Massachusetts Ballot Questions

[teddywolf]

The Massachusetts ballot has three items up for direct popular vote, and people here in Massachusetts might want to know about them in advance.

Question 1 is popularly called the Right to Repair law. Currently, independent auto shops do not get 100% of the data needed to completely diagnose problems with the current fleet of cars, and without legislation cannot count on most manufacturers to let them purchase or rent that data. This question, if passed, would require auto manufacturers to provide the same data to independent shops as it does to dealerships, for (presumably the same) fair market value, and require industry-wide standards. The industry is paying close attention to what happens here, because we'd beat California for once. They're also spending a lot of money to oppose the bill, citing large costs that would need to be passed on to consumers.

Question 2 is a Right to Die law. Currently, someone who is diagnosed with a life-threatening incurable illness and is given no more than 6 months to live must stay until the bitter end. This bill, if passed, would give a very limited set of circumstances that would allow a person to apply for a medical dose that would be self-administered (though witnessed) that would allow them to end their lives. They need to be of sound mind, be deemed incurable, and ask for it themselves, without coercion. It makes no provision for people who have been heavily injured, which is probably deliberate.
This one will have a lot of conflicting emotion driving the vote.

Question 3 is a medical marijuana law. Currently, marijuana is not legal under any circumstances in Massachusetts, though small amounts are now civil penalties and usually ignored. The proposed bill would allow for legal non-profit dispensaries an growers, or personal cultivation if it were deemed too difficult to get to a dispensary, in addition to prescriptions from a doctor. There are lots of qualifiers here too, like the maximum of a 60 day supply and does not list chronic pain under the list of general types of diseases that should allow for qualifying for such a prescription.
One provision I do not care for states that if a doctor prescribes marijuana, insurance companies (and government entities) would not have to reimburse for any medical marijuana purchase. I highly dislike the precedent of a category of prescribed treatment that insurance is allowed to not pay for. It also states explicitly that state law does not trump federal law--and federal law still says the stuff is illegal. The latter is probably the reason for the former. I'd want to introduce an amendment that would change the insurance proviso at such point as marijuana is no longer illegal under federal law, but that can wait until after potential passage.

Many of you likely have your minds made up already on these referenda, and that's fine. Just don't forget to vote.

Comments

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Question #1 (http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele12/ballot_questions_12/pip12_1.htm) didn't show in your post.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

Fixed. The formatting problem did not show up in preview; thank you.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

Yay HTML. :) Thank you for the post!

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I mentioned that to my independent mechanic, who's been involved in this stuff as an adviser to Katherine Clark, and he'd not heard of that compromise.

As far as he can tell, that rumor is yet another of the dirty tricks that the dealer industry has been pulling all along.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

I remember listening to some public radio this summer. The topic came up and they asked independent shops to weigh in. Only one shop owner was against right to repair--and apparently she gets instructional fees stemming from the lack of information available to most independent shops. Unfortunately, that woman was a guest for the entire segment, unlike the ones who called in.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Rather, he knew about the compromise, but hadn't heard of the "yes means no and no means yes" thing. THAT'S the dirty trick -- if enough people vote "no", the industry could back out of the compromise.

[gingicat]

There have been all kinds of foofaraw happening with medical marijuana in CA due to the conflict between Federal and state rules; I'll find the NPR cites if you like, but you'd probably find them faster. :)

My inclination would be to vote yes on #3 regardless, but it does worry me.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

I have kept an eye on CA. The federal government is going to have a very tough time justifying spending its scarce resources on non-violent crimes like these when there's violence and Terror to fight, and it will get tougher as more states introduce legislation like this. Currently, there are 17 states (and the District of Columbia) with medical marijuana laws on the books. This year there are ballot initiatives in Massachusetts, Montana and Arkansas. If enough states pass this kind of ordinance, the federal government may quietly let the law as it stands lapse and move it from "no stated medical value" to the controlled substance category. It would be a big improvement.

The biggest reason it would be tougher for enforcement of the federal law would be lack of local help. Federal law enforcement officials are not usually expected to go it alone, and the DEA is facing more funding cuts.

Apparently, if there's one thing that goes beyond party lines, it's the popular soft drug of your choice.

[ron_newman]

A legislative compromise occurred a month or so ago between the proponents and opponents of Question #1. This was too late to take it off the ballot, but it has become moot.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

I'm still voting Yes, myself.

[ron_newman]

When we get closer to the November election, please consider reposting this on davis_square .

[vettecat.livejournal.com]

Thanks very much for the summaries!