Paka978
Well-Known Member
If any one is interested in starting a cannabis church I found this.. https://m.trulia.com/property/3214053116-250-Tyngsboro-Rd-Dracut-MA-01826 just outside Lowell mass
New Beginnings for Massachussetts and I
- Thread starter MrSeeDoubleU
- Start date
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Could I grow there? Lol
be4meliz
Well-Known Member
Just E-mailed this person:
After seeing your proposal to limit the current legislature on recreational cannabis, I feel I can no longer support you. The current law,as is, is very fair for those of us that cannot afford to go to a dispensary for things that can help us.Take time to thoroughly research this area, instead of just reacting. A majority voted and it seems you are attempting to remove the positive aspects of what the voting majority wishes.I am also a Veteran.
After seeing your proposal to limit the current legislature on recreational cannabis, I feel I can no longer support you. The current law,as is, is very fair for those of us that cannot afford to go to a dispensary for things that can help us.Take time to thoroughly research this area, instead of just reacting. A majority voted and it seems you are attempting to remove the positive aspects of what the voting majority wishes.I am also a Veteran.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Call them and read it into their voicemail as well. Nice work.
greg nr
Well-Known Member
If you don't live in their district, they won't care. Call the rep and state senator that reps your district. Identify what town you live in.
Bosgrower
Well-Known Member
Here's what went to my senator today
With respect to medical marijuana, what the Bay State has done is set up a legalized extortion scheme so that your doctor, the same person that can prescribe the most powerful and addictive drugs on the market, hospitalize you, and remove or replace your organs can't simply certify you for a medical marijuana card. That would make too much sense. Instead, you have to seek out one of VERY a limited number of practitioners, who will charge you $200-$300 to review your medical records (generated by your own physicians), so that THEY can certify you for access to the dispensaries.
I find it interesting that many of the "certifiers", are essentially certification mills with limited hours and limited days outside of their normal practices. It might be interesting to see if there are any silent partners behind these specialized practices (hint intended). That aside, in a rational regulatory environment, any licensed physician can certify patients for a registration card. While the state might reasonably restrict issuing cards to state residents, if a physician can write a prescription for controlled substances and have it lawfully filled in the commonwealth, they should be able to certify their patient for a card regardless of where their practice is located. That would make medical sense but somehow would be politically unpalatable.
In other states that have actually taken a constructive approach to medical marijuana, instead of creating a tightly controlled monopoly of dispensaries, licensed caregivers are allowed to cultivate marijuana for a limited number of registered patients so that they have access to beneficial strains not commercially available in their area and at costs well below what the dispensaries charge. For people without the skills, space, or means to grow their own it's viable solution, but not in Massachusetts.
While cannabis is in fact a weed, growing medically (or for that matter recreationally) useful marijuana is relatively complex and expensive to undertake. "Back in the day" there were 2 or 3 actual strains available and the ubiquitous border bricks of seedy, low grade pot. Today, there are literally thousands of specific strains that have been hybridized and cultivated with very specific THC and CBD content and characteristics.
I fully support approaching recreational use and sale cautiously.
I have spent the last few months doing research on growing marijuana ... something your colleagues clearly have not. Just as they made the medical regulatory structure a political process instead of a medical one, they are repeating their process in the recreational arena.
The recent statements about yield from home grown plants is ridiculous. In hospitable climates (which we are not), outdoor plants can indeed produce prodigious yields of pounds per plant. But we're not allowed to grow outdoors so let's look at indoor growing scenarios.
Professional grow facilities with the latest technologies in lighting, climate control, and hydroponics can produce significant yield. But the investment and technology are beyond the vast majority of people the "grow your own" language in the law was meant to serve. The average individual isn't going to go out and spend thousands of dollars to set up a home grow. The typical home grower will grow in soil, not hydroponics. They will use inexpensive (and relatively ineffective) lighting, not $2,000 fixtures. And since the germination to harvest time is roughly 70-100 days depending on the strain, they MIGHT produce as much as 16-24 or 30 ounces of decent (not great) marijuana in the course of a year. And that's if they don't inadvertently kill their crop before it matures, which many first time growers do. For legitimate chronic medical conditions, legal consumption of multiple ounces a month is not uncommon. So do the math.
