How anti-cannabis crusaders weaponized the opioid crisis to trick voters—and why state regulators let them get away with it
For those who are keeping score, we’re now past the juncture in the existential fight for weed in Massachusetts where the ballot referendum to close recreational dispensaries might get disqualified.
Despite pushback and complaints from countless canna advocates who noted the deception used by signature collectors working for the so-called Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, the state Ballot Law Commission rejected the official claim filed by industry attorneys.
There has already been a lot of coverage of this and there will no doubt be more. And in a lot of it, the repeal side is quoted as denying that they knew about the snow job being served to voters in the parking lots of Massachusetts.
Pay close attention, though, because this is a great example of why journalists shouldn’t quote liars. They could make much better use of their limited time by going straight to the documents which show the fabrications.
For example, the pro- industry objectors argued that the paid signature gatherers used the threat of fentanyl to mislead voters into signing the petition which, of course, in fact aimed to repeal commercial cannabis sales. Here are some citizen complaints used as examples by the pro- dispensary side:
- Chris from Weymouth wrote: “A person came up to me and said please sign this petition to stop fentanyl I then looked at the sheet and it was repealing cannabis laws.”
- Isabelle from Everett reported: “He asked me to sign and was kind of pushy… telling me it was to get fentanyl off the streets of boston… I only found out later online that most likely I had been lied to.”
- Mollie from Somerville said: “One petitioner claimed the measure would ‘stop fentanyl from getting into our community.’”
- Robert from Needham wrote: “The collector said it was only a measure to keep it safe by preventing harmful additives and fentanyl from being added.”
- And out in Western Mass, Ryan in Springfield wrote: “The circulator claimed the petitions were for ‘Testing marijuana for fentanyl’.”
And did the repeal grifters deny it? No, they justified the terminology as being legitimately linked to the petition’s goals. And the body which evaluated the scenario and could have done something about it essentially let them, while in the next breath rejecting the claims of voters who were coaxed into signing.
In the Ballot Law Commission case, the anti-cannabis respondents actually defended the use of the word fentanyl by circulators; that despite the word not appearing in the summary of the petition they asked people to sign.
And what is their justification? They wrote: “references to fentanyl could well relate to findings that legalized marijuana can serve as a gateway to additional, illegal drug use.” And they cherry picked some study that showed fentanyl deaths increasing more in places that had legal cannabis, as if that means a thing.
I won’t stoop to their level and hand-select a few of the literally tens of thousands of studies that show otherwise, namely that regulated cannabis is a needed alternative for many people with physical as well as psychological issues. Rather, I’ll just note how much money from the marijuana program they are trying to eradicate goes to tackling the drug problem they are so concerned about.
Of the more than $300 million in tax and other revenue that Massachusetts brought in from cannabis last fiscal year, tranches of which went to services spanning public schools to local law enforcement, more than a third (about $104 million) went to the state’s Bureau of Substance Addiction Services.
So remember, when they say their signature collectors didn’t lie, it doesn’t mean they didn’t lie, it just means they don’t think it is a lie that marijuana leads to or is sometimes laced with fentanyl at commonwealth dispensaries. And why should they, when the people who could have punished them for making such outrageous claims to voters failed us?
