Other states who have passed this type of legislation are finding out that it is a Trojan horse. In statses like California and Colorado, "prescriptions" abound, for everything from back ache to hang nails. Given the growth in "legitimate" use, shops have sprung up, eager to fill the "prescriptions". And growers, supposedly limiting their efforts to supplying these shops, have a legal basis to plant a field of cannabis. In the end, it has proven to be an unenforceable exception to the laws against widespread use. While I empathize with those who find relief from chronic, real ailments, there is no legitimate medical literature that supports the position that cannabis provides relief not already available through commercially produced drugs. Let's call this what it is - an effort to pry the door to wholesale legalization of marijuana open a bit further. If you believe in such a concept, have the guts to say so, and to defend that position in public debate, rather than sneaking in the back door, incrementally increasing availability until no one notices that you can buy it at the corner store. We really do not need yet another substance to distort reality and distract the minds of users from clear thought and enterprise.

I agree with 6x6, and am surprised Scot did not mention how this has worked in California.  It is very easy to get a prescription, and there are many dealers ready to fill them.  People who wish to get the drug know exactly what to tell the doctor, amd can then go to one of these shops and get the drug legally.  It has helped drug users more than it has helped people who are suffering.

The correct approach would be to have the FDA lift its ban, and to have real pharmaceutical companies create drugs from cannibas, which can be approved by the FDA.  

http://www.compassionforpatients.com/medical-marijuana-claims-and-facts/?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.compassionforpatients.com%2Fmedical-marijuana-claims-and-facts%2F

Agree, Scot.

I disagreed with the decriminalization of marijuana without  legalization of distribution - we are still dealing with organized crime created by Prohibition. That being said - I'll vote for this bill - as it legalizes both.

BTW - I realize the Globe will do anything to get Elizabeth Warren elected  and the editorial page  and news has been very biased - but the boston.com home pages ads are  over the top. When do the Warren banners go up on Morrissey boulevard ?

It's just amazing how people suddenly fall in love with the federal government when it comes to the "war on drugs" We're all about state's rights on topics we want to limit, but as soon as the issue is something that disrupts our little bubble-world, we cry for more federal laws and federal interventions. 

"To hear some opponents tell it, if Question 3 prevails, it’s likely to lead to an overall increase in marijuana use, particularly among teenagers. That argument really doesn’t withstand close scrutiny."

Huh?!? Have you talked to doctors who deal with youth substance abuse on a daily basis?  Are you aware that teens think marijuana is ok because they think it's "medicine"? Are you aware that marijuana affects teenagers cognitive skills because their brains are still developing until their mid to late 20s? 

"The medical benefits of marijuana are widely recognized." 

Say what!?!?  By whom? Have you read the Institute of Medicine's report?  Can you cite clinical trials? What are your sources for this statement? 

This is another fine example of the license of a columist who can say what he or she pleases without citing sources and apparently not doing any homework.

I have a friend with MS who has tried every drug regimen available and marijuana does a lot to ease the symptoms that the "approved" drugs do not. It absolutely helps folks with IBC and Chrohns, and cancer patients going through chemo. I will be voting for this. But it is time to tell the alcohol and tobacco lobbies and the prison industrial complex to stuff it and just legalize it. We'll see what happens with that ballot question in Colorado. Alcohol and cigarettes kill more people each year than all of the illegal drugs combined. The hypocritical drug war is a miserable failure for our society any way you measure it and any one who does not see that is blind or profiting from it.

Great article, good logic.  I can speak from personal experiance.  In the late 70's & early 80's I enjoyed many days & nights where I most certainly inhaled.  In fact, I often held my breath like an olympic diver.  I moved past it without any escalation or known consequence.  Now a solid 20-30 years later and as a father of teenagers, the current ruling in MA gives me no concerns what-so-ever.  In fact, it has opened the door for many very good Q&A sessions (peppered with my fatherly advice) with them and no, I have never lied to them about my past.  In my extended family we have known devistatiing heroin use as well as functional alcoholism and with one possible excpetion, marijuana was never part of these folks lives.  My belief is that Medical marijuana will pass as it well should.  I would like to see THC studied in the lab.  Not just the federally funded labs with an agenda and a payment scheme that influences the outcome but in private labs as well.  No rant today, just some observations with a few facts tossed in for good measure.

Guys, If decriminalizing marijuana didn't cause a spike upwards, why do you expect this to? We have two data sets that show usuage among high school kids is down, not up, over the last decade. Plus the study I cited. (What's this about no research and no data? Sometimes I think people comment before they read!) Scot

The thing is, there is also research from Europe regarding medical effects of marijuana. The bottom line, for most people it is harmless most of the time, but there is no medical benefit. It's a psychoactive substance, so there is no way to conrol for a placebo effect, since the argument is that it is the cannabinoids that are therapeutic. For those with psychotic illnesses, on the other hand, the cannabinoids tend to exacerbate their symptoms at the same time that they act antagonistically to the therapeutic effect of anti-psychotic medications. Most bipolars will argue that getting high takes the edge off, too, and it does for a short while, but then their mood cycling pattern goes into overdrive. Further, just as with alcohol, marijuana does impair one's ability to function, and there is no guarantee that someone who likes getting high won't do so on the job. Just ask Ricky Gates.

Agree, Scot. I went back and forth, checked with my son in Nevada where medical marijuana is allowed; he said that he voted for it because there's no reason sick people shouldn't have it though, as substance abuse counselor, he sees abuse of it and more problems with teenagers since it passed. His wife (also a counselor) voted No and "absolutely would again"; her concern is an increase in driving under the influence (which relates to today's Globe story on lenient judges). I'm also concerned for landlords; on my local ballot there's a question asking our Congressman to vote to remove the federal government prohibition, and I'm voting Yes on that one too. Asset forfeiture laws are a disgrace. In the end, it's a simple question: should sick people get to use a drug that helps them? Question 3 tries to address the problems that have arises elsewhere. There is always the law of unintended results, and we can deal with them as they arise.

Generally, I'm in favor but problems exist. Since it's medicine, the state can't tax it, nor the property of stores since they are non-profit. Costs to the state crop up because of inspection and enforcement.

Thank you, Scot. Great piece. It seems a lot of folks dealing w/ terrible deseases do benefit a great deal from this and I do think they should be able to have access to it. Indeed, wasn't the possession of less than an ounce thing put to in a ballot question in 2008 also? So many gave doomsday warnings about escalating use but it doesn't appear anything of the sort has materialized... I am definitely voting yes on this. Thanks again for a nicely written and convincing piece, Scot.

if Scot and the Globe are for this legislation, and the Globe never plays with a full deck, there HAS to be some ulterior motive. What is it? Also, another Left wing weekly, the Brookline Tab, put it's lead editorial out in favor of this legislation.nnn My guess is that they want you to ignore the REAL news of the day and to attract the votes of people who are currently recreational users of the drug.

Now, how can New Hampshire profit from this?  How about state medical marijuana stores, just like their state liquor stores and right on the border?