Massachusetts Marijuana Legalization, Question 4 (2016)

Massachusetts Question 4
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Marijuana
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
November 8
Question 1 d
Question 2 d
Question 3 a
Question 4 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The Massachusetts Marijuana Legalization Initiative, also known as Question 4 was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Massachusetts as an indirect initiated state statute. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this proposal to legalize marijuana but regulate it in ways similar to alcoholic beverages.

A "no" vote opposed this proposal to legalize recreational marijuana, keeping only medical marijuana legal.

Voters in Arizona, California, Maine, and Nevada also decided marijuana legalization measures.

This election was one of Ballotpedia's top 10 state-level races in 2016. Click here to read the full list.

Aftermath

Date of marijuana sales

On December 28, 2016, the Massachusetts State Legislature voted to delay the date that marijuana sales would begin by six months. Question 4 set the date for licensing cannabis shops to begin on January 1, 2018. However, legislators voted to move the date to July 1, 2018. Senate President Stanley Rosenberg (D) said, "The legislature has a responsibility to implement the will of the voters while also protecting public health and public safety. This short delay will allow the necessary time for the Legislature to work with stakeholders on improving the new law." On December 30, 2016, Gov. Charlie Baker (R) signed the change into law.

H. 3818

On July 19, 2017, the state House of Representatives and state Senate passed a bill, H. 3818, designed to rewrite parts of Question 4. The bill was designed to reconcile differences between legislators in the House and Senate. On July 28, 2017, Gov. Charlie Baker (R) signed the legislation.

H. 3818 increased the excise tax on marijuana sales from 3.75 percent to 10.75 percent. Counting the state's 6.25 percent sales tax in 2017, the bill made the total state tax on marijuana sales 17 percent. The bill also increased the percentage that municipalities are allowed to tax marijuana sales at from 2 percent to 3 percent.

The bill included two different local control options—one for the 260 municipalities where a majority of voters approved Question 4 and one for the 91 municipalities where a majority of voters rejected Question 4. For the municipalities that approved the measure, a referendum would be required to ban marijuana stores. For the municipalities that rejected the measure, the town board or city council would be permitted to ban marijuana stores.

H. 3818 also increased the number of members on the Cannabis Control Commission from three to five. Under Question 4, the state treasurer would have appointed the members. H. 3818 was designed to give the governor, attorney general, and state treasurer each one appointee. The other two would be appointed by a majority vote of the governor, attorney general, and state treasurer.

Matthew Schweich, director of state campaigns for the Marijuana Policy Project, responded to the bill, saying, "The law passed by voters was well-crafted and required no alteration. However, we respect the need for compromise, and while we don’t approve of every provision of this bill, we are satisfied that the outcome will serve the interests of Massachusetts residents and allow the Commonwealth to displace the unregulated marijuana market with a system of taxation and regulation."

Legislative alteration context

See also: Legislative alterations of ballot initiatives and Legislative alteration rules

From 2010 through 2018, 97 initiated state statutes and two initiated ordinances in D.C. were approved by voters. Of these 99 total initiatives from 2010 through 2018, 28 were repealed or amended as of April 2019. The states with the most total cases of legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010 were Maine—with four initiatives altered out of eight approved—and Colorado and Oregon—each with three initiatives altered out of five approved. Among initiatives approved from 2010 through 2018, marijuana was the topic that drew the most legislative alterations, with eight initiatives. Other topics addressed by legislatively altered initiatives included elections and campaigns, term limits, education, business regulation, law enforcement, minimum wage, taxes, and gambling.

The rate of legislative alteration was 13 percentage points higher for initiatives approved in 2016 and 2018 than initiatives approved from 2010 through 2015.

Legislative alteration rates
Year span	# approved	# altered	Alteration rate
2010 - 2023	152	30	19.74%
2016 - 2018	56	20	35.71%
2010 - 2015	43	9	20.9%

Click here for information about all legislative alterations of initiatives approved since 2010.

Election results

Question 4
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		1,769,328	53.66%
No		1,528,219	46.34%

Election results from Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth

Initiative design

Question 4 legalized and created a commission to regulate marijuana in Massachusetts. Previously, marijuana was only permitted for medicinal purposes. Under the new law, individuals at least 21 years old would be able to use it, grow it, and possess it. The measure stipulated that individuals could possess under 10 ounces of marijuana inside their homes and under one ounce in public, also allowing them to grow up to six marijuana plants in their homes.

Under the measure, retail marijuana became subject to the state sales tax with an additional 3.75 percent excise tax. Local municipalities were also given the option of adding another 2 percent tax. The measure required that revenue from excise taxes, license application fees, and fines for minor violations of this law be placed in a Marijuana Regulation Fund, helping to pay for administrative costs of the new law.

The measure created a regulatory structure called the Cannabis Control Commission intended to oversee marijuana legalization and issue licenses to firms that seek to sell marijuana products.

Marijuana legalization took effect on December 15, 2016.

The corresponding law for Question 4, the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act, took effect on December 15, 2016. The following sections break down various aspects of the law and its effects.

Agencies

The law created two groups: the Cannabis Control Commission and the Cannabis Advisory Board, prescribing that the commission consist of one commissioner, two associate commissioners, and a treasurer, and the board consist of 15 members, each with a specific area of marijuana expertise. The commission was designed to have sole supervision and regulatory authority over marijuana establishments, and the board was designed to study marijuana regulation and provide guidance to the commission based on its studies.

