NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal 

revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 

volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical 

error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of 

Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 

Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-

1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-12106

SJC-12117

JOSEPHINE HENSLEY & others1 vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.

2

MATTHEW JOHN ALLEN & others3 vs. ATTORNEY GENERAL & another.4

Suffolk. June 8, 2016. - July 6, 2016.

Present: Gants, C.J., Spina, Cordy, Botsford, Duffly, Lenk, 

& Hines, JJ.

Initiative. Constitutional Law, Initiative petition. Attorney 

General. Marijuana.

Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for 

the county of Suffolk on April 22, 2016.

The case was reported by Duffly, J.

Civil action commenced in the Supreme Judicial Court for 

the county of Suffolk on May 10, 2016.

The case was reported by Spina, J.

 

1 Fifty-eight registered Massachusetts voters.

2 Secretary of the Commonwealth.

3 Sixty-two registered Massachusetts voters.

4 Secretary of the Commonwealth.
2

John S. Scheft for Josephine Hensley & others.

Robert E. Toone, Assistant Attorney General, for the 

defendants.

Thomas R. Kiley for Matthew John Allen & others.

David G. Evans, of New Jersey, for Massachusetts Hospital 

Association & others, amici curiae, submitted a brief.

GANTS, C.J. We have before us two cases involving an 

initiative petition that, if approved by the voters in the 

November, 2016, election, would legalize, regulate, and tax 

marijuana and products that contain marijuana concentrate. The 

plaintiffs in the first case (Hensley case) claim that the 

Attorney General erred in certifying the petition for inclusion 

on the ballot under art. 48 of the Amendments to the 

Massachusetts Constitution because it contains subjects that are 

not related or mutually dependent. They also claim that the 

Attorney General's summary of the measure is not fair. Finally, 

they contend that, if the question is to be included on the 

ballot, we should require the Attorney General and the Secretary 

of the Commonwealth (Secretary) to amend the title and the onesentence statements they prepared because they are clearly 

misleading, in violation of G. L. c. 54, § 53. The plaintiffs 

in the second case (Allen case) include eleven of the original 

fifteen signers of the initiative petition. They challenge only 

the title and the one-sentence "yes" statement prepared by the 

Attorney General and the Secretary, but on grounds different 

from those alleged by the Hensley plaintiffs.
3

We conclude that the Attorney General did not err in 

certifying the petition for inclusion on the ballot under art. 

48 because the petition contains only related subjects. We also 

conclude that her summary of it is fair. Finally, we conclude 

that it is clear that the title assigned to the petition and the 

one-sentence statement describing the effect of a "yes" vote are 

misleading, in violation of § 53, and we therefore order the

Attorney General and the Secretary to amend the title and 

statement.

5

Description of the petition. The petition proposes 

comprehensive statutory changes in the law governing marijuana 

in what its proponents have entitled, "The Regulation and 

Taxation of Marijuana Act" (proposed act). The stated purpose 

of the proposed act is "to control the production and 

distribution of marijuana under a system that licenses, 

regulates and taxes the businesses involved in a manner similar 

to alcohol and to make marijuana legal for adults [twenty-one]

years of age or older." Its stated intent is "to remove the 

production and distribution of marijuana from the illicit market 

and to prevent the sale of marijuana to persons under [twenty-

 

5 We acknowledge the two amicus briefs submitted in the 

first case (Hensley case), one from the Massachusetts Hospital 

Association and seventy-two other individuals and organizations, 

and the other from the plaintiffs in the second case (Allen 

case).
4

one] years of age by providing for a regulated and taxed 

distribution system."

The centerpiece of the proposed act is the addition of a 

new chapter of the General Laws (chapter 94G), comprising 

fourteen detailed sections, that would legalize under 

Massachusetts law the possession, use, and transfer of marijuana 

and products containing marijuana concentrate (including edible 

products) and the cultivation of marijuana, all in limited 

amounts, by individuals twenty-one years of age or older.

6 Among 

other things, the new chapter 94G would permit an individual 

lawfully to purchase and possess one ounce or less of marijuana, 

not more than five grams of which may be in the form of 

marijuana concentrate.7 It would also permit the possession in 

one's home of up to ten ounces of marijuana, the cultivation of 

a limited number of marijuana plants in one's home for personal 

use, and the private transfer without remuneration of up to one 

 

6 "Marijuana products" are defined in the proposed act as 

"products that have been manufactured and contain marijuana or 

an extract from marijuana, including concentrated forms of 

marijuana and products composed of marijuana and other 

ingredients that are intended for use or consumption, including 

edible products, beverages, topical products, ointments, oils

and tinctures."

7 "Marijuana concentrate" is defined in the proposed act as 

"the resin extracted from any part of the plant of the genus 

Cannabis and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, 

mixture or preparation of that resin but shall not include the 

weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to 

prepare marijuana products."
5

ounce of marijuana, not more than five grams of which could be 

marijuana concentrate, to another individual age twenty-one or 

older. It would not permit the public consumption of marijuana.8

The proposed act also contains detailed provisions for the 

licensing, operation, and regulation of the various types of 

"marijuana establishments" that would be engaged in marijuanarelated business in Massachusetts, including marijuana 

cultivators, product manufacturers, retailers, and testing 

facilities. It would amend G. L. c. 10 by adding two new 

sections, §§ 76 and 77, that would create new authorities within 

the Department of the State Treasurer: a "cannabis control 

commission" and a "cannabis advisory board." The cannabis 

control commission would consist of three members appointed by 

the Treasurer, and would "have general supervision and sole 

regulatory authority over the conduct of the business of 

marijuana establishments" in the Commonwealth. The cannabis 

 

