In the previous E-mail, I mentioned the past 2008 election and our huge decriminalization win. I would be remiss to not also add our history of Public Policy Questions from 2000-2006.
We ran 45 districts over that time in urban, suburban, and rural districts. Conservative and liberal. Democratic and Republican districts. We never lost one election - ever!
Total voting yes - 546,261; total voting no - 300,903; Proportion voting yes across the state as a whole - 64.5%.
Policy Questions
Shall the (Representative or Senator) from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation...
(1)... that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor's written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use?
(2)... making possession of marijuana a civil violation, like a traffic ticket instead of a criminal offense, and requiring police to hold a person under 18 cited for possession until the person is released to a parent or legal guardian or brought before a judge?
(3)... that would make possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil violation, subject to a maximum fine of $100 and not subject to any criminal penalties?
(4)... that would allow the state to regulate the taxation, manufacture and sale of marijuana to adults 21 and older provided that outlets are state licensed, do not sell alcohol, and are not within 500 yards of a school?
(5)... that would allow patients with certain diseases, who have a written doctor's recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal use, until such time as the federal government puts into place an effective distribution system for these patients?
(6)... that would make possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil violation, subject to a maximum fine of $100 and not subject to any criminal penalties?
(7)... that would allow licensed farmers in Massachusetts to grow cannabis hemp (a crop containing 1% or less THC, the active ingredient in marijuana) for legitimate agricultural and industrial purposes?
(8)... that would make the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil violation, subject to a fine of no more than $100.00. The effect of this proposed legislation would be to amend existing law by repealing all criminal penalties for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana.
Results by Cities and Towns It is hard for anyone not a political junkie to know what these results mean in terms of cities and towns. Districts are often composed of bits and pieces of several municipalities and redistricting changes the definition of each District from time to time. There follows a list of cities and towns in which reform has had a electoral presence. Each municipality is followed by a letter signifying whether the question appeared in a Senatorial or Representative District. If the letter is followed by a number that number represents the number of Districts (S or R) in that town in which citizens voted on Public Policy Questions. If the letter has no number that means the entire municipality voted for reform. THIS LIST IS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED AFTER 2006 ELECTION BECAUSE QUESTION 2 won in all towns and cities except Clarksburg and Lawrence.
Abington (R), Amesbury (R), Andover (R1), Arlington (R1), Ashburnham (R), Ashby (R), Athol (R), Avon (R), Barre (R), Bellingham (S), Belmont (R1), Beverly (S), Blackstone (S), Boston (R9), Boxford (R2), Boylston (R), Brookfield (R), Brookline (R3), Cambridge(R1), Canton (R), Charleton (R), Chatham (R), Clinton (R), Cohasset (R), Danvers (S), Douglas (S), Dudley (S), Duxbury (R2), East Bridgwater (R), East Brookfield (R), Eastham (R), Erving (R), Framingham (R1), Franklin (R), Gardner (R), Georgetown (R2), Gill (R), Groveland (R), Halifax (R1), Hamilton (R), Hanover (R), Hardwick (R), Harwich (R), Hatfield (R), Haverhill (R2), Hingham (R), Hopedale (S), Hull (R), Ipswich(R), Kingston (R), Lancaster (R1), Lynn (S), Manchester-by-the-Sea (R), Marblehead (S), Medford (S), Medway (R1), Melrose (S1), Mendon (S), Methuen (R1), Middleborough (R2), Middleton (R1), Milford (S), Milton (R9), Milville (S), Montgomery (R), Nahant (S), New Braintree (R), Newburyport (R), North Andover (R1), North Brookfield (R), Northborough (R), Northhampton (R), Northridge (S), Norwell (R), Orange (R), Orleans (R), Oxford (R1,S), Peabody (S), Petersham (R), Phillipston (R), Pittsfield (R1), Plymouth (R), Plympton (R), Provincetown (R), Quincy (R2), Randolph (R6), Rockland (R), Royalston (R), Salem (S), Salisbury (R), Saugus (S1), Scituate (R1), Somerville (S1), Southbridge (R,S), Southhampton (R), Spencer (R2), Sterling (R1), Stoughton (R1), Sutton (S), Swampscott (S), Templeton (R), Topsfield (S), Truro (R), Uxbridge (S), Ware (R), Warwick (R), Webster (S), Wellfleet (R), Wenham (R), West Boylston (R), West Brookfield (R), Westhampton (R), Whitman (R), Winchendon (R), Woburn (S1), Worcester (R1).
We ran 45 districts over that time in urban, suburban, and rural districts. Conservative and liberal. Democratic and Republican districts. We never lost one election - ever!
