# 2008 Massachusetts Question 2

Elections in Massachusetts :
General
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022 :
Federal government
U.S. President
1788–89
1792
1796
1800
1804
1808
1812
1816
1820
1824
1828
1832
1836
1840
1844
1848
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
Dem
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
Dem
2004
Dem
GOP
2008
Dem
GOP
2012
2016
Dem
GOP
2020
Dem
GOP
2024
Dem
GOP
U.S. Senate
Class 1: 1788
1790
1796 (S)
1796
1798
1800 (S)
1803
1808 (S)
1810 (S)
1811
1813 (S)
1815
1815 (S)
1816 (S)
1818 (S)
1820
1820 (S)
1822
1826
1827
1829 (S)
1833
1839
February 1841 (S)
1845
1851
1851 (S)
1857
1863
1869
1874 (S)
1875
1881
1887
1893
1899
1905
1911
1916
1922
1928
1934
1940
1946
1952
1958
1962 (S)
1964
1970
1976
1982
1988
1994
2000
2006
2010 (S)
2012
2018
2024
Class 2: 1788
1793
1796
1800 (S)
1803 (S)
1805
1810
1811 (S)
1816
1822 (S)
1826 (S)
1828
1835
January 1841 (S)
1841
1845 (S)
1847
1853
1855 (S)
1859
1865
1871
1873 (S)
1877
1883
1889
1895
1901
1905 (S)
1907
1913
1918
1924
1930
1936
1942
1944 (S)
1948
1954
1960
1966
1972
1978
1984
1990
1996
2002
2008
2013 (S)
2014
2020
U.S. House
1788/1789
1790/1792
1792/1793
1794/1795
1796/1797
1798/1799
1800/1801
1802/1803
1804
1806
1808
1810/1811
1812/1813
1814/1815
3rd
1816/1817
1818/1819
1820/1821
1822/1823
1824/1825
1826/1827
1828
1830/1832
1833/1834
1834/1835
1836
1838/1839
1840/1841
1842/1844
1844/1846
1846
1848/1850
1850/1851
1852
1854
1856
1858
1860
1862
1864
1866
1868
1870
1872
1874
1876
1878
1880
1882
1884
1886
1888
1890
1892
1894
1896
1898
1900
1902
1904
1906
1908
1910
1912
1914
1916
1918
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1991 (1st)
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2001 (9th)
2002
2004
2006
2007 (5th)
2008
2010
2012
2013 (5th)
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024 :
State government
Governor
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
Apr. 1831
Nov. 1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1922
1924
1926
1928
1930
1932
1934
1936
1938
1940
1942
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
State Senate
1787
1824
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
2024
State House
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2020
2022
2024
Governor's Council
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2024
Ballot measures
1980: Proposition 2½
2002: English Language Education in Public Schools
2006: 2008
Greyhound Protection
Sensible Marijuana Policy
State Income Tax Repeal
2010: No Sales Tax for Alcohol
Sales Tax Relief
Comprehensive Permits and Regional Planning
2012: Right to Repair
Death with Dignity
Medical Marijuana
2014: Automatic Gas Tax Increase Repeal
Expansion of Bottle Deposits
Casino Repeal
Paid Sick Days
2016: Expand Slot Machine Gaming
Charter School Expansion
Farm Animal Confinement
Legalization, Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana
2018: Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination
2020: pending :
Boston
Mayor
1822
1823
1824
Apr 1825
Dec 1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844–45
Dec 1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853–54
Dec 1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1897
1899
1901
1903
1905
1907
1910
1914
1917
1921
1925
1929
1933
1937
1941
1945
1949
1951
1955
1959
1963
1967
1971
1975
1979
1983
1987
1991
1993
1997
2001
2005
2009
2013
2017
2021
2025
City council
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023 :
Springfield
Mayor
1953
1955
1957
1959
1961
1963
1965
1967
1969
1971
1973 (S)
1973
1975
1977
1979
1983
1981
1985
1987
1989 (S)
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2015
2019
2023 :
Worcester
Mayor
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
2017
2019
2021
2023 :
Massachusetts portal :
vte :
The Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative, also known as Massachusetts Ballot Question 2, was an initiated state statute that replaced prior criminal penalties with new civil penalties on adults possessing an ounce or less of marijuana. The initiative appeared on the November 4, 2008, ballot in Massachusetts.
The measure was passed on Nov 4. and became public law on January 2, 2009
Question 2:
* Replaced criminal penalties with a US$100 fine of which the proceeds go to the city where the offense takes place.
* Eliminated the collection of Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) reports for minor marijuana related infractions.
* Maintained then-current penalties for selling, growing, and trafficking marijuana, as well as the prohibition against driving under the influence of marijuana.
* The law requires additional penalties for minors such as Parental notification, compulsory drug awareness program, and 10 hours community service that was not required under prior law. It also requires a larger US$1,000 fine and possible delinquency proceedings for those under 17 if they do not complete the requirements of the law.
The law represents a break with prior law in Massachusetts, where people charged with marijuana possession faced criminal penalties of up to six months in jail and a US$500 fine, as well as a CORI report being filed.
On Tuesday, September 10, 2008, a city councillor in Worcester called for a vote on a measure to express the opposition by the city of Worcester to the initiative. The city council rejected and voted down the measure by a 10-1 vote, with the only vote for the measure coming from the councillor that requested the vote.

