Marijuana Ballot Initiatives

Opponents of Massachusetts Marijuana Initiative Accidentally Advertise a Spoof of Themselves


The official voters' guide that was mailed to every household in Massachusetts beginning last week includes a Web address for the No on Question 3 committee, which is urging voters to reject a ballot initiative that would legalize the medical use of marijuana and authorize dispensaries where patients can obtain it. The address, logically enough, is, but the committee settled on that name without bothering to register it. Whoops. On Tuesday a savvy satirist registered the URL, where you can now find Onion-esque items with headlines such as "FACT: Marijuana Is the Gateway Drug to Twinkies," "FACT: No Marijuana User Has Ever Been Successful" (above a collage of famous pot smokers' photos), and "Elementary School Counselor Speaks Out Against Medical Marijuana" (quoting Mr. Mackey, the guidance counselor on South Park). No on Question 3 spokesman (and former ONDCP official) Kevin Sabet told The Boston Globe, "It's funny and upsetting, I guess, at the same time." No, it's just funny.

Sabet's committee settled on a different URL,, making sure to register it this time. The official site seems like a pale knockoff of the satirical one, featuring headlines like "Teen Pot Use Linked to Later Decline in IQ" and "Protect Our Kids, Colorado Teacher Says." The corrected address is now listed in the online version of the voters' guide, but it was too late to fix the paper version. That's too bad for Sabet et al., because I suspect the voters they are most likely to persuade have a strong preference for paper. But if so, maybe they won't bother to check out the website.

The Globe notes that the No on Question 3 campaign has managed to collect all of $600 so far, compared to the $1 million or so that supporters of the initiative have received from Peter Lewis, a longtime patron of drug policy reform.

NEXT: Firing, Resignations at Troubled Mass. Crime Lab

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I shot my spood just seeing that.

  2. Jesus, Sullum, couldn’t you have left that typo up long enough to make me not look like an ass?

    1. It’s not Jacob who makes you look like an ass, sage.

      1. Well, not that Jacob at any rate.

      2. Does my ass make my ass look fat?

  3. It’s still like that on my Facebook page, sage. No worries 🙂

  4. FACT: No Marijuana User Has Ever Been Successful” (above a collage of famous pot smokers’ photos),

    Montel Williams?

    1. What about every comedian ever?

    2. I’m assuming Michael Phelps.

    3. Montel Williams was in three episodes of JAG. That’s pretty much the textbook definition of successful. Jerk.

      1. “What does ‘M.J.’ stand for….’Most Jerk’?”

    4. Here’s who they outright name:

      Do you think Barack Obama would be President today if he ever smoked marijuana? What about George W. Bush or Bill Clinton?

      Could Michael Phelps have won a record number of gold medals if he ever hit a bong?

      Would John Stewart, Woody Harrelson, or Bill Murray be funny if they were marijuana smokers?

      Would anyone dare listen to the music of Willie Nelson, Snoop Dogg, Bob Dylan or the Beatles if they ever smoked marijuana?

      The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind: NO.

      1. Does Morgan Freeman look like a black Albert Einstein in that picture?

        1. Alas, no.

  5. One of the “informative” items listed on the site is “FACT: A Healthy Body is the Devil’s Workshop”

  6. My favorite is the link on the side of the page:
    “Join the hysteria!”

  7. Would it be to imprudent and impolite of me to draw a parallel between these freak, sociopath anti-marijuana creeps and the muslim whatamaroons lately featured in the lewinsky press?

    1. That depends. Do you think Muhammad was a pothead?

      1. If would have had access, he certainly would have been. That is obvious. Not that all pedophiliac, goat-humping, ass-licking sand monkeys like mohammad smoked the mj.

      2. Ummm….hello….

  8. OT: A bunch of you assholes forgot to submit your picks in the pick-em. You still can, but you’ll miss the (fudge)Packers vs the Bearz.

    BTW, this is one of the worst games I’ve ever seen. Pathetic.