Take a look at craigslist. There's more and more used equipment showing up as people try and give up. It's time consuming and just not that easy to do.
So how does the proposed limit on plant count affect this? When you have limited space, rather than allowing plants to grow large and produce significant yield as the dispensaries do in their grow facilities, private growers will cultivate many small plants. Will there be some instances where home growers will have more elaborate setups which will produce more? Of course ... but you're not talking about another 'El Chapo' working out his basement in Newton.
Beyond that, there's the issue of seed costs. The high quality seeds you need for a beneficial result are expensive. It's not uncommon for seeds to be $10, $15, or $20 each. A little know fact is that seeds from any given strain can and do produce several "pheno types." What this means is that you may get 4 of 5 significantly different plants from the seeds of a single mother plant. And you won't know which of those is the most desirable until the plants all mature and can be consumed.
So once you do get set up and successfully start you grow, the intelligent way to assure the results you want is to take clones of the plants so you have the next generation of the same genetics ready after you harvest the current plants. Assuming that you only grow 6 plants from seed, you would need to take at least 3 or 4 cuttings from each plant to assure that at least 1 clone of each of the originals would survive ... which would automatically exceed the 12 seedling limit.
As I said, I've spent months researching how to do this ... and if you can get past all the stoner BS on the many online forums and youtube videos there's a wealth of useful information and knowledgeable people that are willing to answer questions. It would be nice if the people charged with the implementation of the law were asking about the real world issues of personal grow projects and not just focusing exclusively on regulation and taxation.
I haven't put my first seed in the soil yet, but I hope to in the near future ... and it would be nice if you and the people we voted into office would do us the courtesy of paying attention to what we tell you we want. Even Dracut, which went for Trump, passed question 4.
I hadn't been politically active since the 1960s ... until this year when I joined the efforts to elect Hillary in NH (it would have been pointless to work in MA). I plan on continuing to be active in working for the government I want if it's not the government I've got ... and God knows at the federal level it's not the government I nor anyone I know wants. To that end, if I can be of assistance in providing source materials for you to take to your colleagues, I would be please to do so.
The current stream of articles citing legislative activities in direct contradiction to the specific language of question 4 is an insult to the intelligence of the people that voted for it. We read it, we understood it, we voted for it, I can tell you that there is deep seeded resentment about the way it is being eviscerated "for our own good." It would behoove people like Senator Jason Lewis to remember that. I can assure you that everyone that voted for question 4 will do that come November.
Again, if there is anything I can do to provide information for you to offer a voice of reason on the senate, I would be pleased to do so.
With respect to medical marijuana, what the Bay State has done is set up a legalized extortion scheme so that your doctor, the same person that can prescribe the most powerful and addictive drugs on the market, hospitalize you, and remove or replace your organs can't simply certify you for a medical marijuana card. That would make too much sense. Instead, you have to seek out one of VERY a limited number of practitioners, who will charge you $200-$300 to review your medical records (generated by your own physicians), so that THEY can certify you for access to the dispensaries.
I find it interesting that many of the "certifiers", are essentially certification mills with limited hours and limited days outside of their normal practices. It might be interesting to see if there are any silent partners behind these specialized practices (hint intended). That aside, in a rational regulatory environment, any licensed physician can certify patients for a registration card. While the state might reasonably restrict issuing cards to state residents, if a physician can write a prescription for controlled substances and have it lawfully filled in the commonwealth, they should be able to certify their patient for a card regardless of where their practice is located. That would make medical sense but somehow would be politically unpalatable.
In other states that have actually taken a constructive approach to medical marijuana, instead of creating a tightly controlled monopoly of dispensaries, licensed caregivers are allowed to cultivate marijuana for a limited number of registered patients so that they have access to beneficial strains not commercially available in their area and at costs well below what the dispensaries charge. For people without the skills, space, or means to grow their own it's viable solution, but not in Massachusetts.
While cannabis is in fact a weed, growing medically (or for that matter recreationally) useful marijuana is relatively complex and expensive to undertake. "Back in the day" there were 2 or 3 actual strains available and the ubiquitous border bricks of seedy, low grade pot. Today, there are literally thousands of specific strains that have been hybridized and cultivated with very specific THC and CBD content and characteristics.
