Mass. voters lean towards marijuana decriminalization

what will happen to someone who already has a conviction for a small amount of marijuana if the law is passed?

I'm voting to get rid of the Mass sales tax and I'm against allowing marijauna for use and I'll vote out Greyhound racing here.

I will always vote against marijuana use.

Right, and we all know how accurate small-sample polling is. 400 people? Who cares? If these numbers were ever accurate, John Kerry would be our president.

In California, we have the Prison Guard's Union, fighting tooth and nail against treatment instead of prison for addicts. They make no bones about the fact that their position has nothing to do with the pros and cons of policy, but all about providing more work for their members. Same with law enforcement in your state. Decriminalizing marijuana will effect their bottom line, and to these people they'd rather see their fellow citizens locked up, if that's what it takes to rake in the cash - not exactly ethical by any means.

People in law enforcement have no special insight into what laws should and should not be passed. Their job is enforcement. It's the people's job to decide.

While decriminalization isn't the perfect way to control marijuana, the importance of Question 2 is that it'll send a clear message to Congress to end the prohibition itself and replace it with the same laws we use for alcohol.

This is important for all of us! The prohibition can't end the demand for marijuana, all it does is prevent its legal supply. This creates the perfect conditions for criminals to get rich. They come into our communities selling weed and putting our children in danger.

We need to protect our children! We need to get rid of drug dealers! We need to replace the prohibition with the same laws we use for alcohol.

We don't have bootleggers in our streets because legalization protects us from them, and it'll do exactly the same thing to drug dealers.

Legalization of marijuana is *essential* to our future quality of life. Without it we will continuously live in a war zone. And none of us wants that!

Why are police officers campaigning against a proposal? Talk about conflict of interest.

The survey question on question 2 is loaded and manipulative- they made it sound as if the proposal was changing where the money for fines was going (to the cities and towns) and not liberalizing possession of pot, as the question is doing. Why did WHDH find it nescessary to add the bit about the money going to cities and towns? Were they trying to manufacture a positive response? Rather than 'the money received from fines would go to the city or town where the offense occurred' why not just have the survey question say 'to your suffering, cash strapped community that will likey raise your property taxes unless you vote favorably for this proposal???'

If pot is legalized, there will be no police officers high-fiving each other when they catch someone with a joint....what will they high-five each other for then??? ticketing a jay walker??

its about time little do people know the the marijuana plant has many many uses other then smokin from biodegradable plastics to every part of a home that is wood we would even save forests from being cut down by making paper out of it. Hemp is even edible every part of the plant can be used.
And Know one has EVER DIED from ingesting it, they have only died through their stupidity , which people have done with alcohol since it was first discovered let alone the damage it does to you body
Marijuana on the other hand has NO lasting side effects. and 30 to 45 days is not lasting

It should be pointed out that Question 2 does not actually decriminalize marijuana. Attempts to label it as such are just to sensationalize the question. What it actually states is that a person found to be in possession of an ounce or less will get a ticket for $100 and the drugs will be confiscated. No other penalties will be imposed and no information would be entered into the state's criminal records system. With the economy in its current state, the War on Drugs can afford to be relaxed while we fight the wars on homelessness and foreclosure.

vote yes on 1......................

the only way you can rid your neighborhood of Rat vermin is to cut off the food supply. send them a message. they can't raise your property taxes unless you vote to let them.

time to cut out the welfare state, phony ot, phony noshow jobs and exorbitant pensions.

Uninformed opinion...blah, blah, blah...knee jerk reaction....blah,blah, blah....sweeping generalization....blah,blah,blah. This is what passes for political discourse in 2008 America.

this is the way to go. it is hypocrisy to criminalize it. it is way less harmful than cigarettes and alcohol. the criminal justice system only wants it on the books because of the money they make to bust people and prosecute them, and the jails and commisaries want them locked up too. locking up weed users is big money and big business - when meanwhile they let child molesters run wild.
it could be a great crop for the environment and has so many uses it is incredible - medical, fuel, cloth, takes way less nitrogen than corn, which totally destroys the land and the mississippi and the gulf. but this is only about small amounts anyway, so don't spas out people.

I'm voting no to #1. How can we afford to eliminate income tax when we are in such financial trouble. It would mean disaster for Massachusetts

I'm voting yes to #3. Let greyhounds find loving homes, not be subject to an arcane sport and kept in cages.