Growing and possession

The law legalized the following for recreational marijuana cultivation and possession:

• Use and possession of up to one ounce of marijuana in public by people 21 years and older.
• Use and possession of up to 10 ounces of marijuana in the home by people 21 years and older.
• A person 21 years of age or older giving up to one ounce of marijuana to another person 21 years of age or older for free and without public advertisement.
• A person 21 years of age or older growing up to 6 marijuana plants at home per person, and up to 12 marijuana plants per household.
• Landlords prohibiting tenants from being allowed to grow marijuana.

Taxes

The law implemented the following taxes for recreational marijuana:

• 3.75 percent of the total sales tax state excise tax on the sale of marijuana products done by retailers other than marijuana establishments.
• A local sales tax option for sale of marijuana done by a retailer operating within the locality. The tax could be no more than 2 percent of the total sales price received by the retailer.

Revenue generated by these taxes would be deposited in the Marijuana Regulation Fund.

Local control

The law allowed localities to submit initiative measures questioning the sale of marijuana on certain premises and adopt the following types of ordinances or by-laws:

• Ordinances governing the time, place, and manner of a marijuana establishment
• Ordinances limiting the number of marijuana establishments in a city or town. Certain ordinances in this category would require a vote by citizens of the city or town in order to be adopted.
• Ordinances restricting the licensed cultivation, processing, and manufacturing of marijuana that could be considered a "public nuisance"
• Ordinances addressing standards for public signs related to marijuana establishments
• Ordinances detailing consequences for violating marijuana related ordinances

What the law made illegal

The following actions were made illegal by the law:

• Growing marijuana in a place that is visible from a public area.
• Operating a vehicle while under the influence of marijuana.
• Selling or giving marijuana to people under 21 years of age.
• Manufacturing marijuana without the proper licensing and/or under improper conditions.
• Preventing people or government agencies from regulating marijuana consumption, manufacturing, and possession.
• Selling marijuana on public school grounds and/or on the grounds of a correctional facility.
• Barring any person from needed medical treatment or procedure due to use of marijuana.

What the law did not change

The following areas were not changed by the law:

• Employers were not required to permit or accommodate marijuana use in the workplace.
• The medical marijuana program in Massachusetts was unaffected.
• Marijuana was not exempted from following laws relating to adulteration and misbranding of food and drugs.

Timeline

Though the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act became effective on December 15, 2016, certain elements of the law will be implemented at a later date. For instance, the law required any seller of recreational marijuana to be a licensed retailer, but the Cannabis Control Commission will not begin accepting licensing applications until October 2017. Consequently, it will not be possible for recreational marijuana to be sold legally for at least a year.

Legislators have indicated that certain aspects of the Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act timeline might be changed to slow down the implementation process, and discussed the possibility of adopting a later date for the law to take effect. Legislators voted to delay licensing for cannabis shops for six months, moving the date to July 1, 2018.

The following scroll box details the original timeline provided by the law.

December 15, 2016: The Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act took effect. February 1, 2017: The Massachusetts Governor will make appointments for the cannabis advisory board March 1, 2017 (now September 1, 2017): The state treasurer will make appointments for the cannabis control commission September 15, 2017: The Cannabis Control Commission will adopt procedures for enforcing laws pertaining to licensing and regulating marijuana establishments. October 1, 2017: The commission will begin accepting applications for marijuana testing facility licenses and for experienced marijuana establishment operator licenses. Marijuana establishment operators would apply for one marijuana cultivator license, one marijuana product manufacturer license, and one marijuana retailer license. January 1, 2018 (now July 1, 2018): Establishments will be allowed to begin offering recreational marijuana. If fewer than 75 registrations for operating medical marijuana treatment centers are issued on October 1, 2017, the commission will accept applications from all applicants for marijuana retailer, marijuana product manufacturer, and marijuana cultivator licenses. No more than 75 licenses will be issued for each license type. If any applicants are not issued a license even though they meet the requirements, the commission would first issue licenses to qualified applicants who sent in registration applications for operating medical marijuana treatment centers to the department of public health by October 1, 2015. Then the commission would issue licenses by lottery. October 1, 2018: The ultimate deadline for the commission to accept applications from all applicants for marijuana retailer licenses or for marijuana product manufacturer licenses. October 1, 2019: The date set for the commission to begin accepting applications from all applicants for marijuana cultivator licenses.

Looking for more information about marijuana on the ballot in 2016? Explore other Ballotpedia articles on the subject below. Presidential candidates on marijuana • Marijuana laws in the U.S. Drug Policy Alliance • Marijuana Policy Project • NORML • SAM Action Recreational marijuana on the ballot Arizona Prop. 205 • California Prop. 64 • Maine Question 1 • Massachusetts Question 4 • Nevada Question 2 Medical marijuana on the ballot Arkansas Issue 6 • Florida Amendment 2 • Montana I-182 • North Dakota Measure 5

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question was on the ballot as follows:

“

Question 4. Law proposed by initiative petition. Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016?