I fully support approaching recreational use and sale cautiously.
- There should be safeguards to keep THC laced confections away from children.
- There need to be procedures for detecting and handling impaired vehicle operation.
- There should be testing available to ALL growers to certify their harvest if free of mold and contaminants and to determine TCH and CBD levels.
- There should be local control of zoning for shop locations.
- The under 21 restriction is the same for alcohol.
I have spent the last few months doing research on growing marijuana ... something your colleagues clearly have not. Just as they made the medical regulatory structure a political process instead of a medical one, they are repeating their process in the recreational arena.
The recent statements about yield from home grown plants is ridiculous. In hospitable climates (which we are not), outdoor plants can indeed produce prodigious yields of pounds per plant. But we're not allowed to grow outdoors so let's look at indoor growing scenarios.
Professional grow facilities with the latest technologies in lighting, climate control, and hydroponics can produce significant yield. But the investment and technology are beyond the vast majority of people the "grow your own" language in the law was meant to serve. The average individual isn't going to go out and spend thousands of dollars to set up a home grow. The typical home grower will grow in soil, not hydroponics. They will use inexpensive (and relatively ineffective) lighting, not $2,000 fixtures. And since the germination to harvest time is roughly 70-100 days depending on the strain, they MIGHT produce as much as 16-24 or 30 ounces of decent (not great) marijuana in the course of a year. And that's if they don't inadvertently kill their crop before it matures, which many first time growers do. For legitimate chronic medical conditions, legal consumption of multiple ounces a month is not uncommon. So do the math.
Take a look at craigslist. There's more and more used equipment showing up as people try and give up. It's time consuming and just not that easy to do.
So how does the proposed limit on plant count affect this? When you have limited space, rather than allowing plants to grow large and produce significant yield as the dispensaries do in their grow facilities, private growers will cultivate many small plants. Will there be some instances where home growers will have more elaborate setups which will produce more? Of course ... but you're not talking about another 'El Chapo' working out his basement in Newton.
Beyond that, there's the issue of seed costs. The high quality seeds you need for a beneficial result are expensive. It's not uncommon for seeds to be $10, $15, or $20 each. A little know fact is that seeds from any given strain can and do produce several "pheno types." What this means is that you may get 4 of 5 significantly different plants from the seeds of a single mother plant. And you won't know which of those is the most desirable until the plants all mature and can be consumed.
So once you do get set up and successfully start you grow, the intelligent way to assure the results you want is to take clones of the plants so you have the next generation of the same genetics ready after you harvest the current plants. Assuming that you only grow 6 plants from seed, you would need to take at least 3 or 4 cuttings from each plant to assure that at least 1 clone of each of the originals would survive ... which would automatically exceed the 12 seedling limit.
As I said, I've spent months researching how to do this ... and if you can get past all the stoner BS on the many online forums and youtube videos there's a wealth of useful information and knowledgeable people that are willing to answer questions. It would be nice if the people charged with the implementation of the law were asking about the real world issues of personal grow projects and not just focusing exclusively on regulation and taxation.
I haven't put my first seed in the soil yet, but I hope to in the near future ... and it would be nice if you and the people we voted into office would do us the courtesy of paying attention to what we tell you we want. Even Dracut, which went for Trump, passed question 4.
I hadn't been politically active since the 1960s ... until this year when I joined the efforts to elect Hillary in NH (it would have been pointless to work in MA). I plan on continuing to be active in working for the government I want if it's not the government I've got ... and God knows at the federal level it's not the government I nor anyone I know wants. To that end, if I can be of assistance in providing source materials for you to take to your colleagues, I would be please to do so.
The current stream of articles citing legislative activities in direct contradiction to the specific language of question 4 is an insult to the intelligence of the people that voted for it. We read it, we understood it, we voted for it, I can tell you that there is deep seeded resentment about the way it is being eviscerated "for our own good." It would behoove people like Senator Jason Lewis to remember that. I can assure you that everyone that voted for question 4 will do that come November.
Again, if there is anything I can do to provide information for you to offer a voice of reason on the senate, I would be pleased to do so.
