One of the least publicized results of this month’s election was 14 state representative districts voting to support the legalization of marijuana. Two organizations, the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts and Bay State Repeal, worked to put these non-binding public policy questions on the ballot. Here’s a quick rundown on the two questions and their results.
DPFMA’s question, placed on the ballot in eight districts, focused on regulating marijuana like alcohol, specifically asking, “Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?” The results:
- 4th Barnstable 73%
- 4th Berkshire 74%
- 1st Essex 72%
- 2nd Franklin 69%
- 14th Middlesex 72%
- 15th Middlesex 72%
- 24th Middlesex 74%
- 8th Norfolk 73%
This language is reminiscent of the successful campaigns to legalize in Colorado and Alaska, both of which focused on the message that marijuana is safer than alcohol. Seeing support average about 72% approval among these districts bodes very well for the campaign to legalize marijuana in Massachusetts in 2016, which will likely be led by the Marijuana Policy Project and use similar messaging to their other campaigns.
Bay State Repeal’s question was very different, polling public opinion on “replac[ing] the state’s restrictions on marijuana with a law that regulates the cultivation of and commerce in marijuana, by persons over the age of 21, in the same manner as laws that apply to the cultivation and sale of fruits, vegetables and herbs.” The results:
- 4th Essex 54%
- 7th Essex 61%
- 8th Essex 57%
- 3rd Middlesex 60%
- 6th Middlesex 62%
- 2nd Hampshire 64%
It’s incredible to see majority support for legalizing marijuana like tomatoes rather than alcohol. Of course, this would be a much less regulated system, and if adopted, Massachusetts would be the first state to pursue this model. In many ways it makes sense, since marijuana does not carry many of the risks alcohol does (overdose, domestic violence, or significantly impairing driving, to name a few), but it’s unclear whether there would be majority support at the state level for such a far-reaching reform.
Marijuana legalization wasn’t a big issue in MA this election cycle, mostly because both Baker and Coakley were opposed to reform. However, Evan Falchuk was supportive of legalization, and while many factors contributed to him getting over 3%, I’m sure many voters (myself included) cast a ballot for him at least partly for his support of smart drug policy reform. From these election results and national trends, it appears the legalization of marijuana in Massachusetts is virtually inevitable — Democrats should get on board, or run the risk of losing the support of young people and other groups who favor reform.
I will always be proud of Massachusetts for being the first state in the union to allow gay marriage, and always ashamed that so many local politicos (Tom Reilly, Shannon O’Brien, and Chris Gabrielli to name a few) were so behind the times. Similarly, I am proud Sen. Kennedy endorsed gay marriage before it was popular. Sen. Merkeley recently became the first Senator to endorse it, it is time Markey and Warren follow. Gov.-elect Baker could show true maverick leadership by endorsing this from the other side of the aisle.
I expect our next nominee to consider it and look forward to seeing it on the ballot. It has my full support. And unlike casinos, the money is just waiting for us.
I’ve seen Maura Healey mentioned as a potential gov nominee in 2018, and I was very disappointed to hear her come out firmly against marijuana legalization back in one of the AG debates. Both she and Tolman admitted that they had smoked marijuana before, but both were adamant in their belief that it should be illegal. I always find such hypocrisy stunning and unnerving and would like politicians who take such a stance to be asked whether they think that they should have been arrested when they were younger. I wonder how they’d answer.
For the record, I have never smoked or used the substance in any form, and it wasn’t due to scarcity of supply, just my personal choice that it was not something I wanted to do. And unlike many former smokers, our last three Presidents and our state Attorney General among them, I strongly feel that marijuana should be available to any able bodied adult willing to purchase it, as a legal and fully taxed and regulated product. This will be the first nail in the coffin for our failed drug war and the legacy of mass incarceration, community devastation, and ultimate failure to actually curb drug abuse.
Best way to put Al Capone out of business was to put Budweiser back in business, and the same logic applies to ending drug prohibition. I might add, our biotech sector is uniquely positioned to become a competitor to Colorado’s burgeoning marijuana industry. And we can learn from their mistakes and head start in adapting our regulations.
…than my believing speed limits are generally a good thing, but appreciating being let off with a warning rather than ticketed if I exceed it.
I hadn’t seen Healey’s statement against legalization, and while I hope she comes around before ever running for governor (otherwise Falchuk, who does support legalization, will pull a lot of votes from her), I at least appreciate that she is supportive of other drug policy reforms. As I mentioned in my last post about Families Against Mandatory Minimums’ survey, Healey was very supportive of repealing mandatory minimum sentences for drug crimes and provided the most detailed answers out of all the candidates who responded.
Just curious across the districts how many “blanks” there were on this question compared to the others. In my town, about 13,000 people voted (63%) and the number of blanks on questions 1-4 ranged from 355 to 621. On this question, there were 2066 blanks, which means that almost 16% of the people who voted didn’t bother to answer.
I don’t know if the result would be different if the question were binding and got as much media attention (and campaign $$) as the others, but I think more people would have weighed in.
….how many who voted yes thought the alternative was not regulating at all. Personally I think the question is misleadingly worded for anybody not aware of marijuana’s current status.
I get that we disagree on this issue, and won’t rehash that debate, but I honestly think most voters know that substances that are taxed and regulated are legal as opposed to illegal.
…taxed and regulated substances are by definition legal, but the way I read the question it sounded like the status quo is that there is no taxation or regulation at all and to call for such taxation and regulation would represent a tightening rather than loosening of current policy.
…since prohibition does not have any regulations or taxes (yes there’s the Marijuana Tax Act and all that comes with it, but I mean collectible taxes). I also doubt anyone is unaware that marijuana is currently illegal, though I suppose it’s possible some could get confused and think it would be replacing medical marijuana.
What I meant was that there were no restrictions whatsoever with regard to age, quantity, safety, etc.
Remember, when the negative ads start airing, ballot questions are particularly vulnerable and you’ll see these numbers drop 20+ percent.
If a well funded group rises to defeat this, you’ll have a real fight on your hands.
Case in point: death with dignity being up by more than 20 percent with about two weeks left in 2010… before the negative ads came in a blitzkrieg at the end.
The ‘should we regulate it like tomatoes?’ version will go down in flames, while the first phrasing would still have a fight on its hands. There would have to be a strong campaign, with decent levels of funding, to win it.
Tomatoes, tomahtoes–America is only moving in one direction on this issue.
A ballot question will emerge for 2016 here and it will pass, thanks to changing attitudes among the electorate as a whole, common freakin’ sense, and a very strong showing among the state’s youngest voters.
And yes, Democrats should get right with this and fast–Baker’s stance put him out of step with huge swaths of voters. It’s just too bad it wasn’t timed up for a gubernatorial election cycle.
Eventually I assume it will be legal, but how does it remain on the federal list of illegal substances and be OK at the state level? And will insurance companies be allowed to charge tokers more than non-smokers as they currently are for cigarette smokers?