8 The proposed act would impose civil penalties for certain 

violations of the new law. For example, the possession of more 

than one ounce but not more than two ounces of marijuana outside 

of one's residence, or the cultivation of more than six but not 

more than twelve plants, would be "subject only to a civil 

penalty of not more than [one hundred dollars] and forfeiture of 

the [excess] marijuana . . . , but shall not be subject to any 

other form of criminal or civil punishment or disqualification 

solely for this conduct." Civil penalties would also be imposed 

for, among other things, the public consumption of marijuana, 

the possession of an open container of marijuana or marijuana 

products in a motor vehicle, and the purchase or attempted 

purchase of marijuana or marijuana products by individuals under 

the age of twenty-one.
6

advisory board would consist of fifteen members appointed by the 

Governor, and "study and make recommendations" to the commission 

"on the regulation of marijuana and marijuana products."

The proposed act would also add a new chapter to the 

General Laws (chapter 64N) that would provide for the taxation 

of the retail sale to consumers of marijuana and marijuana 

products. Specifically, chapter 64N would impose on each such 

sale, in addition to whatever sales tax may be due under 

existing State law, an excise equal to 3.75 per cent of the 

total sales price. The new law would also authorize cities and 

towns to impose an additional local sales tax of up to two per 

cent.9

Chapter 94G of the proposed act states that "[t]his chapter 

shall not be construed to affect the provisions of chapter 369 

of the acts of 2012, relating to the medical use of marijuana as 

enacted by the people in the state election of 2012." See St. 

2012, c. 369 (medical marijuana law). However, several 

provisions concern medical marijuana and medical marijuana 

treatment centers. First, the sale of medical marijuana and 

medical marijuana products would be exempt from the new 3.75 per 

 

9 Monies collected from the State excise would be placed 

into a newly created Marijuana Regulation Fund, to be used, 

subject to appropriation by the Legislature, to offset the costs 

of implementing, administering, and enforcing the new law; any 

excess would be transferred annually to the State's General 

Fund. Monies collected from a local sales tax would be 

distributed to the taxing city or town.
7

cent excise tax. Second, the proposed act would permit a 

registered medical marijuana treatment center also to obtain a 

license to operate as a marijuana retailer and, if separately 

licensed, to operate both a medical and retail operation at a 

shared location. Cities and towns would not be allowed to 

prohibit a retailer under the new law from operating in any 

zoned area in which a medical marijuana treatment center is 

already registered. Third, although the proposed act requires 

the commission to promulgate its initial regulations no later 

than September 15, 2017, and to begin accepting license 

applications shortly thereafter, it also provides, in the event 

regulations are not promulgated by January 1, 2018, that 

existing medical marijuana treatment centers may begin to 

cultivate, manufacture, and sell marijuana and marijuana 

products until the commission promulgates the necessary 

regulations and issues licenses for establishments under the new 

law. Finally, medical marijuana treatment centers would be 

allowed to apply for licenses under the new law earlier than 

other applicants and, in certain circumstances, would be given 

preference in receiving licenses under the new law.

Procedural history. The initiative petition was filed with 

the Attorney General in August, 2015, for her consideration 

pursuant to art. 48, The Initiative, II, § 3, of the Amendments 

to the Massachusetts Constitution, as amended by art. 74 of the 
8

Amendments. The Attorney General determined that the proposed 

act "contains only subjects not excluded from the popular 

initiative and which are related or which are mutually 

dependent," and therefore that it was "in proper form for 

submission to the people." Id. She also prepared a summary of 

the proposed act to be printed at the top of the petition forms 

that the proponents would use to gather the requisite 

signatures.10 The proponents thereafter filed the petition with 

the Secretary, collected more than the necessary number of 

additional signatures, and in December, 2015, timely filed the 

signed petition forms with the Secretary, all as required by 

art. 48. The Secretary transmitted the petition to the House of 

Representatives in accordance with art. 48, The Initiative, II, 

§ 4.11 The parties agree that if the proponents gather and 

submit sufficient additional signatures by July 6, 2016, as 

required by art. 48, The Initiative, V, § 1, the Secretary 

intends to take the necessary steps to place the proposed law on 

the November ballot.

In addition to the Attorney General's summary, the Attorney 

General and the Secretary, in accordance with G. L. c. 54, § 53, 

jointly prepared a title for the question and two one-sentence 

 

10 The text of the Attorney General's summary is reprinted 

in the Appendix to this opinion.

11 The Legislature has not enacted the measure.
9

statements describing, respectively, the effect of a "yes" vote 

and the effect of a "no" vote on the ballot question.

The plaintiffs in the Hensley case, who are fifty-nine 

registered Massachusetts voters, commenced their action in the 

county court on April 22, 2016, alleging, among other things, 

that the proposed act contains two unrelated subjects -- the 

legalization of marijuana for adult use and a change in the 

restrictions on medical marijuana treatment centers. They also 

allege that the Attorney General's summary is not fair as 

required by art. 48 because it does not adequately explain that 

the proposed act would also legalize "hashish" and food products 

containing tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Finally, they allege 

that the title and one-sentence "yes" statement prepared by the 

Attorney General and the Secretary are misleading because they 

do not mention hashish or edible products containing THC. They 

request a declaration that the Attorney General's certification 

and summary are improper, and an order enjoining the Secretary 

from placing the matter on the ballot. They also ask the court 

to exercise its power under § 53 to order the Attorney General 

and the Secretary to amend the title and the one-sentence "yes"

statement.