WeedFreak78
Well-Known Member
It is not, in fact, a weed. "Weed" is a generic term for any plant that grows where humans don't want it to. Roses could be a weed if they grew in a bean patch.
You're letter addresses medical marijuana a couple times, where the current issues are with the recreational marijuana law. Two totally different laws. Which were you supposed to be writing about?
Jaybodankly
Well-Known Member
My sense is that they are trying to control the flow as much as possible until they get this built.
The largest medical marijuana growing and processing facility in the country will be built in Massachusetts. Denver-based AmeriCann will build a 1 million square-foot cultivation facility in Freetown.
The largest medical marijuana growing and processing facility in the country will be built in Massachusetts. Denver-based AmeriCann will build a 1 million square-foot cultivation facility in Freetown.
greg nr
Well-Known Member
1.2 M sq feet actually, and I'll bet you the next harvest that they support the new restrictions.
Large Commercial growers don't want rec growers to exist. It's competition. Even for growers who consume 100% of what they grow, it's a threat to them.
Money fucks up everything. This is no different.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
This is a great letter, but anything beyond the first three paragraphs will be wasted because no one will read it. Sad, but true so take your main points and cram them into no more than 250 words, TOPS.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
THIS. They really liked the market here in Colorado before we went rec legal. They had it to themselves and they could charge what they liked. Competition is good for the industry but the players will fight it tooth and claw all the way.
be4meliz
Well-Known Member
And here's my E-mail reply from Senator Lewis
Jason Lewis
1:12 PM (1 hour ago)
to me
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your feedback on the marijuana legislation I have filed. I appreciate your passion in support of the new law and I have heard now from many of you how efforts to change the law could – with a nod to history – seem like efforts to prevent lawful use of marijuana. I assure you that I understand that the people have spoken and that adult lawful use and possession of marijuana is the law of the land in Massachusetts.
So why have I filed legislation?
Along with many of my colleagues, I have carefully studied this issue for the past two years and we compiled our findings in a report which is available at www.malegislature.gov/reports (you may need to filter by “marijuana” to locate the report – filed March 8th of 2016). In that report, my colleagues and I wrote a letter that prefaced the report, and which you can find below, and which explains many of our concerns about how marijuana legalization is implemented.
I understand your concerns about changing a law so recently passed by the people. But I also believe that if I do not act, and work with my colleagues to address policy issues raised by the new law, in the years to come I will hear from constituents who have been harmed because of an issue inadequately addressed by the new law, and I will not in good conscience be able to say to them that I have served them well and ably as a law maker. Perhaps it will help to know that in the few years since legalization, Colorado has already passed dozens of laws changing their own marijuana law, even though their legalization law was a ballot amendment that altered that state’s constitution.
It may also help to understand that since marijuana use is still illegal federally, it is up to us as a state to demonstrate to our federal government that we are providing adequate safeguards to protect the public health and safety. If we fail to satisfy our federal partners, they have the legal authority to shut down our marijuana marketplace even if it is legal at the state level.
I understand that you may not agree with the concerns raised below. I encourage you to continue to provide feedback to me and to my colleagues on those issues in which we may disagree. Moving forward, a standing Joint Committee on Marijuana has been created to review and address proposed marijuana legalization, and I encourage you to engage in that process as it moves forward, and to continue to make your voice heard on this matter.
--
Letter from the Committee Members
The Massachusetts Senate created the Special Senate Committee on Marijuana in February, 2015. The purpose of the Committee was to research and analyze the policy ramifications if Massachusetts were to legalize the adult recreational use and sale of marijuana.
The Committee was charged with conducting a thorough and objective review of marijuana policy in Massachusetts as well as lessons to be learned from other states, particularly Colorado and Washington, that have already legalized marijuana.
The Committee was not charged with recommending whether or not the Commonwealth should legalize marijuana. We expect this decision will be made by the voters of Massachusetts, since an initiative petition to legalize marijuana is likely to appear on the statewide ballot this November. The Committee will not be taking an official position on the ballot question.
In this report, the Committee recommends actions for the state to take to address numerous policy issues if marijuana were to be legalized. However, this should not be interpreted to indicate the Committee’s endorsement of marijuana legalization.