I'm truly divided on #2. I'm certainly not in favor of marijuana legalization and I'm worried it will go that way, but decriminalizing very small amounts might make sense and free up law enforcement for more serious crimes.

Sounds like I keep on paying tax so that the state can use the tax revenue on wasting time debating over reducing the penalites of breaking the law...

Look at the stats. Decriminalization does not increase usage. 12 other states have similar laws. It will save the state money. That's why so many law enforcement officials support this measure.

Vote 'Yes' on Queston 1. Downsizing government is the only solution.

MA voters will vote to decriminalize pot but shot down a proposition allowing wine sales in grocery stores?? Move over California, there's a new Moonbat capital of the world.

This whole country needs to decriminalize all drugs and heavily tax them. If this country is truly free it will allow its adult population to make their own personal decision. Decriminalization would also take the money and the drugs out of the hands of the gangs, criminal enterprises, and the CIA who make vast sums of money. We all have studied the effects of prohibition of alcohol. Criminal enterprises took control and created a black market supply and vast sums of money. Atleast the government would have some sort of control over the situation because they surely do not have any control in the last 50 years on their wars on drugs.

prosecuting marijuana offenses is ridiculous and a waste of time. dont believe the hype... the money spent on arrests, courts and imprisonment of these 'offenders' would be better spent in SO many ways. not to mention the fact that our problems with prison overcrowding would effectively be rendered moot. why is this so vehemently opposed? for the greater good? the children? common decency? no... it's money. this WAR ON DRUGS is just a front. It's about money. plain and simple. and anyone who argues otherwise is disingenuous at best , a liar at worst and yes the statistics lie. for instance I could say that marijuana arrests are up 800% this year... well, if only two people were arrested last year and 16 were this year GUESS WHAT... thats an 800% increase. substitute the word alcohol in place of marijuana on the AG's anti-legalization dosier and what do you get... a whole lot of nothing.
wake up.
Stephen

This just confirms what MULTIPLE polls have been showing as of late. People are realizing that voting yes on Question 1 is a huge mistake. Question 1 is going down, and going down hard, as it should.

VOTE NO ON QUESTION #1

Sorry bud, if you check your stats books you will find out that a random sample of 400 is pretty reliable. Also, it is in line with other polls. McCain is toast in Mass.

10 MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR SPENT ON ARRESTING SMALL TIME MARIJAUNA OFFENDERS BACK INTO MORE IMPORTANT THINGS DONT THEY GET IT AND TRY TEECHING DRUGGIES HOW TO LIVE RIGHT OUTSIDE OF JAIL AND THEN LET THEM LOOSE OR NO WAIT LETS THROW THEM IN CAGES DONT TEACH THEM A DAM THING AND EXPECT THEM TO BE UPSTADING CITICENS UPON THERE RELEASE COMMON

Remember that this drastic tax cut will cut back state government severely! So severely you might be tempted to ask what kind of state might we live in after such a cut? To imagine such a state, think back to the year 1999 and remember how deprived we were? Oh wait neber mind...

The bottom line is that small amount of pot should not be considered a criminal act and a fine is all that is necessary. I do not smoke pot nor do I do any drugs but give me a break - these people (usually kids) do not belong in the same category as criminals. Also, getting rid of the income tax in Massachusetts is a BAD move - look at NH - they are the perfect example. More taxes on everything else to make up for it. This is not wise - we must keep the income tax in Massachusetts or definitely expect higher taxes on real estate and more.

So question 1 puts the "burden back on us?" Do they honestly believe that the state gets this money from the tooth fairy? What a crazy thought that we cut out the middle man (who, by the way, declines opening the books to reveal exactly how inefficient they really are) and pay for services that my town and not *your* town utilizes. Shocking.

For all of you people who said you vote against marijuana use, the question in reality is more of a way to save money. Its not to legalize pot either, its to decriminalize it. It wont be legal....

LOL at deadstrong, they absolutely can raise property taxes without you voting for it. Are you numb? Must not have any kids. Yeah cut off the state budget and force the state to lay-off more workers, that will do wonders for the economy.

Question 3 is a offshoot group of PE TA who want to elimate 1200 jobs in this economy . Are you kidding me !! Im really not a fan of dog racing but any group who hired these crazed animal rights group from oregon are not getting my vote . These are the same people who dont want you to eat meat , wear leather or buy fur . No thanks crazy PETA people . Vote NO on 3

Here's an example of "democratic" financial responsibility, tax policy, and dishonesty:

WHO screwed up Social Security??