12 A single justice of this court reported the Hensley 

case to the full court without decision.

 

12 Under G. L. c. 54, § 53, any action seeking an amendment 

of the title or one-sentence statements must be commenced in the 
10

The plaintiffs in the Allen case, sixty-three registered 

Massachusetts voters, commenced their action in the county court 

on May 10, 2016. They allege that the title given to the 

initiative by the Attorney General and Secretary, "Marijuana 

Legalization," is false and misleading because the proposed act

would not "fully legalize marijuana," and because it makes no 

mention of the proposed act's "regulation" and "taxation" of 

marijuana. They also claim that the inclusion of the words 

"including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)" in the "yes" statement is 

neither fair nor neutral. They also allege, among other things, 

that the one-sentence "yes" statement is misleading because it 

incorrectly states that "marijuana accessories" would be taxed 

under the new law. They ask the court for an order pursuant to 

G. L. c. 54, § 53, amending the title and the "yes" statement.

A single justice of this court reported the Allen case to the 

full court without decision.

Discussion. 1. Related subjects. We first address the 

Hensley plaintiffs' claim that the Attorney General's 

certification of the proposed act violated art. 48, The 

 

county court within twenty days after their publication in the 

Massachusetts register. Here, the plaintiffs commenced their 

action before the title and statements were published. That 

misstep is of no consequence, however, because the draft 

versions of the title and one-sentence statements that were 

available at the time the plaintiffs commenced their action were 

no different from the final versions published in the 

Massachusetts Register a few days later.
11

Initiative, II, § 3, as amended by art. 74, because it combines 

two unrelated subjects: marijuana legalization and a 

"preferential licensing system that turns non-profit, medical 

marijuana treatment centers into profit-making businesses."

There is no single "bright-line" test for determining 

whether an initiative meets the related subjects requirement. 

See Abdow v. Attorney Gen., 468 Mass. 478, 500 (2014), quoting

Carney v. Attorney Gen., 447 Mass. 218, 226 (2006) (Carney I), 

S.C., 451 Mass. 803 (2008). We do not construe the requirement 

so narrowly as to "frustrate the ability of voters to use the 

popular initiative as 'the people's process' to bring important 

matters of concern directly to the electorate" by effectively 

confining each petition to a single subject; we recognize that 

the delegates to the constitutional convention that approved 

art. 48 permitted more than one subject to be included in a 

petition. Abdow, supra at 499. Nor do we construe the 

requirement "so broadly that it allows the inclusion in a single 

petition of two or more subjects that have only a marginal 

relationship to one another, which might confuse or mislead 

voters, or . . . place them in the untenable position of casting 

a single vote on two or more dissimilar subjects." Id. See 

Dunn v. Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. , (2016) (describing 

adoption of related subjects requirement in art. 48 at

constitutional convention of 1917-1918).
12

Balancing these concerns, the related subjects requirement 

is met where "one can identify a common purpose to which each 

subject of an initiative petition can reasonably be said to be 

germane." Abdow, 468 Mass. at 499, quoting Massachusetts 

Teachers Ass'n v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 384 Mass. 209, 

219-220 (1981). "We have not construed this requirement 

narrowly nor demanded that popular initiatives be drafted with 

strict internal consistency." Abdow, supra at 500, quoting 

Mazzone v. Attorney Gen., 432 Mass. 515, 528-529 (2000). But we 

have also cautioned that "[a]t some high level of abstraction, 

any two laws may be said to share a 'common purpose.'" Abdow, 

supra, quoting Carney I, 447 Mass. at 226. Consequently, we 

have posed two questions in considering whether an initiative 

petition meets the related subjects requirement: First, "[d]o

the similarities of an initiative's provisions dominate what 

each segment provides separately so that the petition is 

sufficiently coherent to be voted on 'yes' or 'no' by the 

voters?" Abdow, supra, quoting Carney I, supra. Second, does 

the initiative petition "express an operational relatedness 

among its substantive parts that would permit a reasonable voter 

to affirm or reject the entire petition as a unified statement 

of public policy"? Abdow, supra at 501, quoting Carney I, 447 

Mass. at 230-231. See Gray v. Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. , 

(2016) (discussing related subjects requirement).
13

The initiative petition in this case easily satisfies the 

related subjects requirement of art. 48. It lays out a detailed 

plan to legalize marijuana (with limits) for adult use and to 

create a system that would license and regulate the businesses 

involved in the cultivation, testing, manufacture, distribution, 

and sale of marijuana and that would tax the retail sale of 

marijuana to consumers. The possible participation of medical 

marijuana treatment centers in the commercial distribution of 

marijuana is adequately related to this over-all detailed plan.

