Western states and medical marijuana

[Alcon]

Why is it that western states are so much friendlier to legalising medical marijuana than eastern ones?

Medical marijuana is legal in Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.  It is only legal in two eastern states, Maine and Vermont.

It surprises me that Massachusetts doesn't have an effective medical marijuana law on books, nor does New Hampshire, a state that I'd think would be open to this for similar reasons to Alaska and Montana.

[Bono]

Because they're westerner.
I'm beggining to agree with Walter Mitty: New Hampshire's libertarianism is overstated. It's probably as libertarian as Delaware(which ain't that bad).
Sagebrush is the way to go.

[Alcon]

I still don't understand, though, why Massachusetts would be against it.  The answer I've gotten is generally "nanny state liberalism," which doesn't really mean much of anything.  Socially liberal is socially liberal, and I don't see why Massachusetts would be any less friendly to medical marijuana than - say - Colorado, a state I would hardly call purely libertarian.  The same goes for most right coast states.

[Bono]

I still don't understand, though, why Massachusetts would be against it.  The answer I've gotten is generally "nanny state liberalism," which doesn't really mean much of anything.  Socially liberal is socially liberal, and I don't see why Massachusetts would be any less friendly to medical marijuana than - say - Colorado, a state I would hardly call purely libertarian.  The same goes for most right coast states.

Probably Catholic influence.

[Alcon]

I still don't understand, though, why Massachusetts would be against it.  The answer I've gotten is generally "nanny state liberalism," which doesn't really mean much of anything.  Socially liberal is socially liberal, and I don't see why Massachusetts would be any less friendly to medical marijuana than - say - Colorado, a state I would hardly call purely libertarian.  The same goes for most right coast states.

Probably Catholic influence.

I was unaware Catholicism was more anti-marijuana than Protestantism.

[opebo]

Perhaps marijuana use is more popular - more common - in the West?

[Bono]

I still don't understand, though, why Massachusetts would be against it.  The answer I've gotten is generally "nanny state liberalism," which doesn't really mean much of anything.  Socially liberal is socially liberal, and I don't see why Massachusetts would be any less friendly to medical marijuana than - say - Colorado, a state I would hardly call purely libertarian.  The same goes for most right coast states.

Probably Catholic influence.

I was unaware Catholicism was more anti-marijuana than Protestantism.

It's more militantly so. Besides, teh West has a larger portion of non-religious people than the East.

[Alcon]

Perhaps marijuana use is more popular - more common - in the West?

Well, I know in Washington, medical marijuana was legalised with 60% or so of the vote, passing in most counties, even in the eastern part of the state.  I don't imagine that 60% of the state - or anywhere near it - uses marijuana.

[opebo]

Perhaps marijuana use is more popular - more common - in the West?

Well, I know in Washington, medical marijuana was legalised with 60% or so of the vote, passing in most counties, even in the eastern part of the state.  I don't imagine that 60% of the state - or anywhere near it - uses marijuana.

Well, surely at least 60% have used it at some point in their lives.

[WalterMitty]

I still don't understand, though, why Massachusetts would be against it.  The answer I've gotten is generally "nanny state liberalism," which doesn't really mean much of anything.  Socially liberal is socially liberal, and I don't see why Massachusetts would be any less friendly to medical marijuana than - say - Colorado, a state I would hardly call purely libertarian.  The same goes for most right coast states.

nanny state liberalism is the correct answer, alcon.

[A18]

Does it even matter, after Gonzales v. Raich? Seems to me the fed is just going to stick its nose into everything.

[Alcon]

I still don't understand, though, why Massachusetts would be against it.  The answer I've gotten is generally "nanny state liberalism," which doesn't really mean much of anything.  Socially liberal is socially liberal, and I don't see why Massachusetts would be any less friendly to medical marijuana than - say - Colorado, a state I would hardly call purely libertarian.  The same goes for most right coast states.

nanny state liberalism is the correct answer, alcon.