After completing this extensive review of marijuana policy, the Committee members feel that we have an obligation to share our overall perspective on this important issue with our colleagues in the legislature and the public. To this end, we wish to express our serious concerns about the prospect of legalizing marijuana for recreational use and sale in Massachusetts, in part for the following reasons:
Public health concerns
• Even with strong safeguards in place, legalization may increase the accessibility of marijuana for youth and contribute to the growing perception among youth that marijuana is safe for them to consume.
• Marijuana-infused edibles are the fastest growing segment of the market and present particularly challenging issues for public health and safety.
• The risk of harmful health consequences and addiction may be greater than in the past due to the high potency of many products on the market today.
• Even with tight restrictions on advertising and marketing, legalization would likely encourage commercialization and market expansion as marijuana businesses seek to grow their revenues and profits by gaining new customers and increasing the consumption of their existing customers.
Public safety concerns
• There is no well-accepted standard for determining driver impairment from marijuana intoxication and no equivalent test to an alcohol breathalyzer, making it difficult for law enforcement to identify and arrest offenders and gain convictions in court.
• Although some banks have been willing to assume the risk and considerable expense involved in providing banking services to marijuana businesses, the industry still relies heavily on cash for many transactions and is unable to obtain bank loans or lines of credit, raising security concerns.
• Even with legalization and reasonable tax rates, the black market is likely to persist due to the significant profits to be gained from meeting demand (of adults and youth) across New England, as well as the ease of growing marijuana and the difficulty that law enforcement would face in enforcing home growing limits.
Economic and fiscal concerns
• Since marijuana remains illegal under federal law, state agencies would have to assume the difficult and costly responsibilities for ensuring public health and safety, environmental protection, and agricultural safeguards that would ordinarily be undertaken by federal agencies such as the FDA and EPA.
• There is considerable uncertainty regarding federal policy toward marijuana, particularly with the impending change in administration after the presidential election, as well as growing conflict among states with different policies toward marijuana.
• Tax revenues and fees that would be generated from legal sales may fall short of even covering the full public and social costs (including regulation, enforcement, public health and safety, and substance abuse treatment), and should not be expected to provide a significant new funding source for other public needs such as education or transportation.
We are also concerned that the effort required at this time to implement marijuana legalization by our state and local governments would consume enormous amounts of time and energy that could otherwise be spent addressing other challenging issues already facing our cities and towns.
Furthermore, Massachusetts currently lacks the necessary baseline data on marijuana public health, public safety, and economic and fiscal impacts, as well as the ability totrack and monitor trends over time. This issue has been particularly problematic for Colorado and Washington in formulating sound marijuana policy.
In the final analysis, the Committee members believe strongly that it would be prudent for Massachusetts to take a cautious approach to considering marijuana legalization, and continue to learn from the experience of other states. If the legislature were to take up legislation to legalize marijuana or the voters were to approve the likely ballot question in November, it will be critical for the legislature to carefully consider how best to address the numerous policy issues outlined in this report in order to protect the health and safety of the residents of the Commonwealth.
--
Best regards,
Jason
Jason M. Lewis
State Senator
Fifth Middlesex District
State House, Room 511-B
Boston, MA 02133
617 722-1206
Jason.Lewis@masenate.gov
http://www.facebook.com/SenJasonLewis
Twitter @senjasonlewis
www.senatorjasonlewis.com
Need to gather facts from RECENT Cal.& Col. stats about taxes gathered,arrests,changes in law,etc. all the arguments posted above
Jason Lewis
1:12 PM (1 hour ago)
to me
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your feedback on the marijuana legislation I have filed. I appreciate your passion in support of the new law and I have heard now from many of you how efforts to change the law could – with a nod to history – seem like efforts to prevent lawful use of marijuana. I assure you that I understand that the people have spoken and that adult lawful use and possession of marijuana is the law of the land in Massachusetts.
So why have I filed legislation?
Along with many of my colleagues, I have carefully studied this issue for the past two years and we compiled our findings in a report which is available at www.malegislature.gov/reports (you may need to filter by “marijuana” to locate the report – filed March 8th of 2016). In that report, my colleagues and I wrote a letter that prefaced the report, and which you can find below, and which explains many of our concerns about how marijuana legalization is implemented.
