I called the three men - John Mahoney, Paul Franco and Ron Madnick - vying to be the people's choice for state representative in the 13th Worcester District, to ask if it would be cool for members of their constituency to smoke a little marijuana, blow a blunt, puff some ganja now and then for their individual health.

I raised the question because Central Massachusetts residents in the 13th, the 18th and the 1st Hampden districts will this year have the chance to vote on a ballot question asking whether their state representative should be instructed to vote in favor of "legislation that would allow patients, with their doctor's written recommendation, to posses, grow and purchase marijuana for medical use?"



Additionally, voters in the 3rd Middlesex District will face a ballot question asking whether their state representative should be instructed to vote in favor of legislation allowing the state to regulate the taxation, cultivation and sale of marijuana to adults.



In total, there are 18 state representative districts, comprising 73 cities and towns, in which residents will be voting on these nonbinding medical marijuana use and marijuana legalization ballot questions.



Although nonbinding, the ballot questions will nevertheless give us a pretty good gauge of the appetite in Central Massachusetts and around the state for additional marijuana reform.



Since 2000, according to the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts, "voters in over 140 towns representing more than one-third of the commonwealth have voted decisively in favor of marijuana reform," through these nonbinding ballot initiatives. And of course, in 2008, Massachusetts voters, by a 65 percent margin, approved a very binding and historic state decriminalization referendum.



In an article published earlier this year, John Leonard, clerk of DPFMA, noted that the districts in which the ballot questions are placed are not chosen by random.



"We look at the real enemies of marijuana reform and target those districts," he said. "We can go into a district and win by 60 percent or 70 percent, and if it doesn't change the legislator's mind, it will at least silence him. It has the effects of quieting down a lot of opposition."



Time will tell, but as of now, Mr. Mahoney said he would favor patients under a doctor's care being prescribed marijuana for certain therapies. He would, however, be against allowing individuals to grow their personal stash.



"I am worried about overlapping jurisdiction and other complications that would come about," he said. "If someone steals (an individual's) plants, are they going to call the police?"



Mr. Franco said he couldn't support the ballot question at this time, and would want to hear from the district attorney's office and other law enforcement officials, before addressing the issue.



Mr. Madnick, who helped put the medicinal marijuana measure on the ballot in the 13th district this year and in the 14th district last year, didn't have those concerns.



He noted that two retired Boston police officers were the front men for Question 2, the ballot in 2008 that led to the decriminalization of small amounts of marijuana in the state, and that in California, a former San Jose police chief is one of the front men for that state's effort to legalize, tax and regulate marijuana



"I have knocked on hundreds of doors this campaign season and have spoken to a lot of doctors and nurses and every single one has told me the same thing, (marijuana) it has medicinal value. It can be used for nausea and other side effects. It has been placed on the ballot in Massachusetts for years and has passed every single time.



"The doctors say it is good, and the people want it. That is clear. What is wrong with the politicians?"



The answer, Ron, is that they smoke, but don't inhale.



Contact Clive McFarlane via e-mail at cmcfarlane@telegram.com