An anonymous, out-of-state funder has brought us Question 8 on next month’s ballot. If passed, it would repeal the regulatory and tax system that Massachusetts voters approved 10 years ago for non-medical cannabis. In practical terms, Question 8 is not a technical adjustment. It is a full-scale reversal of the commonwealth’s framework for cannabis commerce.
That reversal would be profoundly misguided. Since 2018, legal cannabis has generated substantial revenue for municipalities and the state, created more than 18,000 jobs, rehabilitated old buildings, bringing the commercial production and distribution of marijuana into the open, where it can be taxed, tested, and regulated. The system has been protective of public health, public safety, and the general welfare. Youth interest has even declined, perhaps because obtaining something your parents buy in stores is hardly cool.
Massachusetts did not stumble into this system. It was built deliberately, by activists, by the Legislature, by the Cannabis Control Commission, and by municipalities. Product testing standards, packaging requirements, advertising restrictions, and licensing rules that reflect years of public input were established. Municipalities negotiated host-community agreements, zoning rules, and public-safety protocols. The result is a regulatory structure that is not perfect — but is stable, predictable, and broadly effective.
Repealing it would not return us to 2016. It would return us to the 1990s. Millions in revenue would flow to neighboring states and illicit networks. Hidden grow-ops would proliferate. Police, who have largely moved on from enforcing marijuana laws, would be thrust back into an unworkable enforcement regime. Municipalities would lose funding for prevention programs, youth services, and public-health initiatives supported by cannabis revenue. The commonwealth would lose a functioning regulatory system and gain nothing in return.
Perhaps that explains why the sponsor’s website lists no endorsements from public officials or other prominent individuals.
What the website does offer, however, is a curious new talking point: an elevated concern for pets. It prominently links to a European scholarly article about intoxication of animals from “dissociative recreational drugs.” The paper covers a broad range of drugs from amphetamines to psilocybin (but explicitly excludes cannabis as “not within the scope of this review,” making it an odd choice of evidence for the campaign against cannabis).
It is true that as marijuana prohibition has fallen nationwide, veterinarians have seen more cases of dogs arriving in distress after getting into THC-infused edibles. Pet intoxication is a legitimate veterinary concern. But it is incorrect to attribute these incidents to legalization. The blame lies with negligent owners. If an unleashed dog were hit by a car, would we blame the car? When Massachusetts voters legalized marijuana in 2016, we did not legalize irresponsibility. Repealing legalization will not magically instill responsibility in consumers.
The success of legalization can be measured not only in revenue, jobs, and new freedoms, but also in what didn’t happen: there was no surge in irresponsible cannabis use across the commonwealth, despite dire warnings from opponents.
Thirty years ago, in the dark days of the drug war, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) defined “responsible use of marijuana.” Responsible users don’t give cannabis to kids or drive impaired. They know the difference between use and abuse — terms whose conflation fueled the drug war for decades. They consider “set and setting” before consuming. And they don’t leave edibles on the coffee table.
As for the dogs, the news is reassuring. In the only large-scale epidemiological study of cannabis intoxication in dogs, researchers examined 225 reported cases between 2009 and 2014. Most dogs went home for “supportive therapy” — a quiet place to sleep it off, water to drink, and time. A small number were kept overnight for observation. None suffered permanent adverse effects.
We can all support measures that genuinely improve the welfare of pets. Question 8 is not one of them.
Question 8 is, in effect, a referendum on legalization itself. And if the last 10 years have taught us anything, it is that Bay Staters can be counted on to handle cannabis responsibly. We can proudly vote “no.”
Dick Evans, a Northampton lawyer, chaired the campaign committee for the 2016 legalization initiative. He is a former member of the board of NORML, and owns a dog named Clarence.