At present, medical marijuana treatment centers in 

Massachusetts are governed by St. 2012, c. 369, the medical 

marijuana law adopted by the voting public in an initiative 

petition in November, 2012, and by the extensive regulations 

promulgated thereunder by the Department of Public Health. See 

105 Code Mass. Regs. §§ 725.000 (2013). The proposed act would 

not revise the language of the medical marijuana law or its 

regulations. It would, however, permit an entity registered to 

operate a medical marijuana treatment center under the medical 

marijuana law also to apply for and obtain a license under the 

new law to operate a commercial marijuana establishment, and 

would allow the commercial operation to be at the same location 

as the medical marijuana center. The co-location of a 

commercial marijuana retail operation and a medical marijuana 

center would not relieve the center of its obligations under the 
14

medical marijuana law and regulations; it would, however, 

subject the retail operation to the provisions of the new law 

and the new regulations. "A measure does not fail the 

relatedness requirement just because it affects more than one 

statute, as long as the provisions of the petition are related 

by a common purpose." Albano v. Attorney Gen., 437 Mass. 156, 

161 (2002).13

The inclusion of medical marijuana treatment centers as 

potential retailers in the commercial market is simply one piece 

of the proposed integrated scheme. The fact that the 

initiative's proponents might have chosen instead to prohibit

medical marijuana treatment centers from participation in the 

retail market does not affect the coherence of the proposal as a

unified statement of public policy that is a proper subject for 

a "yes" or "no" vote. See Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n, 384 

Mass. at 220 ("It is not for the courts to say that logically 

 

13 We need not resolve, at this juncture, any conflicts or 

inconsistencies between the differing statutory schemes if the 

proposed act were to pass (or, indeed, whether it would be 

possible for an entity simultaneously to comply with both 

schemes). The sole question before us is whether the subjects 

included in the proposed act are related for art. 48 purposes. 

"[A]rguments regarding the validity of an initiative petition, 

not based on failure to comply with art. 48, cannot be pursued 

unless and until the measure has been enacted." Ash v. Attorney 

Gen., 418 Mass. 344, 350 (1994), quoting Yankee Atomic Elec. Co. 

v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 402 Mass. 750, 754 (1988) 

(declining to address contention that "if approved and enacted

as law, the act will be invalid, independent of the requirements 

of art. 48").
15

and consistently other matters might have been included or that 

particular subjects might have been dealt with differently"). A 

voter who favors the legalization of marijuana but not the 

participation in the retail market of entities registered as 

medical marijuana treatment centers is free to vote "no" if he 

or she thinks that the dangers of mixing medical marijuana 

distribution with retail distribution overcome the benefits of 

the proposal, but the proposed act does not place anyone "in the 

untenable position of casting a single vote on two or more 

dissimilar subjects" (emphasis added). Abdow, 468 Mass. at 499.

2. Attorney General's summary. The plaintiffs in the 

Hensley case also challenge the Attorney General's summary of 

the proposed act. Article 48, The Initiative, II, § 3, as 

amended by art. 74, requires the Attorney General to prepare a 

"fair, concise summary" of each certified initiative petition. 

The summary is one of the key pieces of information available to 

voters both when they are asked to sign an initiative petition 

and when they ultimately vote on an initiative that has made its 

way onto the ballot. It is printed at the top of the blank 

petition forms used by the initiative's proponents to gather 

signatures. Id. It also appears in the Information for Voters

guide (guide) that is prepared by the Secretary and sent to each 
16

registered voter before the election.14 Finally, it appears on 

the ballot itself.15

The basic legal principles used to evaluate whether a 

summary is "fair" for art. 48 purposes were set out two years 

ago in the Abdow case, as follows:

"To be 'fair,' a summary 'must not be partisan, colored, 

argumentative, or in any way one sided, and it must be 

complete enough to serve the purpose of giving the voter 

who is asked to sign a petition or who is present in a 

polling booth a fair and intelligent conception of the main 

outlines of the measure.' Sears v. Treasurer & Receiver 

Gen., 327 Mass. 310, 324 (1951). 'The Attorney General is 

 

14 The Information for Voters guide prepared by the 

Secretary of the Commonwealth (Secretary) is a single, 

comprehensive collection of the information that is officially 

available to voters in advance of the election. For each ballot 

question, the guide contains (i) the title given to the question 

by the Attorney General and the Secretary; (ii) the Attorney 

General's summary in full; (iii) the two one-sentence statements 

prepared by the Attorney General and the Secretary describing 

the effect of a "yes" and a "no" vote; (iv) a statement prepared 

by the Secretary of Administration and Finance describing the 

fiscal impact of the proposed act; (v) any legislative committee 

majority reports, together with the names of the majority and 

minority members of the committees that may have considered the 

proposed act; (vi) a statement of votes of the General Court on 

the proposed act, if any; (vii) arguments, not exceeding 150 

words each, for and against the proposed act submitted by its 

proponents and opponents; and (viii) the full text of the 

proposed act itself. See art. 48, General Provisions, IV, of 

the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, as amended by 

art. 108 of the Amendments; G. L. c. 54, §§ 53, 54.

15 For each ballot question, the ballot contains a question 

number, the Attorney General's summary, and the two one-sentence 

"yes" and "no" statements prepared by the Attorney General and 

the Secretary. See art. 48, General Provisions, III, of the 

Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution, as amended by art. 

74 of the Amendments; G. L. c. 54, § 42A. For polling places 

where voting machines are used, see G. L. c. 54, § 35A (last 

sentence).
17

not required to conduct a comprehensive legal analysis of 

the measure, including possible flaws. All the 

Constitution demands is a summary.' Mazzone, 432 Mass. at 

532. See Ash [v. Attorney Gen., 418 Mass. 344, 349-350 

(1994)]; Associated Indus. of Mass. v. Secretary of the 

Commonwealth, 413 Mass. 1, 12 (1992) ('Nothing in art. 48 

requires the summary to include legal analysis or an 

interpretation'). Moreover, as we review the summary to 

determine whether the Attorney General has fulfilled her 

constitutional obligation, we keep in mind that '[t]he 

Attorney General's judgment concerning the form and content 

of the summary is entitled to some deference.' Id. at 11. 

