Three operators are suing the attorney general and secretary of state to kill the prohibitionist ballot initiative. Here’s what stands out.
As we reported last week, a small group of commonwealth cannabis companies filed a “lawsuit targeting the constitutionality of a ballot initiative that would overturn the legal adult-use cannabis market approved by voters in 2016.”
Per the plaintiffs: “The lawsuit, filed with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court against Attorney General Andrea Campbell and Secretary of State William Galvin, states that the initiative, titled an ‘An Act to Restore Sensible Marijuana Policy’ fails constitutional muster in three key ways—it bundles unrelated subjects in a way impermissible by the law governing initiative petitions, it features a misleading and deficient summary by Campbell, and it eliminates an established state grant program.”
While I lack the legal expertise or experience with this strange electoral tangent to guess the fate of this important case, it nonetheless raises several interesting points. And since we will be covering this lawsuit like some kief atop a distillate-dipped preroll, I dug into the details of the complaint filed by stakeholders from Stem Haverhill (Caroline Pineau), Treevit (Gyasi Sellers), and Paper Crane Provisions (Lisa Mauriello and Boey Bertold). Here is what stood out to me:
-In Massachusetts, a ballot question has to be about one thing and one thing only. As such, the plaintiffs take issue with this doozy’s “inclusion of impermissibly unrelated subjects and failure to present a unified statement of public policy to the voter.” Among those “several unrelated and independent subjects” the petition purportedly combines: “criminal justice changes, elimination of the Social Equity Program, removal of local control over marijuana establishments by municipalities, [and] elimination of professional discipline protections.”
-Bigger picture, their more general argument is that the “Petition … if approved, would impose a hodgepodge of changes to Massachusetts law that are related to one another only by the proponents’ vague and highly subjective assertion that, together, they constitute a ‘sensible marijuana policy.’”
-Furthermore, “If approved, the Petition would fundamentally alter the cannabis landscape in the Commonwealth [causing ‘nearly 800 marijuana businesses to lose their licenses and ability to operate’], eliminate a multibillion-dollar industry, and destroy the tens of thousands of jobs associated with it.”
-The plaintiffs argue that the measure isn’t quite as good for young people as it claims to be: “Because [the proposal] permits the failure to complete the required drug awareness program to serve as the basis for delinquency proceedings, this proposed change would appear to authorize delinquency proceedings against persons up to twenty-one years of age”—a “change inconsistent with existing Massachusetts law governing juvenile justice and adjudications of delinquency.”
-The operators additionally note that a repeal of the Mass cannabis law “in its entirety would eliminate protections from arrest and prosecution relating to marijuana accessories, even if used by a medical marijuana patient.” So basically, a return to the ’90s and the war on head shops if the repeal set gets its way. And if it passes with the current language, we can also forget about “protections from professional discipline for licensed professionals, other than healthcare professionals, who provide services to marijuana clients, including medical marijuana licensees.”
-The repeal would eliminate “the Commonwealth’s mandated research priorities concerning public health impacts of marijuana and impacts on historically disadvantaged communities,” as well as, quite ironically, “the prohibition on public consumption of marijuana and the associated civil penalty; and the prohibition on open containers of marijuana in motor vehicles and the associated civil penalty.”
-Here’s a fascinating point regarding the aforementioned unrelated provisions argument: “Voters will be placed in the untenable position of being unable to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on it as a unified statement of public policy. For example, a voter who wishes to repeal adult-use marijuana but retain the Social Equity Program or preserve access to legal services for the medical marijuana industry cannot reasonably cast a vote that reflects those preferences.”
-There’s also plenty in there about how these liars behind the initiative gathered the signatures that were required to slither this far in the process. Among other improprieties, the lawsuit notes: “Individuals approached by signature gatherers reportedly stated that they were told, among other things, that the initiative would help get fentanyl off the streets, assist in creating affordable housing, protect youths from being jailed for marijuana, change zoning laws to move dispensaries farther from schools, promote same-day voting, or fund public parks.”
-And then there is the issue of the “misleading and deficient summary issued by the Attorney General.” Which, as far as this reporter and observer is concerned, is what got us in this mess. The complaint lists several areas where the approved language neglects to reflect the entire consequence of passage. For example: “The Summary fails to inform voters that the repeal … would eliminate municipalities’ local control over the choice, number, and operation of marijuana establishments.”
-“Finally, the Summary fails to address the Petition’s use of the term ‘sensible’ in its title. That term has long been used by marijuana reform organizations, including NORML, the Drug Policy Alliance, the Marijuana Policy Project, and Students for Sensible Drug Policy, specifically in the context of advocating for decriminalization, legalization, and expanded access to marijuana. The organization that funds this Petition, SAM, does not use the word “sensible” in its own messaging, instead describing its approach as “smart,” “health-first,” and “commonsense.” By adopting language historically identified with the reform movement to describe a measure that dismantles it, the Petition’s title is affirmatively misleading. The Summary’s failure to clarify this distinction creates the false impression, that this Petition continues the decades-long trend toward marijuana liberalization rather than reversing it.”
Amen. Now go and tell your friends. And while you’re at it, take this line from the complaint and post it on your socials. Hell, scream it out a window. With ballot wording this misleading, people need to hear it: “This is not a grassroots initiative supported broadly by the people of the Commonwealth, but rather one backed by a single, specific special-interest group.”