Again, that's not helpful.  It just tells me that Massachusetts doesn't allow it (which I already know), not the reasoning behind it.

Perhaps marijuana use is more popular - more common - in the West?

Well, I know in Washington, medical marijuana was legalised with 60% or so of the vote, passing in most counties, even in the eastern part of the state.  I don't imagine that 60% of the state - or anywhere near it - uses marijuana.

Well, surely at least 60% have used it at some point in their lives.

And that's less true in the east?  Why?

[Erc]

New England Liberalism is...weird.

New England, on a whole, follows such a different political dynamic than the rest of the country that it nearly defies explanation.

Maybe it has a more authoritarian streak?

Or it's a religion issue [again, keeping in mind that trying to use religion to explain politics in New England will usually lead nowhere]...

Or, more likely, it's just due to a confluence of circumstances--the way the groups happen to pan out, not any "New England Character"

[??????????]

New England Liberalism is...weird.

New England, on a whole, follows such a different political dynamic than the rest of the country that it nearly defies explanation.

Maybe it has a more authoritarian streak?

Or it's a religion issue [again, keeping in mind that trying to use religion to explain politics in New England will usually lead nowhere]...

Or, more likely, it's just due to a confluence of circumstances--the way the groups happen to pan out, not any "New England Character"

See : Puritanism.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

New England Liberalism is...weird.

New England, on a whole, follows such a different political dynamic than the rest of the country that it nearly defies explanation.

Maybe it has a more authoritarian streak?

Or it's a religion issue [again, keeping in mind that trying to use religion to explain politics in New England will usually lead nowhere]...

Or, more likely, it's just due to a confluence of circumstances--the way the groups happen to pan out, not any "New England Character"

How does legalizing gay marriage make Massachusetts authoritarian?

[Bono]

New England Liberalism is...weird.

New England, on a whole, follows such a different political dynamic than the rest of the country that it nearly defies explanation.

Maybe it has a more authoritarian streak?

Or it's a religion issue [again, keeping in mind that trying to use religion to explain politics in New England will usually lead nowhere]...

Or, more likely, it's just due to a confluence of circumstances--the way the groups happen to pan out, not any "New England Character"

How does legalizing gay marriage make Massachusetts authoritarian?

Because it was done b the courts?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

New England Liberalism is...weird.

New England, on a whole, follows such a different political dynamic than the rest of the country that it nearly defies explanation.

Maybe it has a more authoritarian streak?

Or it's a religion issue [again, keeping in mind that trying to use religion to explain politics in New England will usually lead nowhere]...

Or, more likely, it's just due to a confluence of circumstances--the way the groups happen to pan out, not any "New England Character"

How does legalizing gay marriage make Massachusetts authoritarian?

Because it was done b the courts?

The MA legislature could have stopped it. Connecticut is one of the states that created civil unions without courts being involved.

[Cubby]

The reason is b/c all the medical marijuana stuff is through referendums, not done by the legislature. Here in New England, it is very hard and very rare to get a popular referendum, except in MA for the marriage thing apparently. To get medical weed here congressmen would have to go out on a limb and vote for it, putting them at risk at the next election.

You guys out west seem to vote on every little issue, proposition, etc. Whether for taxes, marriage, recall, whatever. That is direct democracy, we are more traditional on this side of the country. Only the legislature makes the laws. That is also the reason why women had the vote out west (Wyoming 1869, etc.) long before they had it nationally.

It is not b/c of religion, but as far as being nanny state liberalism, that may be kind of true since ballot initiatives wouldn't be a part of that system.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

Alot of new trends tend to come out of the west so lets hope that we see this trend expanding

[A18]

I don't get it. With atrocities like Gonzales v. Raich, does it really matter what state law says?

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

A decade or so down the line there will probably be different justicies...

[A18]

Wouldn't make any difference until then. Anyway, I don't see the Court getting much more conservative in the next 10 years.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

who said legalizing medical marijuana is a conservative position?