I understand your concerns about changing a law so recently passed by the people. But I also believe that if I do not act, and work with my colleagues to address policy issues raised by the new law, in the years to come I will hear from constituents who have been harmed because of an issue inadequately addressed by the new law, and I will not in good conscience be able to say to them that I have served them well and ably as a law maker. Perhaps it will help to know that in the few years since legalization, Colorado has already passed dozens of laws changing their own marijuana law, even though their legalization law was a ballot amendment that altered that state’s constitution.
It may also help to understand that since marijuana use is still illegal federally, it is up to us as a state to demonstrate to our federal government that we are providing adequate safeguards to protect the public health and safety. If we fail to satisfy our federal partners, they have the legal authority to shut down our marijuana marketplace even if it is legal at the state level.
I understand that you may not agree with the concerns raised below. I encourage you to continue to provide feedback to me and to my colleagues on those issues in which we may disagree. Moving forward, a standing Joint Committee on Marijuana has been created to review and address proposed marijuana legalization, and I encourage you to engage in that process as it moves forward, and to continue to make your voice heard on this matter.
--
Letter from the Committee Members
The Massachusetts Senate created the Special Senate Committee on Marijuana in February, 2015. The purpose of the Committee was to research and analyze the policy ramifications if Massachusetts were to legalize the adult recreational use and sale of marijuana.
The Committee was charged with conducting a thorough and objective review of marijuana policy in Massachusetts as well as lessons to be learned from other states, particularly Colorado and Washington, that have already legalized marijuana.
The Committee was not charged with recommending whether or not the Commonwealth should legalize marijuana. We expect this decision will be made by the voters of Massachusetts, since an initiative petition to legalize marijuana is likely to appear on the statewide ballot this November. The Committee will not be taking an official position on the ballot question.
In this report, the Committee recommends actions for the state to take to address numerous policy issues if marijuana were to be legalized. However, this should not be interpreted to indicate the Committee’s endorsement of marijuana legalization.
After completing this extensive review of marijuana policy, the Committee members feel that we have an obligation to share our overall perspective on this important issue with our colleagues in the legislature and the public. To this end, we wish to express our serious concerns about the prospect of legalizing marijuana for recreational use and sale in Massachusetts, in part for the following reasons:
Public health concerns
• Even with strong safeguards in place, legalization may increase the accessibility of marijuana for youth and contribute to the growing perception among youth that marijuana is safe for them to consume.
• Marijuana-infused edibles are the fastest growing segment of the market and present particularly challenging issues for public health and safety.
• The risk of harmful health consequences and addiction may be greater than in the past due to the high potency of many products on the market today.
• Even with tight restrictions on advertising and marketing, legalization would likely encourage commercialization and market expansion as marijuana businesses seek to grow their revenues and profits by gaining new customers and increasing the consumption of their existing customers.
Public safety concerns
• There is no well-accepted standard for determining driver impairment from marijuana intoxication and no equivalent test to an alcohol breathalyzer, making it difficult for law enforcement to identify and arrest offenders and gain convictions in court.
• Although some banks have been willing to assume the risk and considerable expense involved in providing banking services to marijuana businesses, the industry still relies heavily on cash for many transactions and is unable to obtain bank loans or lines of credit, raising security concerns.
• Even with legalization and reasonable tax rates, the black market is likely to persist due to the significant profits to be gained from meeting demand (of adults and youth) across New England, as well as the ease of growing marijuana and the difficulty that law enforcement would face in enforcing home growing limits.
Economic and fiscal concerns
• Since marijuana remains illegal under federal law, state agencies would have to assume the difficult and costly responsibilities for ensuring public health and safety, environmental protection, and agricultural safeguards that would ordinarily be undertaken by federal agencies such as the FDA and EPA.
• There is considerable uncertainty regarding federal policy toward marijuana, particularly with the impending change in administration after the presidential election, as well as growing conflict among states with different policies toward marijuana.
• Tax revenues and fees that would be generated from legal sales may fall short of even covering the full public and social costs (including regulation, enforcement, public health and safety, and substance abuse treatment), and should not be expected to provide a significant new funding source for other public needs such as education or transportation.
