, and ask for it themselves without coercion. It makes no provision for people who have been heavily injured, which is probably deliberate. The state will keep a very close eye on doctors to see if any are enthusiastically writing prescriptions for end-of-life pills
This one will have a lot of conflicting emotion driving the vote. I already know of some people who have disputed how well the bill is written, in a spirited though not bitter fashion. I see both sides of that fence, to be honest.

A vote for Question 2 means that Massachusetts will become one of the few states allowing terminally ill patients the right to die at a time and place of their choosing, providing all appropriate hoops are jumped through. A vote against means no change to current law.

Question 3 is a medical marijuana law. Currently, marijuana is not legal under any circumstances in Massachusetts, though small amounts are now civil penalties and usually ignored. The proposed bill would allow for legal non-profit dispensaries and growers of cannabis, or personal cultivation if it were deemed too difficult to get to a dispensary. A doctor's prescription would be required; evaluation for difficulty getting to a dispensary would be done on a case-by-case basis. There are lots of qualifiers here too, like the maximum of a 60 day supply. Also, the bill does not list chronic pain as a qualifying condition for a prescription.
One provision I do not care for states that if a doctor prescribes marijuana, insurance companies (and government entities) would not have to reimburse for any medical marijuana purchase. I highly dislike the precedent of a category of prescribed treatment that insurance is allowed to not pay for.
The bill also explicitly states that commonwealth law does not trump federal law, and federal law still says the stuff is illegal. However, as more and more states adopt medical marijuana laws, it is likely that, at some point in the nebulous future, the federal government will decide to stop prioritizing marijuana laws. It is a step toward long-term decriminalization, but only a step. I am personally in the legalize-but-tax camp, though pot smoke gives me migraines that I'd rather avoid.

A vote for Question 3 would allow doctors to prescribe marijuana for certain ailments, for patients to go to non-profit clinics to purchase the plant at full retail value, and allows hardship cases to grow their own, within limits. A vote against means no change to the law.

Many of you likely have your minds made up already on these referenda, and that's fine. Just don't forget to vote.

If you are stressing over the national election and various Senate and House runs, I suggest going to The New York Times website. Fivethiryeight (on the NYTimes site) in particular lists Presidential and Senate races; in 2008, while still an independent blog, the people there called 49 out of 50 states correctly for the Presidential race. Whether the accuracy level remains the same will remain to be seen, but Nate Silver does have very good statistical models. I'm not saying it'll be 100% accurate, just that the analyses might calm your beating heart.

Comments

[somerfriend.livejournal.com]

Please vote in favor of the death with dignity and the marijuana initiatives.

It shouldn't even be possible to deny a sick person the right to end their life. The opposition says "doctors aren't always right". Yes that's true, but that should be the individual who gets to weigh that possibility in light of all circumstances. I know the opposition means well (people do bad things with good intentions all the time) but we live in a society of liberty, this right shouldn't even require a vote.

Marijuana-prohibition doesn't work.

[cos]

I really honestly don't think the opposition means well. My impression is that the opposition is based on people who for religious reasons think it is always wrong to end your own life, but who understand that they can't win based on that argument, so are trying to trick people using other arguments that they're making up or stretching implausibly. It's sleazy.

Edit: Which is not to say that there aren't plenty of *individuals* who oppose this question and mean well, personally. I mean the organized opposition.

[benndragon.livejournal.com]

I'm glad for your edit, because I've heard at least one disability advocate with an informed good-will argument against Question 2, involving how our negative perceptions of people with disabilities can lead people to make poor (and possibly irrevocable) decisions.

[tikva.livejournal.com]

I was going to say, I don't think Second Thoughts (http://www.second-thoughts.org) is sleazy and religious at all.

[ron_newman]

I voted for Question 2, but I respect the concerns of the organized disability advocates, and don't think it at all fair to describe them or their arguments as 'sleazy'.

(I know nothing about any other organizations who have opposed this, other than the Mass. Medical Society, which I also would not describe as 'sleazy'.)