”

Ballot summary

The summary was as follows:

“ The proposed law would permit the possession, use, distribution, and cultivation of marijuana in limited amounts by persons age 21 and older and would remove criminal penalties for such activities. It would provide for the regulation of commerce in marijuana, marijuana accessories, and marijuana products and for the taxation of proceeds from sales of these items. The proposed law would authorize persons at least 21 years old to possess up to one ounce of marijuana outside of their residences; possess up to ten ounces of marijuana inside their residences; grow up to six marijuana plants in their residences; give one ounce or less of marijuana to a person at least 21 years old without payment; possess, produce or transfer hemp; or make or transfer items related to marijuana use, storage, cultivation, or processing. The measure would create a Cannabis Control Commission of three members appointed by the state Treasurer which would generally administer the law governing marijuana use and distribution, promulgate regulations, and be responsible for the licensing of marijuana commercial establishments. The proposed law would also create a Cannabis Advisory Board of fifteen members appointed by the Governor. The Cannabis Control Commission would adopt regulations governing licensing qualifications; security; record keeping; health and safety standards; packaging and labeling; testing; advertising and displays; required inspections; and such other matters as the Commission considers appropriate. The records of the Commission would be public records. The proposed law would authorize cities and towns to adopt reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of operating marijuana businesses and to limit the number of marijuana establishments in their communities. A city or town could hold a local vote to determine whether to permit the selling of marijuana and marijuana products for consumption on the premises at commercial establishments. The proceeds of retail sales of marijuana and marijuana products would be subject to the state sales tax and an additional excise tax of 3.75%. A city or town could impose a separate tax of up to 2%. Revenue received from the additional state excise tax or from license application fees and civil penalties for violations of this law would be deposited in a Marijuana Regulation Fund and would be used subject to appropriation for administration of the proposed law. Marijuana-related activities authorized under this proposed law could not be a basis for adverse orders in child welfare cases absent clear and convincing evidence that such activities had created an unreasonable danger to the safety of a minor child. The proposed law would not affect existing law regarding medical marijuana treatment centers or the operation of motor vehicles while under the influence. It would permit property owners to prohibit the use, sale, or production of marijuana on their premises (with an exception that landlords cannot prohibit consumption by tenants of marijuana by means other than by smoking); and would permit employers to prohibit the consumption of marijuana by employees in the workplace. State and local governments could continue to restrict uses in public buildings or at or near schools. Supplying marijuana to persons under age 21 would be unlawful. The proposed law would take effect on December 15, 2016. A Yes Vote would allow persons 21 and older to possess, use, and transfer marijuana and products containing marijuana concentrate (including edible products) and to cultivate marijuana, all in limited amounts, and would provide for the regulation and taxation of commercial sale of marijuana and marijuana products. A No Vote would make no changes in current laws relative to marijuana. ”

Statement of fiscal consequences

The statement of fiscal consequences was as follows:

“

The fiscal consequences of this proposed measure may affect both projected state and municipal revenues and expenditures, but these consequences are difficult to project due to the lack of reliable data. A March 2016 report from the Special Senate Committee on Marijuana concluded as follows: “Tax revenues and fees that would be generated from legal sales may fall short of even covering the full public and social costs (including regulation, enforcement, public health and safety, and substance abuse treatment).

”

Note: In September 2016, the Yes on 4 support campaign expressed that it felt the voter guide fiscal statement provided inaccurate information, arguing that data from other states could be used to form a less hypothetical statement and the cited committee report was not conducted "with an open-minded approach."

Full text

The full text of Question 4 can be found here (page 14).

Support

Yes on 4 led the support campaign for Question 4.

Supporters

Individuals

• Former Gov. Bill Weld
• Sen. Will Brownsberger
• Sen. Jamie Eldridge
• Sen. Pat Jehlen
• Rep. Marjorie Decker
• Rep. Mary Keefe
• Rep. Jay Livingstone
• Rep. Brian Mannal
• Rep. Mike Moran
• Rep. David Rogers
• Rep. Tom Sannicandro
• Michelle Wu, President, Boston City Council
• Tito Jackson, Boston City Council
• Alex Morse, Mayor of Holyoke
• John Amabile, former Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General
• Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University professor
• Rep. Seth Moulton
• Travel Expert and Philanthropist Rick Steves

Yes on 4 support campaign advertisement

Organizations

• ACLU of Massachusetts
• Criminal Justice Policy Coalition
• Marijuana Policy Project
• Families for Justice as Healing
• Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
• MassCann/NORML
• Moms for Regulation and Taxation
• Moms United to End the War on Drugs
• Students for Sensible Drug Policy
• Veterans Alternative Healing, Inc.
• Parents for Addiction Treatment & Healing
• National Lawyers Guild Massachusetts Chapter

Businesses

• Dr. Bronner’s

Arguments in favor

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Massachusetts argued on its website,

“

Regulating marijuana will replace a dangerous underground market with a system of licensed businesses that ask for ID and only sell marijuana to adults. Products will be tested, packaged, and labeled to ensure marijuana is not contaminated and consumers know what they're getting. Law enforcement officials will be able to spend more of their time and limited resources addressing serious crimes. Taxing marijuana sales will raise millions of dollars in new revenue each year. Legitimate marijuana businesses will create thousands of good jobs for Massachusetts residents and utilize the products and services of other Massachusetts businesses. Marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol to the consumer and to society - it is less addictive, less damaging to the body, and less likely to contribute to violent and reckless behavior. Adults who can legally consume alcohol should not be punished simply for using a less harmful substance.

”

Travel writer Rick Steves said,

“

I am not 'pro-pot.' ... I believe marijuana is a drug, it's not healthy, and it can be abused. ... I also believe it is wrong to criminalize it. I'm into 'pragmatic harm reduction' and I believe treating it as a health and education challenge rather than a criminal problem is smarter.