    1. NFL Network is going to run out of ads to show.

    2. I couldn’t find a bar in this damn town that had NFL network.

      I bet the Thursday night games are gonna be an issue for people getting in time. More points for us to pile on!

      1. Where are you, Paris?

        Even the convents in my town have the NFL Network.

        1. Ithaca, NY.

    3. Oh, come on. Surely you liked the fake FG.

      1. I should have waited another 2 minutes to write that post and I would have amended it with “Other than that fake field goal…”

        1. I’m so sad I missed that. Every single kicking play I sit there going “Fake it. Come oooooon. Fake it!”

  9. Yes on Question 3. No to Elizabeth Warren.

  10. Border Patrol Agents slapped down for violating fourth amendment … been seeing some good case law recently reigning in some 4th amendment excesses, especially by the feds!

    AREA NEAR HOME’S SIDE ENTRY DOOR LOCATED ON LEFT WALL OF CARPORT HELD PROTECTED PRIVATE AREA UNDER FOURTH AMENDMENT; COURT RULES THAT FEDERAL BORDER PATROL AGENT UNLAWFULLY WENT INTO THAT PRIVATE AREA RATHER THAN GOING TO FRONT DOOR TO CONTACT RESIDENT ? In U.S. v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir., May 31, 2012), a 3-judge Ninth Circuit panel rules that federal border patrol agents violated a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights when, without a warrant, consent, or exigent or emergency circumstances, they went into his carport, seized two people in the carport, and ordered persons inside the house to come out.

    1. Wow, and I thought the border patrol was getting lots of wiggle room because of national security and such. I guess not every judge is buying it.

      1. yea. it’s heartening and a good case. nice proper balance struck between authoritah and privac… ah!

        i try to follow most of the 9th circuit stuff as well as my state courts and i’m seeing a pretty fair mix. some cases i am seeing expansion of power, and in other cases, retraction of power – mostly 4th amendment stuff

        1. It would have really been heartening if they had charged the fucks with kidnapping, ADW, false arrest, brandishing and trespassing.

          This does not punish those who committed a crime. I fail to see how it curtails anything without actually, you know, holding the perps accountable for their actions.

          I guess this will call for some more training, and once trained they might be able to be held accountable. But with them working for the DOJ and the DOJ being tasked with prosecuting them, I won;t hold my breath.

        2. nice proper balance struck between authoritah and privac… ah!

          Why in the hell should there ever be a “balance” struck between authority and privacy on a person’s private property? Actually, I’m wrong. There is a balance: I enjoy privacy on this side of my property line. You can exercise authority on the other side of it, and are free to exercise your authority on my side of it once you obtain a warrant.

          Fuck off, slaver.

  11. [url=]babyliss flat irons[/url]
    babyliss flat irons

  12. Zombie Nation? STILL?

  13. Massachusetts already has easily the best marijuana laws in the northeast, with the decrim voter initiative a few years back. Although the law calls for a $100 fine for possession of a small amount, there’s no stipulation of what happens to you if you fail to pay a fine, and from a study I saw, 9/10 people don’t.

    AFAIK it’s still the case, although some smaller locales have passed ordinances mandating the fine.

    1. i started out in Mass, both as a cop and a firefighter. my police chief (very small town) told me “i don’t care what people are smoking in the privacy of their own homes”. pretty cool.

      that initiative sounds pretty good

      it’s amazing how most of the best law isn’t passed by “professionals” iow our legislature, but by average joes via initiative, whether it’s anti-racial preferences or mj decrim or whatnot

      Mass has some cool old skool laws , too e.g. chapter 272 sect. 36 lol

      Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.

      1. You’re making that shit up. Every first year law student knows that Section 36 is applies not to God, but to the “man from Nantucket”.

        1. i’m just a lowly flatfoot, man. rhyming is hard

  14. If the same government that tells me man made global warming is real tells me that marijuana is bad, I believe them.

  15. Is the vaporizer ad I’m getting in the lower right corner part of the parody? “PORTABILITY ON THE GO”. Ha!

  16. This is awesome… online activism at it’s best!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.