Editorial: ‘No’ on Question 4 — recreational marijuana can wait

Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on LinkedIn0Email this to someonePrint this page

Call us uncool, but we actually like being in our right minds.

Of course a lot of people feel the same way, and would never — or never again, now that they’re older and wiser — smoke or ingest something classified as a psychedelic drug. Others would give anything to be able to climb out of the pit of an addiction that started out as innocent fun, and return to a steady life. Their loved ones would love to see it too.

And, you know, that’s reason enough to vote “no” on Question 4.


Despite the maze of arguments and evidence attending the ballot measure to legalize marijuana in Massachusetts, it’s OK to leapfrog over it all and vote your conscience or your knee-jerk reaction to a question that asks whether it’s a good idea to legalize a mind-altering substance.

Please log in or subscribe to continue reading. Weekly access is only $2. No recurring charges.

2 thoughts on “Editorial: ‘No’ on Question 4 — recreational marijuana can wait

  1. This 80 year-old public policy failure needs to end.

    We have an effective regulatory model for dealing with alcohol, a far more dangerous and damaging drug. Our alcohol policies and regulations have been revised and refined over the years. It’s not perfect. But, nobody in their right mind would welcome reinstating the Volstead act.

    Enough “Reefer Madness”. The prohibition of marijuana has been kept alive for decades through relentless fear mongering. The current proposal is not perfect. No major regulatory proposal ever is. But, it’s a good start. We will certainly revise it in the coming years.

    I’m voting yes on Question 4.

  2. The fact that there is not a well thought out, reasonable plan for the implementation of this should question 4 pass is the main reason to vote no on this one I believe. I do not totally disagree with the other points made here; what bothers me is that it sounds a whole lot like the argument in favor of Prohibition – which made a lot of sense when looked at in terms of preserving families but ultimately could not be enforced.