## Supporters

The Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy is the leading proponent of the initiative.

### Organizations

* National Association of Social Workers—Massachusetts Chapter
* Greater Boston Civil Rights Coalition
* Criminal Justice Policy Coalition
* American Civil Liberties Union — National
* Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
* American Civil Liberties Union — Massachusetts chapter
* National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
* Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, Inc. (aka "MassCann")
* Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst Cannabis Reform Coalition (not part of prev. listed group, "MassCann")
* Union of Minority Neighborhoods
* The Boston Worker's Alliance
* Marijuana Policy Project
* Brookline Police Department

### Individuals

* Paul T. Breeden - President/CEO Boston Live Magazine/Boston Live Charity Fund Inc.
* Ronald Ansin, ACLU, philanthropist
* Charles H. Baron, Esq., Boston College School of Law
* Jack Cole, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
* Michael D. Cutler, Esq.
* Richard Elliott Doblin, PhD, MAPS
* Sergeant Howard Donohue, a 33-year veteran of the Boston Police Department
* Lester Grinspoon, M.D., associate professor emeritus of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School
* John H. Halpern, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School
* Massachusetts state Sen. Patricia Jehlen (D-Second Middlesex), chair of the Joint Committee on Elder Affairs and Vice-Chair of the Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight
* Wendy Kaminer, Esq., ACLU, author, journalist
* Woody Kaplan, ACLU, philanthropist
* Thomas R. Kiley, Esq., Cosgrove, Eisenberg & Kiley
* Karen Klein, Brandeis University, Unitarian Universalists for Drug Policy Reform
* Lanny Kutakoff, Partakers, Inc.
* Dr. Robert Meenan, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health
* Lieutenant Thomas Nolan, a 30-year veteran of the Boston Police Department who now teaches criminology at Boston University
* Massachusetts state Rep. Frank Smizik (D-Fifteenth Norfolk), chair of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture
* Carl Valvo, Esq., Cosgrove, Eisenberg & Kiley
* Ernest "Tony" Windsor, Esq., Massachusetts Law Reform Institute
* George Soros - Hedge Fund Manager
* Massachusetts State Rep. Jim O'Day (D-fourteenth Worcester)