”

Will Luzier, campaign manager for Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, said in a statement,

“

Marijuana is less toxic than alcohol, it's less addictive, and it's far less likely to contribute to violent crimes and reckless behavior. It simply doesn't make sense to have laws that allow the use of alcohol, yet punish adults who prefer a less harmful substance.

”

James Borghesani, spokesman for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, said,

“

We're confident that Massachusetts voters will see through the regressive, 1930s-era arguments of these groups as they consider a new approach to a substance that is less toxic, less addictive and less dangerous than alcohol. By opposing our initiative these groups are implicitly endorsing a market that benefits gangs and cartels and guarantees unchecked access to young people.

”

Carol Rose, executive director of ACLU Massachusetts, said,

“

Legalization is the smartest and surest way to end targeted enforcement of marijuana laws in communities of color, regulate who has access to marijuana, and eliminate the costs of enforcement while generating revenue for the Commonwealth.

”

Anthony Ferranti, a columnist for the Daily Collegian, wrote the following:

“

If not in this election, cannabis will inevitably become legal. For thousands of years, cannabis has been used for both medicinal and recreational purposes all over the world. When compared to other drugs, cannabis clearly belongs in its own category. Now is the time to make it legal so we can peacefully study it, enjoy it, make it safer and overall more beneficial for ourselves and communities all over Massachusetts.

”

E. Tabone listed four arguments in support of Question 4 in a letter to the editor for the Milford Daily News. A summary of these arguments is below:

1. Many of the dangers the opposition claims would stem from Question 4 are unlikely to occur.
   
2. It is unlikely that marijuana legalization would negatively impact the opioid epidemic, and it could serve as a tool to stop the epidemic.
   
3. Colorado's experience with marijuana legalization showcases the benefits it could bring to Massachusetts.
   
4. Support for Question 4 is quite varied and far-reaching.

Official arguments

The official support argument listed in the voter guide was as follows:

“

Law enforcement veterans support this initiative because it replaces the current unregulated marijuana market, controlled by drug dealers, with a tightly regulated system controlled by state and local authorities. Passing this measure will allow local law enforcement to shift resources and focus to serious and violent crimes. The initiative includes strict regulations for business licensing, product testing, labeling and packaging, providing many more consumer safeguards than exist now. Marketing to minors is strictly prohibited, as is public use and driving under the influence. Local cities and towns can limit or ban marijuana businesses, and will govern operating hours, locations, and signage. Taxing marijuana will generate an estimated $100 million in annual revenue for state and local governments. Regulation and taxation is working in Colorado, Washington, Alaska and Oregon, generating millions of dollars for education, infrastructure and more. Massachusetts can improve on the regulatory standards already in place and working elsewhere.

”

Relevant links

The Yes on 4 committee purchased the URL "safecannabismassachusetts.com" and redirected users to the Yes on 4 campaign website. The link was not associated with Safe Cannabis Massachusetts, which was opposed to Question 4 and had a different URL: "safecannabisma.com." Additionally, Yes on 4 created the Facebook page "Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts," while the lead Question 4 opposition group, which shared the same name, had a closed Facebook group for the campaign.

Opposition

Vote No on 4 and Campaign for a Safe & Healthy Massachusetts were leading the opposition campaign for Question 4.

Opponents

Individuals

• Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker
• Boston Mayor Marty Walsh
• Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey
• State Sen. Michael O. Moore (D-Second Worcester)
• Deb Goldberg, Massachusetts Treasurer
• Mary Butler, Salem Police Chief
• State Sen. Richard Ross (R-Wrentham)
• State Rep. Shawn Dooley (R-Norfolk)
• State Rep. Jay Barrows (R-Mansfield)
• State Rep. Elizabeth Poirier (R-Attleboro)
• State Rep. Steven Howitt (R-Seekonk)
• State Rep. Paul Heroux (D-Attleboro)
• Norfolk District Attorney Michael W. Morrissey
• Attleboro Police Chief Kyle Heagney
• Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo
• Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester)
• Rep. Hannah Kane (R-Shrewsbury)
• Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett
• House Speaker Robert DeLeo
• Westborough Board of Selectmen

Vote No on 4 opposition campaign advertisement

A full list of Massachusetts state senators and representatives opposed to Question 4 was listed on the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts website, which could be found here.

Organizations

• Safe Cannabis Massachusetts
• Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association
• Massachusetts Hospital Association
• Massachusetts Sheriffs Association
• Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents
• Retailers Association of Massachusetts
• Massachusetts Municipal Association
• Conference of Boston Teaching Hospitals
• Massachusetts Medical Society*
• Construction Industries of Massachusetts
• Action for Boston Community Development
• Association for Behavioral Healthcare
• National Association of Mental Illness (Massachusetts Chapter)
• Duxbury Selectmen
• Yarmouth Selectmen
• Roman Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts
• Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce

Campaign for a Safe & Healthy Massachusetts

Gov. Charlie Baker, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, and House Speaker Robert DeLeo partnered with other politicians and set up the Campaign for a Safe & Healthy Massachusetts. Gov. Baker said that recreational marijuana "would put our children at risk and threaten to reverse our progress combating the growing opioid epidemic so this industry can rake in millions in profits." Speaker DeLeo likewise said, "As we face a substance addiction crisis of epic proportions, I oppose measures that make it easier to introduce young people to drug use." Other politicians on the organization's steering committee included State Sen. Vinny deMacedo (R-Plymouth), State Rep. Paul Donato (D-Medford), State Rep. Hannah Kane (R-Shrewsbury), and former State Sen. Steven Baddour (D-Methuen).

