# Medical marijuana opponents fight AG on ballot question



## cc3915 (Mar 26, 2004)

Opponents of a November ballot question to legalize medical marijuana want the state's highest court to force Attorney General Martha Coakley to spell out for voters the exact details of the proposed law, which would open dozens of pot dispensaries and allow home-grown marijuana.
"We believe the language is misleading. We will be educating the voters about the realities of this legislation and how harmful it will be," said Heidi Heilman, president and founder of Massachusetts Prevention Alliance, who said the proposal is vague and lacks oversight. "You don't have to smoke opium to get the benefits of morphine. We'd love to have marijuana studied as a plant to get it out on the market in a safe way."
Coakley's office asked the Supreme Judicial Court to dismiss the group's petition on Friday, setting up a hearing next month ahead of ballot printing in July.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/re...ht_ag_on_ballot_question/srvc=home&position=4


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

Great. Since when has anything that has to do with public policy been a good thing from the AG's office?


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

It doesn't matter how well they explain what legalizing medical marijuana would mean. Every pothead who has never voted before will suddenly realize the need to register to vote and show up to vote for it. So between the misguided people who think they're doing the right thing to help people suffering, the idiot potheads, and the liberal moonbats there is no way it doesn't pass.

The next thing you know, everyone and their brother will have a medical marijuana card because they have this or that or whatever vague disease that smoking pot helps. I'm not against medical marijuana for a very specific group of people if it would be prescribed responsibly and distributed carefully. But, we know that's not what's going to happen. There will be doctors quick to grant cards to anyone who asks so they can light up wherever and whenever they want to.

They're not going to learn anything from what has happened in California. I was just watching something about this on the History Channel, "Marijuana: A Chronic History". (I'm pretty sure that's what it was, I only caught part of it and of course it's not again.) But, they were talking about the law in California and how many of these "non-profit, collective" dispeneries are not operating as they were intended to. They even have delivery services out there, so it's like ordering a pizza. Maybe one of our California members can comment more.

**For any of the trolling potheads who might read this and feel the need to chime in, here's a preemptive STFU.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2012)

We all could see the writting on the wall when they changed the pot laws a few years ago.
When the pot heads write the laws they put in sections that on the face sound good but who follows throught. Example the law says that underage people found with under an OZ are supposed to go to a 5 hour drug school. Where's the school, who pays for it, Did they ever print op the cites for the violation? Cali here we come, "I got a card officer dude'


----------

