Tweet
Over 60% of Massachusetts voters support marijuana legalization
Now that voters in Washington State and Colorado have approved marijuana legalization the obvious question is, what is next step for the reform community? What states are likely to be good targets for similar initiative campaigns in the 2014 or 2016 election?
One state that should be near the top of any such a list is Massachusetts. It is the most liberal state in the country and importantly it allows for citizens to put initiatives on the ballot.
In the past few election voters in the state approved other marijuana reform ballot measures by wide margins. In 2008, an initiative to decriminalize marijuana possession was approved with a 65.2 percent yes vote. Similarly in this recent election a medical marijuana initiative won approval with 63.3 percent voting yes.
The results of local non-binding public policy questions provide even stronger evidence that the state is ready to embrace legalization. In Massachusetts regular people can put non-binding public policy questions on their local ballot to spend a signal to local representatives about where their constituents stand on an issue. This cycle non-binding questions regarding marijuana legalization were on ballot in multiple districts covering roughly 10 percent of state and in each of those districts they won majority support. On average the non-binding marijuana legalization question receive a 66 percent yes vote.
To determine how closely these districts reflect opinions state-wide we can compare the vote on the non-binding legalization questions in these districts to both the Presidential vote and the vote Question 3, the statewide medical marijuana initiative.
| Marijuana legalization public policy questions | Question 3 Vote in these districts | Question 3 vote state-wide |
| 66%* | 65.8% | 63.3% |
| Marijuana legalization public policy questions | Obama vote in these districts | Obama vote state-wide |
| 66%* | 63.4% | 60.8% |
The districts with the non-binding legalization questions this year are slightly more liberal and pro-marijuana reform than the rest of the state, but for the most part seem to be fairly representative of opinions state-wide. It is safe to assume a solid majority of voters support the general idea of legalization.
The performance of the non-binding questions provides solid confirmation of a poll last year sponsored by MassCann/NORML, which at the time found 62 percent of voters in the state supported legalizing and regulating marijuana like alcohol.
When all the available data is taken into consideration it overwhelmingly indicates that if a reasonable marijuana legalization initiative had appeared on the Massachusetts ballot this year it likely would have passed. If a well-funded campaign puts a marijuana legalization initiative on the ballot in either 2014 or 2016 its stands a very good chance of winning.
*A few precincts in Boston were excluded from analysis due to a lack of precincts level breakdown for Question 3
4 Comments
It’s starting:
http://www.thedailychronic.net/2012/13266/four-new-england-states-to-introduce-marijuana-legalization-bills/
Flashback to 2008… Lord Obama vows to never allow federal laws to interfere with state run, legitimized, medicinal dispensaries… then they shut down a third of CA’s dispensaries…. The premise; Illegal Profits at Marijuana Dispensaries! Oops! Nonprofits are allowed to earn profits… legal start to finish, but the use of those profits is subject to usage and distribution laws…
Flashback to the late 70s, when our federal govt concluded an in-depth study of cannabis but failed to find much wrong… the UC Med Center Marijuana Study (it vanished completely) disappeared…
As an American, a citizen and a human, my civil rights, including pursuit of happiness, is my inalienable right! In our ant-mound planet, many require the detachment and reverie afforded by good ganga… countless millions smoke weed and work… you’ld never know, BTW…
Alcohol is exponentially more destructive, yet legal. The challenge along the legal trail will be to tax and regulate equitably the entire supply chain, fairly and sanely enough to ensure that what happened in CA by the feds will never re-occur.
this could be the sticky wicket inthe campaign. I honestly didnt know the states had such arcane booze laws unti I saw Rachel last nite. I thought it was just Utah that was weird with the rest of us just differing on hours of sale or if you could buy “hard liquer” at the Kroger or not.
Seemed like from her graphics about 1/2 the country has bizarre laws. Like I would never have known their were state run stores in Pennsylvania. Or that there is “bootlegging” between states. Makes no sense to me.
But I can see how many people would not want pot regulated like their state does booze.
(fun fact… my state has an arcane law that its illegal to sell “hard liquor” on christmas day. i had no idea and has a cocktail party ruined one year because I thought i would just buy supplies that day)
thats what scares. “sin” taxes are where states always go for revenue. tobacco is taxed so much that hardly anyone can afford it anymore.
and to be honest I dont see the need for any regulation. i can see setting an age to buy but other than that the state has nothing to really deal with. What if they decide to start regulating allowable THC levels or other micromanaging. Or anti smoking laws which are trying to regulate you even lightening up a cigarette in your own home.
Case in point. Even in Washington, under the current passed law, buying from a friend is illegal. you could only buy from an “official” store. No provisions for home grown or anything from a “licensed” grower. Its a plant. The govenrment shouldnt be telling people what they can and cant grow. Its like saying you cant grow tomatoes on your patio.
My fear is in the rush to legalize we are giving the state even more power than they had. I can see us in 10 years longing for the days of prohibition.
It’s a Rubik’s cube.
It’s premature to expect consistency or logic in any of this. But an overarching problem for the states will remain how to navigate around the Feds. Maybe O will find a way to moderate MJ things in DC now that the election is over.
In the meantime the best states can do would seem limited to passive resistance versus the Feds — a state would neither support, nor resist, nor participate in any Fed enforcement initiatives. The Feds could co-opt even that stance with economic penalties nonetheless.
With Med MJ there’s a new dilemma here in Mass as claimed by landlords. It may also apply in some other MJ tolerant states. Mass landlords are concerned with state allowed Med MJ due to the stringent constraints placed on what a rental lease can contain. Landlords claim that only actions contrary to state law (not Fed) can be explicitly prohibited in a lease. (I understand this constraint originally was to protect undocumented immigrants).
Also landlords have almost no discretion in chosing a tenant. So, to play devil’s advocate for a moment, a landlord now fears renting to a Med MJ user who is complying with MA law, and then having the Feds arrive to do arrests and seize the property. A landlord can’t refuse to rent, or even ask about Med MJ (or, for that matter, immigration status). That’s what they say. . .