Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 1, 2012?A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law requiring motor vehicle manufacturers to allow vehicle owners and independent repair facilities in Massachusetts to have access to the same vehicle diagnostic and repair information made available to the manufacturers' Massachusetts dealers and authorized repair facilities.A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws.
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 1, 2012?IN FAVOR: When my father was diagnosed with brain cancer, he had little time left. As his final days neared, he chose to use the Death with Dignity law in his home state of Oregon. The Massachusetts version, like those in other states, will allow mentally competent adults with no chance to survive their illness to take life-ending medication prescribed by a physician.My dad knew he wanted to die in the comfort of his own home; competent and aware instead of detached and sedated; on his own terms instead of those of a fatal disease that had already taken too much.My dad was already dying, but because of this law, he could say goodbye to those he loved, with dignity and grace in my mother's arms.I urge you to vote "Yes" because, while this choice isn't for everyone, everyone has the right to this choice.AGAINST: Question 2 restricts patients' choices and control by enabling suicide as a substitute for quality health care. Question 2 is poorly written, confusing and lacks even the most basic safeguards. Patients would not be required to see a psychiatrist before obtaining the lethal drug. Many patients with a treatable form of depression could get a life-ending prescription, rather than effective psychological care. Also, the proposal lacks any public safety oversight after the fatal drug is obtained.Question 2 does not require a consultation for palliative care, a compassionate form of care that eliminates pain and maximizes quality of life for the terminally ill. And, eligibility is based on a six-month life expectancy. Doctors agree these estimates are often wrong. Individuals can outlive their prognosis by months or even years. Massachusetts should improve access to quality health care for terminally ill patients, not access to suicide. Vote no on Question 2.
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 1, 2012?A YES VOTE would enact the proposed law eliminating state criminal and civil penalties related to the medical use of marijuana, allowing patients meeting certain conditions to obtain marijuana produced and distributed by new state-regulated centers or, in specific hardship cases, to grow marijuana for their own use.A NO VOTE would make no change in existing laws.IN FAVOR: A YES vote will ease the suffering of thousands of people with cancer, Parkinson's disease, Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis, HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, and other debilitating conditions. Scientific research has proven that marijuana can be useful for many clinical applications, including pain relief, nausea, and seizures.Provisions of the proposed law requiring strict regulation by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, written physician approval, a limited number of non-profit treatment centers, and criminal penalties for fraud will help ensure only appropriate medical use of marijuana.This proposal has been endorsed by many patients, their families, medical professionals, and law enforcement officials who believe that a smart, science-based approach can help suffering patients without encouraging inappropriate drug use. In fact, allowing the medical use of marijuana will lessen the need for dangerous narcotics like morphine and OxyContin.On behalf of thousands of patients, we ask for your support.AGAINST: We all have compassion for those in pain, but the loopholes for corruption and exploitation are enormous. If enacted, this law would allow:*virtually anyone could grow pot in their backyard and carry a 60-day supply;*anyone age 21 and over to operate a pot shop in your neighborhood to sell marijuana for any "medical" reason - not just for the seriously ill.In Colorado, for example, less than 3% of patients suffer from cancer and HIV.We do not need 35 pot shops to serve the less than 1% truly in need of medical marijuana in Massachusetts. There is already a marijuana pill available for prescription (Marinol). Other marijuana medication will be available in pharmacies soon.Medical marijuana needs tighter restriction and physician oversight.Let's develop medications properly and find a better path for seriously ill patients, who should not be arrested.Protect Massachusetts from widespread abuse. Vote no.