Representative Districts | ||||||
| District | Yes | No | Y/N%* | # | YR | Current Incumbent 2009-2010 |
| Fourth Barnstable | 14,315 | 8,804 | 62% | (5) | 2000 | Sarah K. Peake (D) |
| Third Berkshire | 10,909 | 4,173 | 72% | (1) | 2004 | Christopher Speranzo (D) |
| First Essex | 9,223 | 5,811 | 61% | (2) | 2002 | Michael A. Costello (D) |
| Second Essex | 9,658 | 6,762 | 60% | (2) | 2002 | Harriett L. Stanley (D) |
| Fourth Essex | 11,481 | 7,023 | 62% | (2) | 2000 | Bradford Hill (R) |
| Eighteenth Essex | 8,397 | 5,681 | 60% | (2) | 2002 | Barbara A. L’Italien (D) |
| Second Franklin | 5,965 | 5,471 | 52% | (7) | 2002 | Christopher J. Donelan (D) |
| First Hampshire | 11,494 | 8,393 | 58% | (4) | 2004 | Peter V. Kocot (D) |
| First Middlesex | 15,677 | 5,423 | 74% | (1) | 2008 | Robert S. Hargraves (R) |
| Sixth Middlesex | 9,883 | 4,781 | 67% | (3) | 2000 | Pam Richardson (D) |
| Twenty-First Middlesex | 14,154 | 5,915 | 71% | 2008 | Charles A. Murphy (D), | |
| Twenty-Fourth Middlesex | 14,551 | 4,705 | 76% | (1) | 2004 | William N. Brownsberger (D) |
| First Norfolk | 7,425 | 5,173 | 59% | (6) | 2002 | Bruce J. Ayers (D) |
| Second Norfolk | 6,817 | 4,559 | 60% | (6) | 2002 | A. Stephen Tobin (D) |
| Sixth Norfolk | 10,791 | 4,506 | 71% | (1) | 2004 | William C. Galvin (D) |
| Seventh Norfolk | 8,386 | 4,820 | 64% | (1) | 2006 | Walter F. Timilty (D) |
| Tenth Norfolk | 11,568 | 7,625 | 60% | (2) | 2004 | James E. Vallee (D) |
| Twelfth Norfolk | 8,538 | 5,388 | 61% | (6) | 2002 | John H. Rogers (D) |
| Thirteenth Norfolk | 16,372 | 6,125 | 73% | (1) | 2008 | Lida E. Harkins (D) |
| First Plymouth | 9,320 | 5,863 | 61% | (3) | 2006 | Viriato M. deMacedo(D) |
| Third Plymouth | 15,215 | 6,956 | 69% | (3) | 2004 | Garrett J. Bradley (D) |
| Fifth Plymouth | 9,467 | 6,339 | 60% | (3) | 2002 | Robert J. Nyman (D) |
| Sixth Plymouth | 15,267 | 6,155 | 71% | (1) | 2008 | Daniel K. Webster (R) |
| Seventh Plymouth | 13,784 | 5,902 | 70% | (1) | 2004 | Allen J. McCarthy (D) |
| Twelfth Plymouth | 8,862 | 5,919 | 60% | (3) | 2006 | Thomas J. Calter (D) |
| Second Suffolk | 4,227 | 2,914 | 59% | (3) | 2002 | Eugene L. O'Flaherty (D) |
| Fourth Suffolk | 4,923 | 3,907 | 56% | (3) | 2002 | Brian P. Wallace (D) |
| Tenth Suffolk | 7,734 | 5,164 | 59% | (3) | 2002 | Michael F. Rush (D) |
| Eleventh Suffolk | 5,616 | 2,436 | 70% | (3) | 2002 | Elizabeth A. Malia (D) |
| Thirteenth Suffolk | 3,672 | 2,627 | 57% | (3) | 2002 | Martin J. Walsh (D) |
| Fourteenth Suffolk | 3,944 | 3,596 | 52% | (3) | 2002 | Angelo M. Scaccia (D) |
| Fifteenth Suffolk | 6,429 | 2,423 | 74% | (3) | 2002 | Jeffrey Sanchez (D) |
| Seventeenth Suffolk | 3,846 | 1,749 | 69% | (3) | 2002 | Kevin G. Honan (D) |
| Eighteenth Suffolk | 4,202 | 2,109 | 67% | (3) | 2002 | Michael Moran (D) |
| Second Worcester | 6,647 | 4,783 | 59% | (3) | 2002 | Robert L. Rice, Jr. (D) |
| Fifth Worcester | 7,409 | 5,230 | 59% | (3) | 2002 | Anne M. Gobi (D) |
| Sixth Worcester | 10,005 | 5,829 | 63% | (3) | 2004 | Geraldo Alicea (D) |
| Twelfth Worcester | 12,618 | 6,008 | 68% | (3) | 2004 | Harold P. Naughton, Jr. (D) |
| Fourteenth Worcester** | 6,717 | 4,197 | 61% | (5) | 2002 | James J. O"Day (D) |
| Fourteenth Worcester** | 6,298 | 4,420 | 59% | (3) | 2002 | James J. O"Day (D) |
| *Calculated as a proportion of all persons actually voting on the questions, i.e., not counting blanks. | ||||||
| **In 2002 The Fourteenth Worcester voted on two questions. | ||||||
Senate Districts | ||||||
| Second Essex | 45,956 | 26,612 | 63% | (2) | 2004 | Frederick E. Berry (D) |
| Third Essex & Middlesex | 36,505 | 19,752 | 65% | (2) | 2004 | Thomas M. McGee (D) |
| Second Middlesex | 33,403 | 17,185 | 66% | (8) | 2000 | Patricia D. Jehlen (D) |
| Third Middlesex | 38,187 | 17,674 | 68% | (8) | 2006 | Susan C. Fargo (D) |
| Worcester & Norfolk | 48,739 | 22,611 | 68% | (1) | 2004 | Richard T. Moore (D) |
Total voting yes - 546,261; total voting no - 300,903; Proportion voting yes across the state as a whole - 64.5%.