### Religious Leaders

* Rev. Jean Alexander, Auburndale
* Rabbi Alan Alpert, Leominster
* Rev. Molly Baskette, Somerville
* Father Richard Beaulieu, Winchester
* Rev. Jim Bronwell, Barre
* Rev. Suzanne Brunnquell, Pittsfield
* Rev. Sarah Buteux, Amherst
* Rev. Dr. Jan Carlsson-Bull, Cohasset
* Rev. Thomas Carlton, Ludlow
* Rev. Stephen Cook
* Father Richard Crowley, Middleboro
* Rev. C. Edward Deyton, Andover
* Father Thomas Dilorenzo, Winthrop
* Rev. Jonathan Drury, Andover
* Rev. Leigh Dry, Hopkinton
* Rev. Kathrene Duhon, Great Barrington
* Rev. Lisa Durkee Abbott, West Brookfield
* Rev. Dr. Dorothy May Emerson, Billerica
* Rev. Marc Fredette, Waltham
* Rev. Tamarack Garlow, Ashley Falls
* Rev. John Gibbons, Bedford
* Rev. Jamie Green, West Groton
* Rev. Edward Hardy, Abington
* Rev. William Hobbs, Athol
* Rev. Dr. Anne Ierardi, Yarmouthport
* Ms. Marion Jansen, Great Barrington
* Rev. David Johnson, Plymouth
* Rev. Bill Leggett, Milford
* Father John Lis, Williamsburg
* Rev. Jeffrey Long-Middleton, Acton
* Rev. Ian Lynch, Brimfield
* Rev. Art McDonald, Essex
* Rabbi Richard Messing, North Easton
* Rev. Stephen Philbrick, Cummington
* Rev. Susie Phoenix, Lee
* Rev. Katherine Reis, Rockport
* Rev. Edmund Robinson, Chatham
* Rev. Ken Sawyer, Wayland
* Rev. Dr. Victor Scalise, Somerville
* Rev. Warren Scamman, Windsor
* Rev. Richard Schlak, Foxboro
* Rev. Stephen Shick, Hudson
* Rev. Judith Smith-Valley, Brewster
* Rev. Paul Sprecher, Hingham
* Rev. C. William Steelman, Nantucket
* Rev. Rachel Tedesco, Taunton
* Rev. Jonathan Tetherly, Chicopee
* Rev. Patricia Tummino, Middleboro
* Rabbi Andrew Vogel, Brookline
* Rev. Vicki Woods, Worcester
* Rev. Dr. Judith Wright, Boylston

### Newspaper Editorial endorsements

* The Daily Free Press
* The Bay state Banner
* The Harvard Crimson
* The Newton TAB
* The Milford Daily News
* The Springfield Republican
* The Metrowest Daily News
* The Daily News Tribune
* The Brookline TAB
* The Fall River Herald News
* The Danvers Herald
* MIT Tech

### Polls

A Suffolk University / WHDH Channel 7 poll has shown that 72 percent of Greater Boston residents are in favor of replacing criminal penalties with civil fines for carrying an ounce or less of marijuana. "The public may be signaling that pursuing small-time marijuana users is a waste of taxpayer resources," said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Bureau at Suffolk University. "This issue suggests there is a libertarian streak in the thinking of the Massachusetts voter." The poll was conducted with 400 residents between July 31 and August 3, 2008.
A FastTrack poll by WBZ TV /Survey USA on September 17 showed that 69% of all Massachusetts voters would favor either decriminalization or legalization. It was broken down to 30% want it remain a crime, 31% want it changed to a civil fine and 38% would like it to be legalized completely. The poll had a margin of error of 4.5%.

### Arguments in favor

Supporting arguments advanced by the proponents include:
* It would save Massachusetts US$130 million per year, according to a 2002 report by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron.
* Instances of minor marijuana possession would no longer affect if people can obtain jobs, housing, and student loans.
* Currently there are about 2.8 million CORI records on file for a population of 6 million.
* Small convictions have been shown to have little or no impact on drug use.