'Obviously, an element of discretion is involved in the 

preparation of a summary -- what to include, what to 

exclude, and what language to use. The exercise of 

discretion by the Attorney General, a constitutional 

officer with an assigned constitutional duty, should be 

given weight in any judicial analysis of the fairness and 

adequacy of a summary.' Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n, 384 

Mass. at 230."

Abdow, 468 Mass. at 505-506.

The summary must be not only "fair" but "concise." Before 

its amendment by art. 74 in 1944, the original art. 48 required 

the Attorney General to provide a "description" of the proposed

act, not a "fair, concise summary." "The word 'description' had 

been interpreted as implying a very substantial degree of detail 

and had resulted in very long and cumbersome statements of 

details of proposed laws." Sears, 327 Mass. at 324. When art. 

48 was amended and the word "description" was replaced with the 

phrase "fair, concise summary," "the intention was to relax the 

requirements which had been found implicit in the word 

description. Conciseness is emphasized in [art. 48 as amended], 

and conciseness and completeness are often incompatible." Bowe
18

v. Secretary of the Commonwealth, 320 Mass. 230, 243 (1946). 

See Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n, 384 Mass. at 227 ("Economy of 

language and fairness are now emphasized"). Where, as here, the 

initiative petition is twenty-five single-spaced pages in 

length, drafting a fair summary that is also concise is a 

challenging task. "Nevertheless, there must be a real 

'summary.' . . . The word carries with it the idea that, 

however much the subject matter may be condensed, the sum and 

substance of it must remain. No doubt details may be omitted or 

in many instances covered by broad generalizations, but mention 

must be made of at least the main features of the measure." 

Sears, 327 Mass. at 324. See Mazzone, 432 Mass. at 531.

a. Concentration of THC. The Hensley plaintiffs' first 

challenge to the summary is that it does not use the words 

"hashish" or "marijuana concentrate" or otherwise make clear 

that the proposed act would legalize marijuana with a 

concentration of THC that exceeds two and one-half per cent. 

They are correct that the proposed act would have this effect. 

They are incorrect, however, in suggesting that a reasonable 

voter could not fairly infer that from the language of the 

summary as written.

THC is the chemical "found in resin produced by the leaves 

and buds primarily of the female cannabis plant" that is 

"responsible for most of the intoxicating effects" of marijuana. 
19

National Institute on Drug Abuse, Research Report Series: 

Marijuana, at 1 (rev. Mar. 2016). Under existing law, 

"marihuana," as defined in G. L. c. 94C, § 1,16 is prosecutable

as a class D substance under G. L. c. 94C, §§ 31 and 32C. 

Marijuana that contains a THC concentration that exceeds two and 

one-half per cent is prosecutable as a class C substance under 

G. L. c. 94C, §§ 31 and 32B, because it falls within the 

definition of THC under G. L. c. 94C, § 1.17 However, because

the definition of "marihuana" in G. L. c. 94C, § 1, makes no 

mention of THC, marijuana with a concentration of THC above two 

and one-half per cent is both "marihuana" and THC. 

Under the proposed act, the definition of "marijuana" in 

chapter 94G, section 1 (g), makes explicit what is implicit in 

16 General Laws c. 94C, § 1, defines "marihuana" in relevant 

part as "all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether 

growing or not; the seeds thereof; and resin extracted from any 

part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, 

derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or 

resin." 

17 General Laws c. 94C, § 1, defines tetrahydrocannabinol 

(THC) as "excluding marihuana except when it has been 

established that the concentration of [THC] in said marihuana 

exceeds two and one-half per cent.
20

the definition in G. L. c. 94C, § 1: it includes THC.18 But the

inclusion of THC in the definition is no more consequential than 

a definition of liquor that specifically includes mention of 

alcohol. And a summary that speaks only of the legalization of 

the possession of marijuana in limited amounts by persons over 

the age of twenty-one, without making clear that it also 

legalizes the possession of the THC found in marijuana is no 

more unfair than a summary of a law ending a prohibition on 

liquor that speaks of the legalization of the possession of 

liquor by persons over the age of twenty-one without making 

clear that it also legalizes the possession of the alcohol found 

in liquor. The average voter will understand that marijuana 

contains a chemical that gives it intoxicating effects (many may 

know that the chemical is called THC), that marijuana will vary 

in potency, and that all marijuana -- lower potency and higher 

potency alike -- is being proposed for legalization.19,20

18 Under the proposed new chapter 94G, section 1 (g), 

marijuana would be defined in relevant part as "all parts of any 

plant of the genus Cannabis . . . whether growing or not; the 

seeds thereof; and resin extracted from any part of the plant; 

and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or 

preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin including 

tetrahydrocannabinol as defined in section 1 of chapter 94C of 

the General Laws" (emphasis added).

19 The Hensley plaintiffs' focus on marijuana and marijuana 

products with higher concentrations of THC -- and their desire 

to have terms such as "hashish," "marijuana concentrate," or 

"tetrahydrocannabinol" included in the Attorney General's 

summary -- appears to be intended to lay the groundwork for an 
21

b. Marijuana products. The plaintiffs next challenge the 

summary on the ground that it does not adequately communicate 

the array of items, in addition to marijuana in its ordinary 

plant form, that would be legalized for adult use under the 

proposed act. As earlier noted,21 the "marijuana products" and 

"marijuana concentrate" covered by the proposed act would 

 

argument that higher potency marijuana and marijuana products 

pose a potentially greater risk to a user's health. This is an 

argument that the plaintiffs can present to the voters in the 

public discourse leading up to election day; it is not a matter 

that is essential to a fair summary.