Soon after this opposition campaign was announced, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol (CRMLA) ran an ad with the photographs of Gov. Baker and Mayor Walsh, who was a recovering alcoholic, and a speech bubble saying, "Our Health Policy: Drink More Alcohol." Will Luzier, campaign manager for CRMLA, said, "I know Mayor Walsh personally and his advocacy for the expansion of operating hours for alcohol establishments and the expansion of licenses in the city of Boston, I believe, are in conflict with his position as a recovering alcoholic." Lizzy Guyton, spokeswoman for Gov. Baker, said that the pro-marijuana group was levying "unfortunate and insensitive attacks from those seeking to open a new billion-dollar commercial marijuana industry in the Commonwealth."

Arguments against

A. Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, stated,

“

We have seen the detrimental effects it has on families, especially youth. From our experience in homes, families, they can’t keep prescription medications from the kids today and there is certainly nothing that would indicate they could keep legal marijuana from kids.

”

Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, Attorney General Maura Healey, and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh issued a joint statement denouncing Question 4:

“

Here in Massachusetts, we face the possibility that any new revenue would be vastly insufficient to cover the cost of ambulance rides, emergency room visits, and treatment. ... And these are just the hard costs; they don’t include the suffering of the injured and their families. ... We hope voters will listen to the doctors, counselors, and substance-abuse specialists in our own world-class medical community who are expressing concerns over legalization. Decades of research have now debunked the myth that marijuana is harmless. The science also shows that regular marijuana users — especially those who start at a young age — are more likely to try more dangerous drugs.

”

Steven Tompkins, president of the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association, said,

“

As a commonwealth, we need not take actions that could increase availability to, and use of drugs among, young people. ... If this referendum were to pass, Massachusetts would surely see an increase in the amount of Marijuana use and addiction.

”

Lynn Nicholas, president and CEO of the Massachusetts Hospital Association, said in a statement,

“

Clinicians and healthcare leaders from around the state have a clear message - this ballot question is the wrong prescription for Massachusetts. Based on the clear evidence and concern for our patients and our communities, the hospital answer to whether recreational marijuana use should be legalized in Massachusetts is a resounding 'no.'

”

Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts advertisement entitled "Reisa Clardy"

State Sen. Jason Lewis (D-Winchester), chairman of the Special Senate Committee on Marijuana, said,

“

My position is not that I’m fundamentally opposed to legalization, but I am strongly opposed to the ballot question and what the ballot question would represent for Massachusetts. ... And [the commercialized marijuana industry] will be an industry that will be, as we’ve seen in Colorado and elsewhere, highly motivated to increase their sales and profits by targeting young people.

”

The Roman Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts wrote the following in a statement opposing the amendment:

“

Marijuana represents a significant part of substance use in America and adversely affects the health of millions of Americans. ... Legalizing a drug for recreational use that causes these effects on the human body, particularly our youth, is not a path civil society should choose to take. ... The Roman Catholic Bishops of Massachusetts join Governor Baker and many other elected officials along with the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American College of Pediatricians (ACP) in opposing the legalization of marijuana. We urge the voters of Massachusetts to vote NO on Question 4 on November 8, 2016.

”

Official arguments

The official opposing argument listed in the voter guide was as follows:

“

Vote 'NO' on creating a billion-dollar commercial marijuana industry that, just like Big Tobacco, would make millions on the backs of our communities, compromise health and safety, and harm kids. Vote 'NO' because this measure: Allows the sale and marketing of highly-potent marijuana edibles like candy, cookies, gummy bears, and soda that are attractive to young people and can lead to accidental overdose by kids and pets. Allows people to 'home grow' thousands of dollars’ worth of marijuana, even if neighbors object. Severely restricts the ability of cities and towns to control the number of marijuana retailers entering communities and allows pot shops to locate near preschools and playgrounds. Ignores the deadly opioid epidemic and the impact legalized pot will have on overall drug use. This legalization scheme would force Massachusetts into the commercial marijuana industry when communities across Colorado, the first state to legalize, are trying to get out.

”

Media editorials

Support

• The Harvard Crimson wrote the following in support of Question 4:

“

Rather than continuing to fund the War on Drugs, a policy that has done more to increase violence than stem it, the United States should reorient its priorities towards the regulation of marijuana under a well constructed legal framework. This November, Massachusetts voters have a chance to put the Commonwealth in the lead on this issue. They should take it, and vote yes on Question 4.

”

• The Boston Globe wrote the following:

“

Using marijuana isn’t completely safe, and it isn’t completely harmless to others when users drive. But a social consensus is clearly emerging that pot’s real dangers just aren’t great enough to merit outlawing it anymore. While the authors of Question 4 could have written a much better law, they at least got the big picture right. Legal marijuana is coming. Let’s get on with it.

”

• The MetroWest Daily News wrote the following:

“

The time for change is now. If its goal was to stop people from using marijuana, prohibition has failed. It has succeeded only at enriching those who operate outside the law, and at making life more difficult for the tiny percentage of users and suppliers who get caught, a group that is disproportionately black and Latino. Question 4 offers a better way to address the public interests in marijuana policy, and we urge a YES vote on Nov. 8.

