The Baker administration is drawing suspicion for inserting language in the 2016 state Voter Guide that could influence voters’ opinion of Question 4, the measure that would regulate and tax marijuana. In its “Statement of Fiscal Consequences”–which is a new addition to the Voter Guide for 2016–the Baker administration included a speculative comment from the Senate Special Committee on Marijuana, which was chaired by Sen. Jason Lewis, a leading opponent of Question 4. The comment read: “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).”
The Question 4 language differs sharply from language for the other three ballot questions. For example, the administration’s fiscal consequences language for Question 1 (expanded slot-machine gaming) said “The fiscal consequences of this proposed measure for state and municipal government finances could range from 0 dollars to an unknown positive amount.” Similarly, the fiscal consequences for Question 3 (conditions for farm animals) said “Because the law would not take effect until January 1, 2022, the fiscal consequences of this proposed measure for state and municipal government finances are unknown.”
So why did the administration insert such speculative and biased language in the Question 4 statement? Difficult to know for sure, but circumstantial evidence suggests political motivations. Baker, along with House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, formed the official Question 4 opposition committee. Sen. Lewis, whose “open-minded” claims about legalization are undercut by his opposition to decriminalization in 2008 and medical marijuana in 2012, has toured the state as the top surrogate for Baker’s anti-Q4 Safe and Health Massachusetts committee. It doesn’t help Lewis’s cause that his own chief of staff described the Senate marijuana report as an “amateur economic effort” featuring “back-of-the-envelope-type calculations” in a July 12 Metro story. Nor does it reflect well on Lewis or the Baker administration that both ignored solid data that shows marijuana receipts far exceeding administrative costs in Colorado and other states.
This is not the first time the Baker administration has used false messaging to influence voters. Lt. Governor Karen Polito was criticized for telling municipal officials at a State House meeting last month that state aid to communities may be cut if Question 4 passes. Polito’s assertion is absurd: In every other state that has legalized, tax receipts from marijuana sales are coving administration costs and are returning money to taxpayers for school construction projects, community initiatives and other public benefits.
A change.org petition is now circulating to bring awareness to the Baker administration’s unfair approach to Question 4 in the Voter Guide. Voters deserve fairness in official state election documents, not propaganda that serves the governor’s personal viewpoints.
OTR Sunday morning.
As a lifelong advocate for marijuana legalization, I find the fear tactics, misinformation and propaganda of Question 4 opponents and the ‘ Corrupt Charlie Faker ‘ crowd despicable.
There is no doubt in my mind that marijuana legalization will pass in Massachusetts in spite of Gary Johnson’s gaffe on naming his favorite world leader. It will also boost turnout of Millenials and progressives.
P.S. Thanks, Barney, for again stepping up and leading with integrity and courage.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
They see what it did the Granpa.
Donald Dumbf never inhaled. Your honor, I rest my case. 🙂
Fred Rich LaRiccia
A look at the numbers doesn’t bode well for our case, so let’s attack the messenger.
I’m not in a position to independently verify the administration’s numbers, but this is one of those times that whichever way the objective statement went, the side not benefiting might claim it’s not objective. By all means, make your case that there’s another way to look at it, but please don’t whine that the administration has done the job they are legally charged with doing. FWIW, I thought the Lewis report was one of the most comprehensive and well-researched statements out there, and was glad to see a progressive bucking the party line.
Nearly every elected official in this state is opposing Question 4, including all the members of Lewis’ committee who went to Colorado. Rep. Rodgers, Councilor Jackson, and Sen. Jehlen are some of the folks bucking the party line, but the majority of elected officials are No on 4.
I’m starting to feel that in order to qualify as a progressive you have to favor the legalization of marijuana and I frankly resent that.
First you complain that we should we should just elect people and hold them accountable.
Then you whine when someone tries to hold them accountable.
We don’t try to do their jobs for them by legislating ourselves, but I DID say others should feel free to make their case.
It’s not at all improbable that it would fail to cover total costs. Every other state that’s legalized had a far higher rate, so their experience is not applicable.
I’m not sure what the standards are for ballot question analysis, but saying there’s a potential for negative fiscal impact is certainly true.
That is precisely something the legislature should have debated and discussed, but didn’t. Why do that when there are pressing bridges to be renamed?
Remember, in the status quo the Commonwealth is generating zero tax revenue from the sale of marijuana, and is wasting even more money prosecuting the distributors. So even if the tax is too low for your taste, as it is for mine, it is still unlikely to lose money compared to the status quo. Washington’s was deemed too high to discourage a grey market, while Colorado’s has obviously generated unprecedented revenue that has paid for expanding childhood health care coverage and universal pre-K.
Not that I would ever have a dog in a fight (ever!) but….my brother is an educator living in Colorado and he repeatedly states that he does not see evidence of a marijuana miracle. Education and social problems outside of the elite progressive chic wealthy (you get the picture, aka have and have nots) communities are intolerable with insufficient funding and he, “often longs for MA where at least the teachers are pretty smart.”
I think that there are some parallels to the long going debate with legalizing casinos. Basically, everything that was predicted by the anti-slots/anti-casino crowd has come to fruition. More, more, more slots and less, less, less tax cries the industry. So, when it is legalized and weed is out of the closet/basement/garage, there will be cries for more profit by both the those being taxed and those wanting the revenues in lieu of implementing comprehensive sustainable taxation policies.
The difference may be (maybe) that the marijuana growers will be smaller businesses than the Trumpian corporate casino business model.