Policy Questions
Shall the (Representative or Senator) from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation...
(1)... that would allow seriously ill patients, with their doctor's written recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal medical use?
(2)... making possession of marijuana a civil violation, like a traffic ticket instead of a criminal offense, and requiring police to hold a person under 18 cited for possession until the person is released to a parent or legal guardian or brought before a judge?
(3)... that would make possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil violation, subject to a maximum fine of $100 and not subject to any criminal penalties?
(4)... that would allow the state to regulate the taxation, manufacture and sale of marijuana to adults 21 and older provided that outlets are state licensed, do not sell alcohol, and are not within 500 yards of a school?
(5)... that would allow patients with certain diseases, who have a written doctor's recommendation, to possess and grow small amounts of marijuana for their personal use, until such time as the federal government puts into place an effective distribution system for these patients?
(6)... that would make possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil violation, subject to a maximum fine of $100 and not subject to any criminal penalties?
(7)... that would allow licensed farmers in Massachusetts to grow cannabis hemp (a crop containing 1% or less THC, the active ingredient in marijuana) for legitimate agricultural and industrial purposes?
(8)... that would make the possession of less than one ounce of marijuana a civil violation, subject to a fine of no more than $100.00. The effect of this proposed legislation would be to amend existing law by repealing all criminal penalties for possession of less than one ounce of marijuana.
Results by Cities and Towns It is hard for anyone not a political junkie to know what these results mean in terms of cities and towns. Districts are often composed of bits and pieces of several municipalities and redistricting changes the definition of each District from time to time. There follows a list of cities and towns in which reform has had a electoral presence. Each municipality is followed by a letter signifying whether the question appeared in a Senatorial or Representative District. If the letter is followed by a number that number represents the number of Districts (S or R) in that town in which citizens voted on Public Policy Questions. If the letter has no number that means the entire municipality voted for reform. THIS LIST IS NO LONGER BEING UPDATED AFTER 2006 ELECTION BECAUSE QUESTION 2 won in all towns and cities except Clarksburg and Lawrence.
Abington (R), Amesbury (R), Andover (R1), Arlington (R1), Ashburnham (R), Ashby (R), Athol (R), Avon (R), Barre (R), Bellingham (S), Belmont (R1), Beverly (S), Blackstone (S), Boston (R9), Boxford (R2), Boylston (R), Brookfield (R), Brookline (R3), Cambridge(R1), Canton (R), Charleton (R), Chatham (R), Clinton (R), Cohasset (R), Danvers (S), Douglas (S), Dudley (S), Duxbury (R2), East Bridgwater (R), East Brookfield (R), Eastham (R), Erving (R), Framingham (R1), Franklin (R), Gardner (R), Georgetown (R2), Gill (R), Groveland (R), Halifax (R1), Hamilton (R), Hanover (R), Hardwick (R), Harwich (R), Hatfield (R), Haverhill (R2), Hingham (R), Hopedale (S), Hull (R), Ipswich(R), Kingston (R), Lancaster (R1), Lynn (S), Manchester-by-the-Sea (R), Marblehead (S), Medford (S), Medway (R1), Melrose (S1), Mendon (S), Methuen (R1), Middleborough (R2), Middleton (R1), Milford (S), Milton (R9), Milville (S), Montgomery (R), Nahant (S), New Braintree (R), Newburyport (R), North Andover (R1), North Brookfield (R), Northborough (R), Northhampton (R), Northridge (S), Norwell (R), Orange (R), Orleans (R), Oxford (R1,S), Peabody (S), Petersham (R), Phillipston (R), Pittsfield (R1), Plymouth (R), Plympton (R), Provincetown (R), Quincy (R2), Randolph (R6), Rockland (R), Royalston (R), Salem (S), Salisbury (R), Saugus (S1), Scituate (R1), Somerville (S1), Southbridge (R,S), Southhampton (R), Spencer (R2), Sterling (R1), Stoughton (R1), Sutton (S), Swampscott (S), Templeton (R), Topsfield (S), Truro (R), Uxbridge (S), Ware (R), Warwick (R), Webster (S), Wellfleet (R), Wenham (R), West Boylston (R), West Brookfield (R), Westhampton (R), Whitman (R), Winchendon (R), Woburn (S1), Worcester (R1).
After finalizing processed application, the loans takes hardly twenty-four hours a day hours to make sent to applicants account.
ReplyDeleteYou just need a verifiable income source and a banking accounts and a few personal references.
Here is my website :: pikavippi rahat heti tilille
Their website owners right from abroad have trusted the seo jobs to India based mostly companies.
ReplyDeleteNot including news releases together with your SEO strategy, you're missing a major component in war for position inside the SERPs.
My weblog ... affordable seo services articles