”

Opposition

• The Boston Herald editorial board wrote the following in opposition to Question 4:

“

Supporters of legalization argue that pot isn’t addictive, and say claims of it being a gateway to heavier drug use aren’t backed up by data. But rather than listen to those with a financial interest in legalization we heed the words of Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, a recovering alcoholic, who notes that most addicts get their start with pot. ... In addition to public health there are a slew of public safety issues. The number of fatal accidents involving drivers with pot in their systems has increased by 62 percent in the three years since Colorado legalized pot use. There is still no reliable way to measure marijuana intoxication (Question 4 backers say that’s 'in development' — yep, that’s reassuring). ... The ballot question also imposes a far lower tax on the sale of marijuana than other states that have gone down this road, raising serious questions about an adequate source of revenue to regulate and enforce the new law. ... We could continue — and probably fill 11 single-spaced pages with the reasons to oppose Question 4 as written. We urge Massachusetts voters to vote 'no.'

”

Other opinions

Note the Harvard Crimson later published an editorial fully in support of Question 4.

The Harvard Crimson supported further decriminalization of marijuana but also supported further research on the societal and medical ramifications of full legalization, writing the following:

“

Though we recognize that full legalization of marijuana presents some thorny issues for lawmakers to address, it is difficult to say the same for further decriminalizing cannabis possession. Despite a 2008 referendum decriminalizing possession of one ounce or less of the drug, offenders are still subject to civil penalties, and about one thousand people are arrested each year for possession of larger amounts. ... Continuing to phase out penalties for possession of marijuana would be a logical extension of current policy. Despite the clear benefits of further decriminalization, the case for full legalization is not as clear-cut. Eight state senators who visited Colorado in January to assess that state’s experience brought back several concerns about a legalized marijuana industry and its public health implications for which there are no immediately obvious answers. ... These concerns deserve a full and public airing before Massachusetts voters make a final decision on legalization.

”

Regulatory cost

On March 8, 2016, Sen. Jason Lewis (D-5), chair of the Special Senate Committee on Marijuana, released a report on the feasibility and regulatory cost associated with the approval of Question 4. Sen. Lewis said,

“	We think it’s very important that the tax revenue and license fees generated from the industry at least, at a minimum, cover all of the public costs that would be incurred. ... Setting up a whole regulatory system, enforcement, legal costs, administrative costs, training for law enforcement and local government, public health. ... You add up those numbers, you very quickly get into the tens of millions of dollars.	”
—Sen. Jason Lewis

Lewis emphasized the need to make the tax rate low enough to prevent consumers from buying on the black market. He said, “We estimate the tax revenues and license revenues in the $50 to $60 million range on an annual basis. ... We think that may not even be sufficient to cover the full gamut of public and social costs we would incur."

Jim Borghesani, spokesman for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, said that Lewis' assessment was misguided. He said,

“	We think we’ll generate sufficient revenues to cover the regulatory structure. ... And then on top of that, revenue to go into the general fund. ... The legislature can put that funding toward anything—more treatment beds for opiate addiction, more drug education awareness.	”
—Jim Borghesani

Borghesani noted that Colorado, which legalized recreational marijuana in 2012, took in $135 million in revenue in 2015.

The report of the Special Senate Committee could be read here.

Background

See also: Marijuana laws and ballot measures in the United States

Previous measures

The topic of marijuana also appeared on Massachusetts ballots in 2008 and 2012. Question 2 in 2008, which was approved by nearly 30-point margin, replaced previous criminal penalties with civil penalties on adults possessing an ounce or less of marijuana. Question 3 in 2012, which was also approved by a similar margin of victory, legalized the use of medical marijuana in Massachusetts.

2016 measures

A record number of measures to legalize or decriminalize marijuana were proposed for 2016. Nevada's measure was the first certified. A high-profile marijuana measure was defeated in Ohio in 2015. More than 60 statewide marijuana-related initiatives were submitted for the 2016 ballot.

The following map depicts the legal status of recreational marijuana in different states:

Current as of November 28, 2016.

Polls

The following polls were conducted in 2014 and 2016 about the issue of marijuana legalization in general. They made no reference to this particular initiative.

Massachusetts Marijuana Legalization
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Western New England University 10/23/2016-11/2/2016	62%	33%	4%	+/-4.5	470
Suffolk University/Boston Globe 10/24/2016-10/26/2016	48.8%	42.4%	7.8%	+/-4.4	500
WBUR/MassInc 10/13/2016 - 10/16/2016	55%	40%	5%	+/-4.4	502
Western New England University Polling Institute 9/24/2016 - 10/3/2016	55%	39%	5%	+/-5	467
WBUR/MassInc 9/7/2016 - 9/10/2016	50%	45%	5%	+/-4.4	506
WBZ/UMass Amherst 9/28/2016	53%	40%	7%	+/-4.3	700
Gravis Marketing/Jobs First 7/12/2016 - 7/13/2016	41.0%	51.0%	9.0%	+/-3.3	901
Suffolk University/Boston Globe 5/2/2016 - 5/5/2016	43.0%	46%	11.0%	+/-4.4	500
Western New England University 4/1/2016 - 4/10/2016	57.0%	35.0%	7.0%	+/-4.0	497
UMass Amherst 2/19/2016 - 2/25/2016	53.0%	40.0%	7.0%	+/-4.1	891
WBUR 3/14/2014 - 3/16/2014	48.0%	41.0%	11.0%	+/-4.4	500
MassINC Polling Group 5/16/2014 - 5/18/2014	49.0%	42.0%	9.0%	+/-4.4	503
AVERAGES	51.23%	41.2%	7.32%	+/-4.3	578.08
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Note: The margin of error for the Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll was found in a separate article.

