Posted on 05/08/2016 7:41:04 AM PDT by pabianice
Massachusetts voters are evenly divided over a proposed ballot question that would legalize the recreational use of marijuana, but they strongly support another proposed referendum that would allow more charter schools in the state, according to a new Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll.
Voters also overwhelmingly back legislation that would protect transgender people from discrimination in malls, restaurants, and other public accommodations — and allow people to use the public restroom that matches their gender identity.
Even more popular was a proposed “millionaires’ tax” that would raise rates on residents with annual incomes of $1 million or more. It garnered runaway support in the poll... Support for the question was strongest among younger voters and minorities. Older voters and Republicans were most opposed, although opposition was also strong among women and members of union households... If approved on the November ballot, the measure would allow retail sales beginning in January 2018. It would also permit adults to grow up to 12 plants per household for personal use, which might be a sticking point for voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
But it all comes back to money.
Where insanity reigns in the regime that thinks it appropriate to use police and prisons as a method of drug abuse treatment.
I’m firmly for it. Adults should be allowed to make their own decisions.
One never knows if the car coming towards you has a driver who is high on the drug.
As far as the prison argument is concerned, I don't care. I didn't tell the stupes to use the drug and am not interested in having my tax money pay for treatments that may or may not work.
This boils down to the fact that these people have cast aside their personal responsibility.
We all have free-will. As individuals we make choices to be either use something that messes up the brain and the health or to not. If one makes the first choice, that is not my responsibility to pat that individual on the head and say, "Gee! That's ok."
If that is hard, then so-be-it.
As far as the government and marijuana growers and sellers are concerned, it is the money.
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.”
The case for the insanity of the policy is simple: 40+ years of it hasn’t worked.
Continuing with it at this point is an emotional decision. That’s what liberals do - ignore the consequences of destructive and expensive policy because the policy feels good.
No problem. The potheads will be busing voters in from out of state the way they did with Arizona’s “medical” marijuana fiasco here. Thousands and thousands of “provisional” ballots.
Just what this country needs is a nation full of potheads!
Oh! wait!
I see lots of articles (like this one) that cross-reference ‘homosexual agenda’ and ‘medical marijuana’. I’m not see the connection. Would someone be so kind as to help the confused man?
Don't know this for sure, but that is what I have heard. Maybe there is someone out there who is more knowledgable about this subject.
Or you could get your nose out of other people’s business ans stop insisting the government use violence against people who smoke weed. That crusade makes just as much sense as the police coming after you for a bottle of beer.
“Would someone be so kind as to help the confused man?”
—
Don’t be confused,it’s The Boston Globe.
Comic books are less confusing.
.
That whole argument ignores decades of study as well as common sense.
Frankly, I don't give a damn.
But what’s the connection between gays and medical marijuana?
I’m not exactly sympathetic here. If they want legal marijuana they should start a campaign to reverse that on the federal level. But I’m not seeing how these issues dovetail.
Plenty of weed smokers are as safe with it as you are with your beer. Your attitude is irrational and emotional and leads to the advocacy of poor policy.
I don’t drink, period.
Regardless, you are wrong to advocate violence to compel others to live up to your Puritan demands.
It’s not an advocation violence. If one breaks the law, then one must accept the consequences.
That is the manly thin to do. Period.
Nonsense. A law is not justified by the fact that it exists.
By advocating a law that requires violent enforcement, you are advocating violence. It does not cease to be violence just because you’re having government do your violence on your behalf.
But, in answer to you idea that consequences are of violating a law are violent let me conclude with this.
2000 years ago three guys were hanging on wood on a hill called 'the skull'. One guy says to another, "If you are so good, get us off of here." Then the third guy pipes up and says, "Shut up! The reason we are here is the just consequence of the kind of life we have led."
So, sir, your choices have consequences, good choices generally have good consequences. Bad choices generally have bad consequences.
The choice is yours. Choose wisely a sage once said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.