When Social Security began the "democrats" SAID:

Participation would be VOLUNTARY.

The contributions would be TAX-DEDUCTIBLE.

The funds wouldn't be used for anything ELSE, and

interest would ADD to the account.

The payouts would NEVER BE TAXED.

LBJ & demo majorities in the House and Senate put the

funds in the General Fund so they could use it for

their pet projects (PORK), no interest adds to the

fund now!

CARTER & demo majorities in the House and Senate

gave Social Security to immigrants who had never

PAID IN!

CLINTON & demo majorities in the House and Senate

made the CONTRIBUTIONS taxable, AND made the

PAYOUTS taxable! (Al Gore cast the deciding vote on

the payouts!)

OBAMA wants to GIVE Social Security to the 11 million

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS that are here, ALONG WITH

Medicare! (Think more or them will come then to get

in on THAT?) AND, with demo majorities in the House

and Senate, he'll SUCCEED!

AND, after all THAT, the "democrats" have the GALL to

blame Republicans for the mess Social Security is in!

I am voting no , accross the board

I am for eliminating the State Income Tax, & intend to vote accordingly. Let them increase property taxes. How many other states have a tax on one's income?
I am going to vote for marijuana
I am voting against the continuation of dog racing

Don,
Are you serious or was that a joke post? If serious, you are PROOF that marijuana use kills lots and lots of brain cells. Wow.

Question 2 should be passed. It does not let dealers off the hook at all. The police will still fight the supply. They just won't punish people by giving them a criminal record or going to jail for smoking a bit. Free up the money and use it to help the budget, or use it for treatment programs to fight the demand. If people really want marijuana gone from this state they should offer treatment to users and nail dealers. It's very simple.

arent cops supposed to ENFORCE the laws???? why should they care one way or the other about the LEGISLATION or the WILL OF THE PEOPLE????

why isnt this being reported by the GLOBE?

I will always vote to keep my money, thanks. How stupid do you have to be to have someone ask you, "would you like to keep your money, or give it to us" and answer, "oh, no, you keep it". This is what happened with the sales tax a few years back and I was totally stunned. I thought people were smarter than that, but I was wrong.

The justification I love the most is the one that states how lazy we are and how disconnected we are from our own government. It goes like this... they'll just increase our taxes somwhere else. How? They still have to have permission to do that. Are you saying you're not really interested in being involved in how you're taxed and where, so just keep taxing my lazy but the way you always have?
I just don't get that at all. Let them try to tax you somewhere else. Then you fight that, and you fight the next one, that's how you win. Duh! That's how you create your world.

Pot, legalize it, it's all around you anyway. You're just keeping more DEA agents employed.

Dogs, haven't they done enough for us. Let them have a rest from that kind of service. They don't get anything from it on the other end. We've domesticated them, which means they need people now. Living in a kennel doesn't give them that which they need. It's cruel 0 end of story.

Instead of greyhound racing, why not bet on human racing? It would allow elite college track athletes to earn a living and stop the sick gambling inspired cruelty to dogs.

Ralph Nader supports decriminalization of marijuana.

This frustrates me. You do not want to let me smoke a cigar with friends in a smoking bar, because you say that smoking is bad for us (as if you have the right to tell me what to do with my body), but you want to begin this path toward legalizing the smoking of marijuana. I am sure that in five years, by the time Menino and the self-absorbed Boston Health Commission want to shut down smoking bars, marijuana will be legalized. You hypocrites!

I would like to know how somebody can both vote to cut the income tax, yet continue to spend 30 million dollars annually to catch harmless marijuana smokers.

"Why are police officers campaigning against a proposal? Talk about conflict of interest."

A rhetorical question.

It is in their interests to maintain the high level of enforcement and jailing to maintain job security.

Drug use is a public health issue. It is unfortunate that, rather than a proposal to face reality and help our addicted fellow citizens, our societal reaction is to either lock them up or simply relax the standards because of a lack of prison beds.

There are plenty of addictions. Given the law enforcement interest in this question, theirs is an addiction to the job.

And just who, in their right mind, thinks that the passage of Question 1 will "cut out the welfare state, phony ot, phony noshow jobs and exorbitant pensions? Well, maybe the welfare state -- the people who benefit from it tend to be politically powerless. As for the rest of it, you had better believe that the people who do this kind of thing will fight desperately to protect their turf and their personal interests, and ensure that any budget cuts affect only someone else's job or pension. And as for referring to govermnent as "rat vermin" -- maybe if you weren't so across-the-board contemptuous of our goverment, you'd respect what it does a lot more.