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$6,827,820.12
Opposition:	$3,052,802.52

As of January 23, 2017, the support campaign for Question 4 featured one ballot question committee, Yes on 4, that received a total of $6,827,820.12 in contributions, $6,460,649.27 in cash donations and $367,170.85 in in-kind donations. The support campaign spent $6,814,666.84.

As of January 23, 2017, three ballot question committees were registered to oppose Question 4: Safe Cannabis Massachusetts, Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action (SAM Action), and the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts, which had raised a total of $3,052,802.52 in contributions, $3,051,798.52 in cash donations and $1,004.00 in in-kind donations, and spent $3,037,736.74.

As of January 23, 2017, the top donor in support of this initiative, the New Approach PAC, provided approximately 64 percent of the campaign's total campaign funds.

Support

Cash donations

The following ballot question committees registered to support Question 4 as of January 23, 2017. Previously, there had been a support committee called Bay State Repeal, which had raised $21,944.96. It is unclear whether this total was considered as part of Yes on 4's total, so it has not been counted as part of the total here. The chart below shows cash donations and expenditures as of January 23, 2017.

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
Yes on 4	$6,460,649.27	$6,447,495.99
Total	$6,460,649.27	$6,447,495.99

Support in-kind donations

As of January 23, 2017, the ballot question committees registered to support this initiative, in addition to cash donations outlined above, received in-kind donations in the amount of $367,170.85. The top in-kind donor, Marijuana Policy Project, provided $341,640.14 worth of goods and services.

Top donors

As of January 23, 2017, the following were the top five donors in support of the initiative:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
New Approach PAC	$4,355,000.00	$0.00	$4,355,000.00
Drug Policy Action	$1,270,000.00	$0.00	$1,270,000.00
Marijuana Policy Project	$0.00	$341,640.14	$341,640.14
Susan Ruiz	$155,000.00	$0.00	$155,000.00
Rick Steves	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00

Opposition

The following ballot question committees registered to oppose Question 4 as of January 23, 2017. The chart below shows cash donations and expenditures current as of January 23, 2017. Sheldon Adelson, chairman and CEO of Las Vegas Sands Corporation, was the top donor in opposition to Question 4, donating $1,000,000 to the opposition group Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts. He also donated to other statewide marijuana measures, including Florida Amendment 2 and Nevada Question 2, in 2016.

Note: Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action (SAM Action) provided $25,000 to The Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts. This amount is subtracted from the total below as to avoid counting the contribution twice. See Ballotpedia's campaign finance methodology below.

Committee	Amount raised	Amount spent
The Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts	$3,051,498.52	$3,036,434.49
Safe Cannabis Massachusetts	$300.00	$298.25
Smart Approaches to Marijuana Action (SAM Action)	$25,000.00	$25,000.00
Total	$3,051,798.52	$3,036,732.74

Strong Economy for Growth:

Strong Economy for Growth was registered as a nonprofit—which do not have to disclose their donors—but the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) determined that the group was actually operating as a ballot question committee and that it should have been filing reports required of ballot questions committees and disclosing donors. Strong Economy for Growth provided $990,000 to the campaign in support of Question 2—the charter school initiative—and $178,000 to the campaign in opposition to Question 4—the marijuana legalization initiative. In this article, since all of the group's ballot measure-related expenditures were in the form of contributions to other ballot question committees, it is listed as a donor rather than a committee. The OCPF fined the group $31,000 (all of its remaining funds), and required that the group agree to not campaign within the state in 2018. The top donors to the Strong Economy for Growth can be expanded below:

Top donors to Strong Economy for Growth
Donor	Amount
QXZ, INC (Jeffrey Yass)	$600,000.00
Andrew Balson	$200,000.00
Julie Schauer	$200,000.00
Subaru of New England	$50,000.00
Gilbert Winn	$50,000.00
EMC Corp	$25,000.00
Lawrence Curtis	$25,000.00
David Croll	$25,000.00
Anthony DiNovi	$20,000.00
Romney For President, Inc.	$20,000.00

Opposition in-kind donations

As of January 23, 2017, the ballot question committees registered in opposition to this initiative, in addition to cash donations outlined above, received in-kind donations in the amount of $1,004.00. The top in-kind donor, Retailers Association of Massachusetts, provided 100 percent of all in-kind donations, contributing $1,004.00 worth of goods and services.

Top donors

As of January 23, 2017, the following were the top six donors to the opposition campaign for Question 4:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
Sheldon Adelson	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston	$850,000.00	$0.00	$850,000.00
Knights of Columbus	$150,000.00	$0.00	$150,000.00
Markley Boston, LLC	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
The Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Wynn Resorts	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Massachusetts

Since Massachusetts employs an indirect initiative process, the state's general court has an opportunity to adopt proposed laws before they move to a popular vote. However, unlike other states, Massachusetts requires additional signatures following legislative inaction on state statutes. Initiative amendments must be approved by a quarter of the legislature to reach the ballot.