Including a reference to "hashish" would be especially 

problematic. That word is not defined in our General Laws or 

used in the proposed act. While it appears in some of the 

decided cases, it has no single, fixed meaning in Massachusetts 

law.

20 We note that there is no limit on the permissible 

concentrations of THC in medical marijuana under our existing 

medical marijuana law. See St. 2012, c. 369; 105 Code Mass. 

Regs. §§ 725.000 (2013). See also Report of the Special Senate 

Committee on Marijuana § 2.6, at 28 (2016) ("Status of Medical 

Marijuana Implementation"; "There are currently no THC potency 

limits for medical marijuana . . ."). We also note that the 

initiative petition for medical marijuana that was passed in 

2012, and the Attorney General's summary of it, made no mention 

of "hashish," "marijuana concentrate," or THC.

We also note that "marijuana" is defined in the medical 

marijuana law, St. 2012, c. 369, § 2 (G), as having "the meaning 

given 'marihuana' in Chapter 94C of the General Laws," without 

an added reference to THC such as we have in the initiative 

petition in this case. This underscores our assertion that 

marijuana does not stop being marijuana when its THC 

concentration exceeds two and one-half per cent. This is true 

under the controlled substances statute, the medical marijuana 

law, and proposed chapter 94G in this case.

21 See notes 6 and 7, supra.
22

encompass, among other things, marijuana-infused edible 

products, beverages, ointments, oils, and concentrated marijuana 

resin in a variety of forms. The summary does not itemize, or 

even give a representative sample of, the specific types of 

items that would be covered. It speaks only generically in 

terms of "marijuana products."22

We are disappointed that the Attorney General's summary did 

not include a fair and neutral statement that marijuana products 

under the proposed act include, among other things, food and 

drink items that contain marijuana or marijuana concentrate to 

ensure that the electorate understands that "marijuana products" 

include edible products. We recognize that the Attorney General 

was faced with a challenging task in crafting a fair summary 

that met the art. 48 mandate of being "concise" for an 

initiative that was unusually detailed and complex, but we also 

recognize that a summary of even a detailed initiative proposal 

ought to be written in plain English that a reasonable voter can 

 

22 The summary refers to "marijuana products" in three 

places: (1) it alerts the reader in the second sentence of the 

opening paragraph that the proposed act will create, regulate, 

and tax "commerce in marijuana . . . and marijuana products"; 

(2) it states in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph 

that cities and towns may "determine whether to permit the 

selling of marijuana and marijuana products for consumption on 

the premises at commercial establishments," effectively 

informing the reader that marijuana products are something to be 

consumed; and (3) it states in the first sentence of the fifth 

paragraph that "retail sales of marijuana and marijuana 

products" would be taxed.
23

readily comprehend. The use of a term of art whose meaning is 

unclear on its face, such as "marijuana products," although 

accurate, invites the risk that voters may not understand the 

meaning of the term and, therefore, the consequence of approval 

of the petition.23

We do not, however, find that risk so substantial in this 

case as to render the summary constitutionally inadequate. We 

reach this conclusion for two reasons. First, the summary 

clearly indicates that there will be commerce in both 

"marijuana" and "marijuana products," see note 22, supra, which 

informs the reader that "marijuana" and "marijuana products" are 

not the same thing. A reasonable reader should understand that 

a "marijuana product" is something produced with or from 

marijuana. The summary also informs the reader that a marijuana 

product is something to be "consumed," possibly on the premises 

where it is purchased. See note 22, supra. Many voters will 

have at least a general awareness that marijuana can appear in 

baked products such as cookies and "brownies," and therefore 

will likely recognize that the consumption of "marijuana 

products" will include edible products.

 

23 We do not suggest that a summary must include terms that 

do not already appear in the initiative petition. The proposed 

act in this case specifically defines "marijuana products" as 

including "edible products, beverages, topical products, 

ointments, oils, and tinctures." See note 6, supra.
24

Second, the summary is not the only source of information 

for voters. They will have available, both in their information 

guide and on the ballot, the "yes" and "no" statements prepared 

by the Attorney General and the Secretary. In part 3, infra, we 

require the Attorney General and the Secretary to amend the 

"yes" statement so that it makes an explicit reference to edible 

marijuana products. The voters will also have in the 

information guide the "for" and "against" statements prepared by 

the petition's supporters and opponents, and the full text of 

the proposed act. And, in light of the controversy both here 

and in other States surrounding the legalization of marijuana, 

they will have the benefit of what will surely be a spirited 

public debate on the petition generally and on the legalization 

of edible marijuana products in particular. The availability of 

other information does not relieve the Attorney General of her 

duty to prepare a constitutionally adequate summary, but it does 

give us confidence that the electorate will likely understand 

that the scope of the petition includes edible marijuana 

products.