I will vote to decriminalize pot. I am not a pot smoker but look at the reality of the issue. If you have a joint on you and get arrested, you go to court. First offense is probably continued without a finding, maybe a couple of times. What a waste of taxpayers money. What about the hypocrisy of drugs like tobacco and alcohol being legal. Investigate which of the three kills more people, not even close. How many brawls or how much domestic violence happens as a result of marijuana users as compared to alcohol drinkers; not even close. Medicinal marijuana should be legal in this state also..

marijuana is not an addicting drug For those who believe it should remain ilegal you are nothing but hipocrites.

The real problem legal drug is alcohol. Marijuana has many medical usages

Save the court system the trouble of wasting there time for minor amounts of marijuana. Think they could spend more time on cases like rape robbery and murder.

It's not the legalization of marijuana. If approved, the law would change from a criminal offense to a civil one. It says so very clearly in the article above. If this passes it would be no more legal to possess a joint than to go 120mph on the pike.

The tax initiative is a gimmick cooked up by the "starve the beast" crowd. It's a reckless idea and will fail.

Greyhound racing is for losers. Ban it.

I think Matts posting says it exactly right. A police officers job is not to decide laws, but to enforce them. The truth of the matter is that when police officials speak upon deciding laws the taxpayer winds up paying them for a job that is not their responsibility. The deciding of laws is the responsibility of the people. Yes, law enforcement personnel are part of the people, but when they are using their position to influence law making decisions they are abusing that position. Law enforcement officials in this country are only concerned about bringing monies into their precincts for job security. The legalization of marijuana infringes upon them doing that. Can't tell me that a large number of officers haven't smoked weed themselves.

Yes, downsizing the government is the only way to save us as a people and a nation. It is the government that is creating all the money problems and they deceive us while doing it. Why should the taxpayer spend any money on prosecuting someone because they like to smoke a little weed while relaxing.

Are you kidding me? You would actually vote to keep the state income tax? Are you kidding me? Let's get rid of it and replace it with increased revenue in the state. Don't worry - you will have a chance to pay more taxes in the event Obama gets in. Let's bring MA back to a lean and mean machine state. We are so fat, it is embarrassing!

As far as Question 1 is concerned, just look at Cambridge. History has told us wherever we overspend problems are created. Our schools, our affordable housing programs, our councillors, and other city services are so overfunded they are spoiled, fat, and disfunctional.

Our city is loaded with homeless people and drug addicts living on vouchers. The more we spend the more problems we create.

When you are forced to spend money properly things are run so much better and efficiently. Just look at the Tampa Bay Rays. They are about to win the World Series with the 2nd lowest payroll in all of baseball. Cambridge has one of the highest payrolls in the state and is no doubt the NY Yankees of public service.

When are people going to wake up ?. This is is our chance to have useless bloodsucking politicians in this state finally listen to us and do what we taxpayers want. Vote YES on Question 1.

People seem to forge thast the added money in our checks every week would allow the economy to get moving again. Vote yes on One. I agree that the overcrowding of prisons would be diinished with a yes vote on two. I say let the dogs run, but require stricter regulations of the treatment of these animals. Ther in lies the problem

We can always vote again to raise our taxes if it doesn't work out.

NO ONE 1

Cut the fat, this state has PLENTY OF IT.

Firstly, people love to make marijuana into an ethical issue, lets cut the crap, drug prohibition continues to exist because of the ridiculously large economy that continues to envelope it.

Studies show that despite the strict laws and the 18+ billion (a year!!!) the U.S. spends on 'the war on drugs,' we have the highest illicit drug usage rate in the world (according to W.H.O.)

Alcohol prohibition showed what happens when a commonly used substance is pushed underground. Demand remains unchanged, yet, our government decides that we need to keep throwing money and an alarming amount of incarcerations for non-violent offenders at the issue.

Has all this money and effort changed anything? No. We have drug kingpins making all this fast, easy and dangerous money off the black market.
Frankly, no one has to like the nature of pot(personally I'm offended by the destructive nature of Alcohol and Tobacco). Highly taxed and regulated drug legalization is what we need to gradually work towards. The results may be ugly at first, but over time...this is the proper choice.