We are also concerned that the effort required at this time to implement marijuana legalization by our state and local governments would consume enormous amounts of time and energy that could otherwise be spent addressing other challenging issues already facing our cities and towns.
Furthermore, Massachusetts currently lacks the necessary baseline data on marijuana public health, public safety, and economic and fiscal impacts, as well as the ability totrack and monitor trends over time. This issue has been particularly problematic for Colorado and Washington in formulating sound marijuana policy.
In the final analysis, the Committee members believe strongly that it would be prudent for Massachusetts to take a cautious approach to considering marijuana legalization, and continue to learn from the experience of other states. If the legislature were to take up legislation to legalize marijuana or the voters were to approve the likely ballot question in November, it will be critical for the legislature to carefully consider how best to address the numerous policy issues outlined in this report in order to protect the health and safety of the residents of the Commonwealth.
--
Best regards,
Jason
Jason M. Lewis
State Senator
Fifth Middlesex District
State House, Room 511-B
Boston, MA 02133
617 722-1206
Jason.Lewis@masenate.gov
http://www.facebook.com/SenJasonLewis
Twitter @senjasonlewis
www.senatorjasonlewis.com
Need to gather facts from RECENT Cal.& Col. stats about taxes gathered,arrests,changes in law,etc. all the arguments posted above
Jaybodankly
Well-Known Member
I cant see this going well for them politically. No one will forget they gutted a law put forth by citizens.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
But think of the children!And here's my E-mail reply from Senator Lewis
Jason Lewis
1:12 PM (1 hour ago)
to me
Good afternoon,
Thank you for your feedback on the marijuana legislation I have filed. I appreciate your passion in support of the new law and I have heard now from many of you how efforts to change the law could – with a nod to history – seem like efforts to prevent lawful use of marijuana. I assure you that I understand that the people have spoken and that adult lawful use and possession of marijuana is the law of the land in Massachusetts.
So why have I filed legislation?
Along with many of my colleagues, I have carefully studied this issue for the past two years and we compiled our findings in a report which is available at www.malegislature.gov/reports (you may need to filter by “marijuana” to locate the report – filed March 8th of 2016). In that report, my colleagues and I wrote a letter that prefaced the report, and which you can find below, and which explains many of our concerns about how marijuana legalization is implemented.
I understand your concerns about changing a law so recently passed by the people. But I also believe that if I do not act, and work with my colleagues to address policy issues raised by the new law, in the years to come I will hear from constituents who have been harmed because of an issue inadequately addressed by the new law, and I will not in good conscience be able to say to them that I have served them well and ably as a law maker. Perhaps it will help to know that in the few years since legalization, Colorado has already passed dozens of laws changing their own marijuana law, even though their legalization law was a ballot amendment that altered that state’s constitution.
It may also help to understand that since marijuana use is still illegal federally, it is up to us as a state to demonstrate to our federal government that we are providing adequate safeguards to protect the public health and safety. If we fail to satisfy our federal partners, they have the legal authority to shut down our marijuana marketplace even if it is legal at the state level.
I understand that you may not agree with the concerns raised below. I encourage you to continue to provide feedback to me and to my colleagues on those issues in which we may disagree. Moving forward, a standing Joint Committee on Marijuana has been created to review and address proposed marijuana legalization, and I encourage you to engage in that process as it moves forward, and to continue to make your voice heard on this matter.
--
Letter from the Committee Members
The Massachusetts Senate created the Special Senate Committee on Marijuana in February, 2015. The purpose of the Committee was to research and analyze the policy ramifications if Massachusetts were to legalize the adult recreational use and sale of marijuana.
The Committee was charged with conducting a thorough and objective review of marijuana policy in Massachusetts as well as lessons to be learned from other states, particularly Colorado and Washington, that have already legalized marijuana.
The Committee was not charged with recommending whether or not the Commonwealth should legalize marijuana. We expect this decision will be made by the voters of Massachusetts, since an initiative petition to legalize marijuana is likely to appear on the statewide ballot this November. The Committee will not be taking an official position on the ballot question.
In this report, the Committee recommends actions for the state to take to address numerous policy issues if marijuana were to be legalized. However, this should not be interpreted to indicate the Committee’s endorsement of marijuana legalization.