24

 

24 With respect to edible marijuana products, we also reject 

any suggestion by the Hensley plaintiffs that the summary is 

deficient because it does not mention existing food safety laws 

and the effect of the proposed act on them. The proposed act 

states that chapter 94G "shall not exempt marijuana or marijuana 

products from [G. L. c. 94, §§ 186-195], relating to 

adulteration and misbranding of food, drugs and various 

articles. Marijuana included in a marijuana product 
25

c. Effect on medical marijuana law. The Hensley 

plaintiffs' third and final challenge to the summary is that it 

misrepresents the effect that the proposed act will have on 

medical marijuana treatment centers. The summary states that 

the proposed act "would not affect existing law regarding 

medical marijuana treatment centers."

The Attorney General correctly points out that the 

plaintiffs did not make this claim in their complaint and raise 

it now for the first time before the full court. It is 

therefore waived. In any event, this statement in the summary 

does not make it unfair under art. 48.

The statement is technically correct -- nothing in the 

existing law on medical marijuana would change. Medical 

marijuana treatment centers are currently governed by St. 2012, 

c. 396, and they would continue to be so even if this proposed 

act were to be adopted. Neither the language of c. 396 nor its 

strict requirements would be changed. Although entities 

registered as medical marijuana treatment centers could also 

obtain a license to operate a commercial marijuana establishment 

under the proposed act, they would not thereby be relieved of 

their obligations under the medical marijuana law.25

 

manufactured in compliance with the regulations under this 

chapter shall not be considered an adulterant."

25 The proposed new chapter 94G would provide, as stated 

above, that "[t]his chapter shall not be construed to affect the 
26

We recognize that the statement in the summary poses some 

risk of confusion because medical marijuana treatment centers 

would be potential licensees in the new commercial market if the 

petition were approved, and therefore the proposed act would 

affect medical marijuana centers even if it does not affect the 

"existing law" regarding them. Saying that the proposed act

"would not affect existing law" regarding medical marijuana 

centers might be read (albeit mistakenly) to mean that its 

passage would have no effect on medical marijuana centers. As 

with the language regarding "marijuana products," the Attorney 

General could have done a better job to avoid this risk of 

confusion. But we do not think that this unfortunate phrasing 

 

provisions of chapter 369 of the acts of 2012, relating to the 

medical use of marijuana as enacted by the people in the [S]tate 

election of 2012." The plaintiffs correctly point out that the 

proposed act states that it would not affect the existing law on 

"the medical use of marijuana," whereas the summary states that 

the proposed act would not affect the existing law on "medical 

marijuana treatment centers." This is not a meaningful 

distinction. Under the medical marijuana law, the phrase 

"medical use of marijuana" is defined in such a way that it 

refers to the activities of medical marijuana treatment centers, 

and not just to "use" in the colloquial sense of consumption by 

qualifying patients. St. 2012, c. 369, § 2 (I) (defining 

"medical use of marijuana" as "the acquisition, cultivation, 

possession, processing (including development of related 

products such as food, tinctures, aerosols, oils, or ointments), 

transfer, transportation, sale, distribution, dispensing, or 

administration of marijuana, for the benefit of qualifying 

patients in the treatment of debilitating medical conditions, or 

the symptoms thereof"). The summary is therefore accurate in 

this regard.
27

makes the summary unfair for art. 48 purposes, especially where 

it is a true statement as written.

In determining whether a summary is "fair," an error or 

omission "must be assessed in the context of the entire proposal 

and its likely impact on the voters." Massachusetts Teachers 

Ass'n, 384 Mass. at 234. The summary here, despite the risk of 

confusion arising from the phrasing of the sentence regarding 

marijuana treatment centers, gives "a fair and intelligent 

conception of the main outlines of the measure." Abdow, 468 

Mass. at 505, quoting Sears, 327 Mass. at 324. See, e.g., 

Massachusetts Teachers Ass'n, supra at 226-236 (summary was fair 

despite multiple omissions and one clear error that affected 

many municipalities); Opinions of the Justices, 357 Mass. 787, 

798-801 (1970) (five Justices found summary to be fair despite 

omission of certain details in summary of proposed 

constitutional amendment). If the plaintiffs believe that the 

proposed act's provisions would adversely affect the operation 

of medical marijuana treatment centers by permitting them also 

to engage in commercial sales, and that this is important to the 

voters, they are free to say so in the "against" statement and 

in their public campaign to defeat the initiative petition.

3. Title and "yes" and "no" statements. We now turn to 

the title ("Marijuana Legalization") and the one-sentence "yes" 

and "no" statements prepared jointly by the Attorney General and 
28

the Secretary pursuant to G. L. c. 54, § 53. The one-sentence 

statements assert:

"A YES VOTE would allow the possession, use, 

distribution, and cultivation of marijuana, including 

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), in limited amounts by persons 

21 and older and would provide for the regulation and 

taxation of commercial sale of such marijuana, marijuana 

accessories, and marijuana products.

"A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws 

relative to marijuana."

Section 53 requires that the one-sentence statements be 

"fair and neutral." It further provides that, in an action 

timely brought by at least fifty registered voters, "[t]he court 

may issue an order requiring amendment by the attorney general 

and the state secretary only if it is clear that the title [or] 

[one]-sentence statement . . . is false, misleading or 

inconsistent with the requirements of this section."