And if we are going to make things illegal based on the harmful and destructive nature...well lets get legislation ready to ban: alcohol, tobacco, fast food etc... (do I need to continue?)

LEAP.com has it right.

perhaps i am ignorant but with good enough reason to say cause i am not living in usa now. but i vote nevertheless. quetion one i voted yes. taxes are fine to pay but sometimes its too much. ( maybe i made a mistake and dont realize the reprocusions) number two is simple yes DECRIMINALIZE, IS NOT LEGALIZE. TO THOSE WHO THINK HOLLAND HAS LEGAL RIGHTS TO USE IT SORRY BUT ITS NOT TRUE. legalizing it would be fine maybe in the future but first try step one. the number one drug killer is easily said alcahol. number three stop the dog racing it destroys lives of people addicted to gambling and maybe worse off is the poor doggy once it stops winning has little luck of adoption and receives a bullet to the head. (perhaps killed more humanely but still it is killed)nomber four was for me perplexing and i had to read and reread it several times to understand it so i dont remember the outcome of vote .i do know it was something about prop.2and a half and so on. dont forget everyone Obama is a democrat and if you look at history those guys are good at reducing the deficit and even eliminating it. whereas the reps. throw it around madly. so barrack has my vote i hope he follows through and straightens out the mess made in the past eight years. good luck with your choices people but atleast you CAN vote.

FREE THE WEED !!! IT'S ABOUT FRIGGIN TIME FOR GOD SAKE!!! WHY TIE UP THE COURTS AND JAILS WITH SUCH A TRIVIAL MATTER. IN MY OPINION ALCOHOL CAUSES MORE HEALTH PROBLEMS & MORE DEATHS BY DRUNK DRIVERS AND THAT IS LEGAL HOW ASS-BACKWARDS IS THAT?
GIMME A BREAK. THE FRIGGIN COPS WHO WANT TO SAY "NO"...1/2 OF THEM ARE HYPOCRITS CAUSE THEY THEMSELVES SMOKE IT ANYWAYS. I COULD NAME SOME NAMES THERE OFFICERS...BUT I WON'T (LOWELL COPS)

Isn't it surprising that Obama, Biden, the DNC, their media storm troopers, Hollywood and music celebrity minions, and "democrats" in general explode in displays of visceral hatred against Sarah Palin "racist, KKK, nazi", Palin's family, and to a lesser extent, McCain, and anyone else who dares oppose them, but they can't find any fault with "Rev." (God Damn America/America invented the Aids virus to kill Black people) Wright and his "church", which Obama and his family attended for the past 20 years with no complaint about the racism or anti-American diatribes Wright was spewing (even though Wright and that "church" were receiving $15 million in taxpayer dollars over the last 15 years)! Wright WAS also Obama's campaign's "Spiritual Advisor" til Wright's enormous ego made him spill the beans! They likewise find no fault with Ayers & Dohrne, who founded the Weather Underground, that bombed the Capital, the Pentagon, police stations, and killed several people. Obama served on boards, committees, "civic projects", etc. with Ayers, his wife worked with him, they socialized with Ayers & Dohrne, have friends in common with them (i.d. Rashid Khalidi, who has ties to the PLO), and Obama's Illinois Senate run was announced from Ayers living room (Obama says Ayers "lived in his neighborhood!) In 2004 or 2005, Ayers said he only wished they had done MORE bombing, he's been photographed trampling the American Flag underfoot and grinning, but Obama says he "thought Ayers had been rehabilitated"! NOT rehabilitated, NOT repentent, avowed Marxist, vehemently says so in public, but Obama "didn't know about any of that"! He knows about it NOW, have you ever heard Obama denounce Ayers and Dohrne? Wright? No, just "some of their past activities". How about Rezko, Obama's convicted criminal buddy, who gave him $1.6 million and a corrupt real-estate deal? How about Mazen Asbahi, Obama's "Islamic Advisor", who had to quit when his Hamas connections were discovered? What about the fact that Obama SUPPORTS Partial-Birth Abortion, the most bestial, sadistic "medical procedure" allowed in this country, against the most innocent and helpless victims, voted AGAINST the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which protects babies who survive abortion attempts and are born alive from being killed or left alone to die (he was the only Illinois Senator to speak against it) and even NARAL wasn't for that, but he ALSO has stated that women should have some period of time after a baby is born to decide if they want it KILLED! What part of THIS GUY IS A MONSTER do you not understand?? Think Jesus would approve of Mr. Obama?
Never hear a word of criticism from anyone on the Obama side, do we? They don't CARE what Obama, his wife, or any of their associates have ever said or done! They have NO problem with racism, anti-Americanism, criminal connections, corruption, or abortion extremism, so long as those involved support Obama. No better definition of hypocrisy or "low-life" will ever be found.