After completing this extensive review of marijuana policy, the Committee members feel that we have an obligation to share our overall perspective on this important issue with our colleagues in the legislature and the public. To this end, we wish to express our serious concerns about the prospect of legalizing marijuana for recreational use and sale in Massachusetts, in part for the following reasons:
Public health concerns
• Even with strong safeguards in place, legalization may increase the accessibility of marijuana for youth and contribute to the growing perception among youth that marijuana is safe for them to consume.
• Marijuana-infused edibles are the fastest growing segment of the market and present particularly challenging issues for public health and safety.
• The risk of harmful health consequences and addiction may be greater than in the past due to the high potency of many products on the market today.
• Even with tight restrictions on advertising and marketing, legalization would likely encourage commercialization and market expansion as marijuana businesses seek to grow their revenues and profits by gaining new customers and increasing the consumption of their existing customers.
Public safety concerns
• There is no well-accepted standard for determining driver impairment from marijuana intoxication and no equivalent test to an alcohol breathalyzer, making it difficult for law enforcement to identify and arrest offenders and gain convictions in court.
• Although some banks have been willing to assume the risk and considerable expense involved in providing banking services to marijuana businesses, the industry still relies heavily on cash for many transactions and is unable to obtain bank loans or lines of credit, raising security concerns.
• Even with legalization and reasonable tax rates, the black market is likely to persist due to the significant profits to be gained from meeting demand (of adults and youth) across New England, as well as the ease of growing marijuana and the difficulty that law enforcement would face in enforcing home growing limits.
Economic and fiscal concerns
• Since marijuana remains illegal under federal law, state agencies would have to assume the difficult and costly responsibilities for ensuring public health and safety, environmental protection, and agricultural safeguards that would ordinarily be undertaken by federal agencies such as the FDA and EPA.
• There is considerable uncertainty regarding federal policy toward marijuana, particularly with the impending change in administration after the presidential election, as well as growing conflict among states with different policies toward marijuana.
• Tax revenues and fees that would be generated from legal sales may fall short of even covering the full public and social costs (including regulation, enforcement, public health and safety, and substance abuse treatment), and should not be expected to provide a significant new funding source for other public needs such as education or transportation.
We are also concerned that the effort required at this time to implement marijuana legalization by our state and local governments would consume enormous amounts of time and energy that could otherwise be spent addressing other challenging issues already facing our cities and towns.
Furthermore, Massachusetts currently lacks the necessary baseline data on marijuana public health, public safety, and economic and fiscal impacts, as well as the ability totrack and monitor trends over time. This issue has been particularly problematic for Colorado and Washington in formulating sound marijuana policy.
In the final analysis, the Committee members believe strongly that it would be prudent for Massachusetts to take a cautious approach to considering marijuana legalization, and continue to learn from the experience of other states. If the legislature were to take up legislation to legalize marijuana or the voters were to approve the likely ballot question in November, it will be critical for the legislature to carefully consider how best to address the numerous policy issues outlined in this report in order to protect the health and safety of the residents of the Commonwealth.
--
Best regards,
Jason
Jason M. Lewis
State Senator
Fifth Middlesex District
State House, Room 511-B
Boston, MA 02133
617 722-1206
Jason.Lewis@masenate.gov
http://www.facebook.com/SenJasonLewis
Twitter @senjasonlewis
www.senatorjasonlewis.com
Need to gather facts from RECENT Cal.& Col. stats about taxes gathered,arrests,changes in law,etc. all the arguments posted above
People could get addicted!
People might use more!
ALL BULLSHIT.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
That's good news. Let's just say I'm not used to an open ear when it comes to my government.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I wish, but money talks louder than ever in these corrupt times.
Paka978
Well-Known Member
I'm gonna hit up my comrade P. Trump i need a cannabis wall around mass asap... lol.. my thoughts whether it's legal or not I'm still gonna grow just like monnshiners down south once it's in your blood u can't shake it..it would be no deifferent for me than picking up a hammer and a nail... it's just funny how we pay there salary and have no control over what they can or can't do... and on top of all this BS they're all about to get a raise in pay.. so I can 2F'kz.. I'll be an outlaw..