### History

The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (also known as the Shafer Commission) was created by Public Law 91-513 in 1972 to study marijuana abuse in the United States. It published its findings in a report called Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding and recommended that the president should decriminalize possession of marijuana in amounts that constituted "simple possession".
So far 30 non-binding public policy questions calling for civil fines for possession of marijuana rather than criminal penalties have passed in legislative districts throughout Massachusetts since 2000. These questions were passed with an average of 62% of the vote in favor. No Public policy question related to replacing criminal penalties with civil fines has ever failed in the state of Massachusetts.
The Joint Mental Health and Substance Abuse Committee of the Massachusetts General Court voted 6-1 in favor of a bill that would have made possession of less than an ounce of marijuana punishable by a civil fine.

### Funding

Billionaire George Soros made an initial contribution of $400,000. The committee has also received $750,000 cash as well as about $320,000 in donated time and services from the Marijuana Policy Project, an organization created to reform marijuana laws in the United States. According to campaign finance reports, as of November 1, 2008, the committee has raised approximately $1,250,000 to help pass the measure with $40,060.90 remaining.

## Opposition

The Coalition for Safe Streets, a committee organized to oppose Question 2, launched a statewide campaign Sept. 5 to defeat the measure. Jonathan W. Blodgett, the Essex County District Attorney serves as the Coalition's treasurer and chairman.
Michael O'Keefe, the president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, is opposed to the initiative. He believes that the measure will lead to an increase in minors using the drug by sending the wrong message to them.
The O'Keefe Committee is one of ten committees representing district attorneys in Massachusetts that have contributed to the Coalition.
William Breault, chairman of the Main South Alliance for Public Safety in Worcester, also plans to oppose this initiative.

### Funding

According to Campaign Finance reports, as of November 1, 2008, the ten committees representing district attorneys in Massachusetts have contributed approximately $2,275 each to the Coalition along with a donation of $2,500 from the Worcester County Deputy Sheriffs Association as well as a few other donors for a total of approx $60,000, after expenditures they have $0 to fight the initiative and $2,601.92 in outstanding liabilities.

## Controversies

On September 17, 2008, the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy filed complaints with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance and the Attorney General's office against the Massachusetts District Attorney Association, the 11 state district attorneys and O'Neill and Associates, a Boston public relations firm. Violations of the campaign finance law could result in up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine.
Also, Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone has stated that in the event the majority of voters in the State of Massachusetts were to pass the initiative, he will attempt to override the vote and defeat it in an appellate process.

### Alleged Complaints

* Under Massachusetts law, it is illegal to solicit, receive, or spend funds to support or oppose a ballot initiative without first forming a political committee. CSMP alleges that the district attorneys solicited, received, and spent donations before they were legally allowed to, attempting to conceal their campaign activity for as long as they could.
* CSMP further alleges that the district attorneys used public funds to post and house a statement urging voters to reject the decriminalization initiative on its Web site, a violation of Massachusetts election law, which prohibits public officials from using public resources to advocate for or against a ballot initiative. The statement on the state run Massachusetts District Attorneys Association website says that if the question is approved, "any person may carry and use marijuana at any time," which is untrue.

## Petition drive to qualify

The support group collected over 105,000 signatures, far exceeding the requirement of 66,593 valid signatures. Since Massachusetts is an indirect initiative state, this meant that the Massachusetts State Legislature had to take up the proposed measure. Since the legislature declined to act on it by early May, the supporters then had until June 18, 2008, to collect another 11,099 signatures to ensure that the initiative is placed on the November 2008 statewide ballot, a goal at which they succeeded.

## Results

Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative :
| Choice | Votes | % |
| Yes | 1,949,704 | 65.25 |
| No | 1,038,523 | 34.75 |
| Valid votes | 2,988,227 | 96.30 |
| Invalid or blank votes | 114,768 | 3.70 |
| Total votes | 3,102,995 | 100.00 |
| Registered voters/turnout | 4,220,488 | 73.52 |

## Enactment

As per Massachusetts law, the initiative became public law on January 2, 2009, 30 days from the date it was presented to the Governor's Council and certified.