For an amendment or statute, submitted signatures must equal 3 percent of votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election, excluding blanks. If the legislature declines to act on a proposed statute, supporters are required to collect a second round of signatures totaling 0.5 percent of the votes last cast for governor, excluding blanks. For proposed amendments, one-quarter of the legislature must approve the petition in a joint session—a second round of signatures is not required and does not overrule rejection by more than three-quarters of the legislature.

Supporters had until December 2, 2015, to submit at least 64,750 valid signatures. A total of 70,739 signatures were submitted to the secretary of state's office and were certified in mid-December 2015. Next, the proposal was put before the legislature. May 3, 2016, was the deadline for the legislature to take action on the initiative.

The legislature did not enact this initiative. To qualify it for the November 2016 election ballot, petitioners needed to collect another 10,792 signatures and submit them to local clerks by about June 22, 2016, so that the petitions could be submitted to the state by a legal deadline on July 6, 2016.

Supporters of the initiative submitted over 25,000 signatures to local clerks on June 22, 2016. William Galvin, secretary of the commonwealth, approved the signatures on July 6, 2016, certifying Question 4 for the November 8, 2016, ballot.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired Spoonworks and J.E.F. Associates to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $351,400 was spent to collect the 75,542 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $4.65.

Legal challenge

On June 8, 2016, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments for two challenges against the proposed measure. One lawsuit sought to block Question 4, arguing that supporters hid some of the implications of the measure, including the possibility of the retail sale of genetically modified marijuana with THC levels of 60 percent or higher. The second lawsuit challenged the title of the proposed measure, arguing that "Marijuana Legalization" did not accurately reflect the stipulation that only individuals 21 and older could possess marijuana. The court did not set a ruling date. On July 6, 2016, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that supporters could proceed with Question 4 and have it placed on the 2016 ballot. The court also concluded that the ballot title and statement for the measure were misleading. The title was rewritten to become "legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana" instead of "marijuana legalization," and the statement was rewritten to make clear to voters that edibles would be authorized under the measure.

Related measures

See also: History of marijuana on the ballot and Marijuana on the ballot

The first attempt to legalize marijuana through the initiative process came in 1972, when California activists got an initiative certified for the ballot. The measure was defeated. Marijuana legalization advocates had their breakthrough election in 2012, when both Washington and Colorado legalized recreational marijuana. Oregonians rejected a legalization measure that same year, but approved one two years later in 2014. As of the beginning of 2016, recreational marijuana had been legalized in four states and Washington, D.C. All legalizations came through the initiative process. As of the beginning of 2016, medical marijuana was legal in 25 states.

More than 60 statewide marijuana-related initiatives were submitted for the 2016 ballot. The table below shows the marijuana-related measures that qualified for the 2016 election ballot:

Marijuana measures on the ballot in 2016
State	Measures
Florida	Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization, Amendment 2 a
California	California Proposition 64, California Marijuana Legalization a
Arkansas	Arkansas Medical Marijuana, Issue 6 a
Arizona	Arizona Marijuana Legalization, Proposition 205 d
North Dakota	North Dakota Medical Marijuana Legalization, Initiated Statutory Measure 5 a

The following table includes past initiative attempts in the United States to legalize marijuana:

State	Year	Measure	Status
Arizona	2016	Proposition 205	d
California	2016	Proposition 64	a
Maine	2016	Question 1	a
Massachusetts	2016	Question 4	a
Nevada	2016	Question 2	a
Ohio	2015	Legalization Initiative	d
Alaska	2014	Ballot Measure 2	a
Oregon	2014	Measure 91	a
Washington, D.C.	2014	Initiative 71	a
Colorado	2012	Amendment 64	a
Oregon	2012	Measure 80	d
Washington	2012	Initiative 502	a
California	2010	Proposition 19	d
Nevada	2006	Question 7	d
Alaska	2004	Measure 2	d
Nevada	2002	Question 9	d
California	1972	Proposition 19	d

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Massachusetts Marijuana Legalization Question 4. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Massachusetts Marijuana Legalization, Question 4 (2016) - Google News

State profile

Demographic data for Massachusetts
	Massachusetts	U.S.
Total population:	6,784,240	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	7,800	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	79.6%	73.6%
Black/African American:	7.1%	12.6%
Asian:	6%	5.1%
Native American:	0.2%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0%	0.2%
Two or more:	2.9%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	10.6%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	89.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	40.5%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$68,563	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	13.1%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in Massachusetts. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in Massachusetts

Massachusetts voted for the Democratic candidate in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.

More Massachusetts coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in Massachusetts
• United States congressional delegations from Massachusetts
• Public policy in Massachusetts
• Influencers in Massachusetts
• Massachusetts fact checks
• More...

See also

Suggest a link

• Massachusetts 2016 ballot measures
• 2016 ballot measures
• Massachusetts Legislature
• List of Massachusetts ballot measures

External links

• Massachusetts 2016 Voter Guide

Support

• Yes on 4 website
• Yes on 4 Facebook
• Yes on 4 Twitter
• Yes on 4 YouTube

Opposition

• No on 4: Campaign for a Safe & Healthy Massachusetts website
• No on 4: Campaign for a Safe & Healthy Massachusetts Facebook
• No on 4: Campaign for a Safe & Healthy Massachusetts Twitter
• No on 4: Campaign for a Safe & Healthy Massachusetts YouTube