Good luck with that. I live in Colorado now and under an ounce within Denver is legal. They also tried to legalize it in the state two years ago. The police said that they can still enforece state laws (in Denver) and federal law (if it passed) and would still arest people. There was also a bill that was passed by voters to make pot a low priority for police yet the number of arrests hasn't lowered. If it passes they will still find a way to get you. The government has contracted private companies to build and run prisons. They're not going to lower thier abiliy to generate revenue.

* Decriminalization of marijuana makes sense! Vote "Yes" on Question 2!
* Question 2 would move the possession of small amounts of marijuana from a criminal offense to a civil offense. This change, decriminalization, already successfully implemented in 11 other states, reflects the reality that the existing penalties are too severe. In addition to possible jail time and a CORI record, people arrested under the current law are subject to the loss of student aid, public housing, and reduction of employment opportunities.
* In the 11 other states where decriminalization has been implemented there has been no increase in crime and, significantly, no increase in the use of
marijuana.

VOTE YES ON #3!!!! These dogs deserve to stop being breed just so they can be killed 2 years later. Put an end to this cruelty!

Vote YES on question 2.

Why?

Save law enforcement money! Hopefully, redirect it towards crime that is actually hurting someone.

Did you know that someone with an arrest for marijuana cannot obtain federal aid for college? Voting this law in will prevent this from occuring, because they will not have a criminal record.

Similar laws are in place in about a dozen other states and there was no increase in usage. This will not change anything - with the exception of eliminating the stiff penalties that otherwise law abiding marijuana-smokers can face. Would you rather have marijuana smokers working and paying taxes? Or locked up in jail being a financial drain on society?

Finally, it's a plant. It's less dangerous than alcohol, yet it's illegal. Nixon's own scientists said it should be legalized, and he threw thier report away. It's time to stop the madness and recognize that the War on Pot has failed. It's time to change direction and try a new approach.

Vote YES on Question 2.

Yo man lets vote yes on # 2. and Cheech & Chong will finally make that drop I've been waiting for. Honestly pot smokers are the most harmless people. So America light up and lets move onto bigger things. Like how are we going to get out of this hole that were in pots the least of our problems!!!!!!!

i don't understand how anyone in their right mind could vote yes to 1.

2 &3, well WHO CARES. i don't mind if the guy down the street smokes a joint, and i don't mind if some other guy gets his jolly's at the dog track.

But when you take away income tax i DO mind. that money goes to our schools and hospitals. and what other taxes will be increased to fill the financial void, property tax?! as a state we cannot stand for this.

If marijuana has no health benefits then why does the US Government hold a patent on its use for its health benefits? Just check out US Patent 6630507 titled "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" which is assigned to The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services. The patent was obtained in October of 2003. Marinol, synthetic THC, is a Schedule III drug while its organic parent is Schedule I along with heroin meaning "No medical use"?. Confused? Ask a Government Official to explain the difference and you'll see some confusion! Since one part of the government applied for the patent of medical marijuana, and another part of the government approved that patent, it seems logical to conclude that the federal government knows that marijuana has some valid medical properties.

Now the hard part. How do we get them to admit it?

About 42% percent of Americans have tried pot. In the Netherlands, which is the king of cannabis, 20% of the population have tried pot.. People are more inclined to try something when it is illegal. Societies where these types of laws exist tend to fare much better than us.

Now, imagine if you were part of that 42% US statistic, and you got caught experimenting. Although it might have been dumb at the time, the offense will be looked down upon by your piers. The main difference is they have probably done it too, just never got caught.

Every person who votes no on decriminalization is a hypocrite. Most likely you or someone you know has smoked or does smoke marijuana. Should you or the people you know be looked down upon because of this? I personally don't find marijuana a dangerous drug that is ruining the streets of America! People are easily influenced, so most likely people who vote no on 2 think that way because they hear opinions of uninformed others.

if marijuana leads to harder drugs,then what leads to marijuana?answer,tobacco and alcohol,the legal drugs. marijuana should be legal and sold in tobacco and liquor stores where only adults are allowed to make purchases.also marijuana is not addictive.pot smokers smoke because they want to not because they have to.