Please allow me to address some common arguments from opponents of Question 2.  None of these are “straw” arguments that I made up just to tear them down, they come from the statement of the President of the MA district attorneys association here [MA sec of state's webpage].

• Question 2 is an endorsement of substance abuse
  Substance “abuse” is a level of use that compromises the user’s physical and mental health, or the welfare of others.  While it is true that any use has some incremental health effect, to conclude that all marijuana use is abuse would require you to conclude that having a glass of wine with dinner or a cup of coffee with breakfast is “abuse” of alcohol or caffeine, respectively.
• MA law already requires judges to seal the records of first-time offenders
  A sealed record is not the same as a non-record.  Records are sealed, rather than destroyed, because they are still accessible to DAs, probation officers, judges, and some others in the future.  For example, when applying to law school or applying to sit for the bar, one is often required to disclose sealed convictions.  Under existing law, a bar applicant who has a first-offense possession conviction would have to disclose that fact to the Bar Examiners.  Under Question 2, the violation would never be entered in the criminal record database, and would not be a “conviction” that the applicant would have to disclose.

  Furthermore, some casual users get caught more than once.  Even under the current law, a person who is caught with a joint for a second time will have a wide-open criminal record.

• “Decriminalization emboldens and enables drug dealers”

  Question 2 would maintain the current criminal penalties for distribution or possession with intent to distribute.  No free passes for dealers here.

• 40% of criminal arrestees test positive for marijuana

  Without inquiring into the accuracy of that figure, I bet a similar number of non-arrestees would test positive too.  And let’s not forget, many of those people were arrested for possession and use of marijuana.  In order to have a truly useful and persuasive number, you would have to show that marijuana users are actually more likely to commit non-marijuana crimes than non-marijuana users.  That’s an inference the DAs would like you to make from the 40% number, but it’s wholly unscientific.

  Let me put it another way: how many criminal arrestees test positive for oxygen?  100%!  Let’s ban oxygen!

• Marijuana use “is a primary factor in juvenile hospital admissions”

  What on earth does that even mean?  What’s a primary factor?  This isn’t data, it’s propaganda.

Here’s what happened tonight:

I’m coming home from an aborted bike ride, my rear dérailleur having failed about a mile out of town.  The bike is still rideable, but not terribly shiftable.  At the top of a hill, I have a left turn back onto my street, and a stop sign.  Oncoming traffic also has a stop, cross-traffic has right of way.  I am slowly creeping towards the intersection, backpedaling and trying to keep balance without putting a food down and losing momentum.  I don’t particularly want to put a foot down because my feet are clipped into my pedals, and it’s a pain to unclip and recliip when you don’t have to.  Also, I would lose some of that precious momentum if I came to a full and complete stop.  There’s only one car coming from the right, and at the rate he’s going, I can crawl up to the intersection and then sneak in behind him without having to make a full stop.

As the car approaches the intersection, the driver slows down, to a creep, much like what I am doing.  Almost as if waiting to make a left turn, except that 1) he doesn’t have his blinker on, and 2) if he wants to turn left, he  can do it–hee’s got no oncoming traffic.  As he comes to a slow rolling stop in the MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION, he makes eye contact with me, as if to say “why aren’t you going anywhere, moron?”  Maybe because I have a stop sign and you don’t?  Had he waved me across as he approached the intersection, I could have gotten in in front of him.  Had he proceeded at a normal rate, I could have gotten in behind him.  What actually happened due to his utter failure to either follow the rules or communicate an acceptable deviation, was that I nearly fell over sideways, and did perform an utterly graceless dismount and walk my bike the remaining block home.

This just baffles me. Yielding when you don’t have to I understand, IF YOU SOMEHOW COMMUNICATE.  It can be nice.  Stopping in the middle of the intersection, expecting everybody to know what you’re thinking, and making me look like a moron who doesn’t know how to ride his bike is ärgerlich.