Marijuana has been used for thousands of years and has no fatal dose. The notion that patients would not know how much to take is silly, as is the Idea that the FDA would get involved. This is a matter for the states. Vote YES on #3.

This is pure mendacity. The Globe knows that the FDA won't touch this issue for political reasons; saying “wait” is a backdoor way of saying “never.”

The FDA and elected officials have abdicated leadership to voters on this issue. We will exercise it. The FDA and elected "leaders" can only follow.

YES on Question 3.

There is something terribly imperfect in the way our society treats drugs and the restrictions we've put in place produce violent crime in our country and throughout the world.  Our prisions overflow with those incarcerated for a joint.  The kid with the joint who is sent to jail is put in the slammer by a guy who drinks a six pack in front of the TV after a long day's work.  The judge that sentenced him has a couple of martinis before moving on to his wine with dinner.  The prosecutor, who works long hours in public service uses valium to get to sleep.  The kid sitting in jail reads about the drug cartels along the Mexican border using AK47s to enforce their control of towns and systematic beheading to send a signal to those who would oppose them.  The Globe says that Question 3 is imperfect which is true.  But somehow we have to start replacing the current imperfection for a better one.  Vote Yes on 3.  We've got to start somewhere.

I could not express my opinion one word better than nahantjim.  So I will not.

No one dies smoking marijuana.  Why is that little fact always ignored in this debate?  This question is going to pass in a landslide.

You want small government?  This is representative of small government.  It is not what government spends its money on that makes it big or small.  It is what and why govt. regulates certain things that make in intrusive.  Marijuana is a perfect example of gvot. interfering in the lives of its citizens.  Govt. has no place in telling its citizens what medical treatments the individual receives unless government is in fact paying for the treatment.  Govt. has a role in saying this is not cost efficient from the governments perspective for a certain treatment and not pay for it, but it does not have the right to say you can't have the treatment if you wish to pay for it. 

So if you are a small government ranter then you have to support legalizing medical marijuan.  Just as the father of conservatism, Barry Goldwater said, "a woman has a right to an abortion.", so doesn't the cancer patient have a right to what he or she believes is medically necessary.

Legalizing marijuana in Massachusetts for medical use will open a can of worms similar to the fiasco that resulted from prohibition of liquor in the twenties, when a new criminal industry was born and the rackets became big business. Big business is now conducted in Colorado and California by respectable business men who foresee a future of inevitable deregulation. Massachusetts should avoid any participation in this process and simply let the worms crawl out of the can.

There are two major flaws in the Globe's reasoning, in my opinion.

First, the legislature has the power to make adjustments in administration of the law that would correct any perceived flaws.

Secondly, if we wait for Congress to legalize marijuana and put it under FDA regulation, my children will be dead before that happens.

It's way past time we do away with this prohibition entirely.  The incredible waste in investigating, arresting, and prosecuting people for marijuana use is an expense we simply can't afford any longer.  This country incarcerates more people than any other nation in the world...by a huge margin.  These laws are certainly large contributors to that stat.  Is this law perfect?  Of course not.  Not any more than MOST laws past on any number of subjects.  There never has been...never will be...a "perfect" law.  But it's a start. At least it's a first step in bringing a semblance of sanity to the table on the subject.  Yeah.  We need to control use and distribution.  A good first step is to allow growing the weed for personal consumption...taking much of the profit motive out of the illicit trade.  For those who think...claim...this will make it easier for our youth to obtain marijuana...WAKE up.  It couldn't get any easier.  I'll bet it's far easier for any high school kid to buy a bag of weed than for most adults who wouldn't know where to start.  Sadly...it's also easier still for kids today to "score" other far more dangerous (but more easily traded) substances like "X", bath salts (potentially deadly), meth, and even worse things.  This would be a far better use of our limited and expensive resources to have our law enforcement people go after.  Beef up penalties for harder drugs and misuse of "legitimate" pharma products and crack down on the really deadly substances being trafficked in.

It seems to me that people are already using marijuana for medicinal purposes, without any input from a doctor. At least this way people would be able to buy it legally, and with some input from a doctor. Let's face it, even with drugs that have FDA approval there are often unknown and unforeseen side effects and long-term consequences. The use of any drug for the treatment of any ailment is a personal matter between the patient and the doctor, with a risk-benefit analysis to be made.

What a cop out editorial. I don't use the stuff but I know plenty who do. I've been to Amsterdam - no problems there with pot. This is one step closer to legalizing it and then the gov't could even tax it like alcohol and tobacco. I voted absentee and voted yes - take that Globe!

If  marijuana is such a wonder drug then why won't pharmacies be dispensing it?  What other  drug has its own specialized outlet?

The Globe advises a No vote on Question 3, which would allow use of medical marijuana by seriously ill patients. It did so after first granting virtually all the arguments of those supporting Question 3:  that marijuana is better at reducing side effects of cancer treatment, that it better relieves the pain of many other serious conditions than stronger more toxic drugs, that the law is carefully written to prevent the abuse seen in other states.  After admitting that the FDA is unlikely to take on regulation of marijuana in the foreseeable future for political reasons, the Globe concludes that because all possible questions of dosage and patient selection have not been answered, states should deny their residents the benefits of medical marijuana and wait for the FDA to take the lead.

From this we can conclude that the editors of the Globe are a healthy group, not afflicted with any condition for which medical marijuana would be a godsend,  The editors are willing to wait for the FDA to act when political conditions allow.  In the meantime, Massachusetts patients with serious conditions can continue to get the drug on the street, or move to a state where deference to the FDA is not a core value.