The Hensley plaintiffs claim that it is clear that the 

title and one-sentence statements are misleading because they 

fail to mention that the proposed measure would legalize the 

possession, use, distribution, and cultivation of "hashish," and 

the possession, use, and distribution of edible products 

containing THC.26 The Allen plaintiffs contend that the title is 

 

26 The Hensley plaintiffs also ask that we order changes be 

made to the summary. They cite no authority for us to do so, 

and we are not aware of any instance in which the court has done 

so in the past. Our authority to order an amendment of the 

title and one-sentence "yes" and "no" statements derives from 

G. L. c. 54, § 53; the statute does not authorize us to order an 
29

false and misleading because the proposed measure does not 

legalize the possession or use of marijuana by persons under the 

age of twenty-one, or legalize the possession of marijuana by 

adults in amounts in excess of stated limits. They also claim 

that the title is misleading because it makes no mention of the 

regulation and taxation of marijuana. The Allen plaintiffs 

further contend that the one-sentence description of the effect 

of a "yes" vote is not fair and neutral because it specifically 

added the words, "including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)," at the 

suggestion of the petition's opponents, even though THC is an 

active ingredient in all marijuana. They also contend that the 

"yes" statement is misleading because it incorrectly states that 

"marijuana accessories" would be taxed under the new law.

This is the first time a challenge to a title and the onesentence statements has come before the full court. In two 

previous cases in which a title or one-sentence statement has 

 

amendment of the summary. Nor are we granted such authority 

under art. 48, which governs the summary. In the absence of 

statutory or constitutional authority, we conclude that we have 

no authority to order an amendment of a summary. Cf. Dunn v. 

Attorney Gen., 474 Mass. , (2016) (court has no power to 

order amendment of one-sentence statements unless action seeking 

amendment is brought under § 53). We also note that any 

revision of the summary at this late stage of the initiative 

process would pose formidable practical problems because the 

summary has appeared at the top of the petition forms that have 

been used to collect tens of thousands of signatures, so any 

revision would call into question the validity of those 

signatures.
30

been challenged, the matter was resolved in the county court by 

a single justice.27

We do not, however, write on a clean slate. Section 53 

plainly states that we may order amendment of the title or onesentence statements "only if it is clear" that it is false, 

misleading, or otherwise inconsistent with the requirements of 

§ 53, which suggests that the joint effort of the Attorney 

General and Secretary in crafting the title and statements is 

entitled to some deference. Such deference is entirely 

appropriate, given the challenge of creating a title that fairly 

characterizes a sometimes complex petition and of drafting a 

single sentence that fairly and neutrally describes the 

consequence of a "yes" or "no" vote regarding such a petition. 

Deference, of course, does not mean abdication, so we will 

exercise our statutory authority where needed to ensure that the 

title and one-sentence statements are neither false nor 

misleading, and that the one-sentence statements are fair and 

neutral. In doing so, we recognize that the title and onesentence statements are only two of the pieces of information 

that will be provided to voters, and we must consider whether 

they are false or misleading in the context of the other 

information that will be furnished to voters in the information 

 

27 See Heilman vs. Attorney Gen., SJ-2012-0211 (June 28, 

2012); Fifty Registered Voters vs. Attorney Gen., SJ-2000-0212 

(July 18, 2000).
31

guide prepared by the Secretary and on the ballot. Ultimately, 

we shall endeavor to ensure that the information provided to 

voters in the title and one-sentence statements is fair, 

neutral, and accurate so that all sides to the ballot question 

do battle on an even playing field and so that the election is 

not marred by misunderstanding or confusion.

With these thoughts in mind, we conclude that both the 

Hensley plaintiffs and the Allen plaintiffs have identified 

fundamental flaws in the title and one-sentence statements that 

require our revision. As to the title, we agree with the Allen 

plaintiffs that the proposed measure has three main features --

legalization, regulation, and taxation -- and that it is unfair 

and clearly misleading to characterize the measure solely as 

"Marijuana Legalization." We therefore order that the title be 

amended to read, "Legalization, Regulation, and Taxation of 

Marijuana."28

 

28 We reject the argument of the Allen plaintiffs that the 

title should also include a reference to "adult use." Nothing 

about the word "legalization" in this context implies that the 

legalization would be unlimited. The average voter understands, 

for example, that alcohol is "legal," but not for underage 

drinkers. The one-sentence "yes" statement and the summary also 

make it abundantly clear that the proposed act applies only to 

persons who are twenty-one and older. We also reject the 

argument of the Hensley plaintiffs that specific references to 

"hashish" and "food products with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)" 

must appear in the title in order to make it fair.
32

With respect to the "yes" statement, we conclude that it is 

clearly misleading in some respects and order that it be amended 

as follows:

"A YES VOTE would allow persons 21 and older to possess, 

use, and transfer marijuana and products containing 

marijuana concentrate (including edible products) and to 

cultivate marijuana, all in limited amounts, and would 

provide for the regulation and taxation of commercial sale 

of marijuana and marijuana products."

The amended statement makes five changes in the statement that 

was prepared by the Attorney General and the Secretary. The 

most significant change is the replacement of the phrase 

"marijuana, including tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)" with the 

phrase "marijuana and products containing marijuana concentrate 

(including edible products)." The original statement is 

misleading in that it fails to make clear that the new law will 

allow, in limited amounts, not only the possession and use of 

marijuana but also the possession and use of products containing 

marijuana concentrate, including edible products. The reference 

to "marijuana products" in the second clause of the sentence 

("and would provide for the regulation and taxation of 

commercial sale of such marijuana, marijuana accessories, and 

marijuana products") does not adequately inform voters that the 

proposed act would legalize the sale of edible marijuana 

products, especially where the summary fails to make this as 

clear as it could. We struck the phrase, "including 
33

tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)" because it is both redundant, in 

that all marijuana includes THC, and potentially misleading, 

because it might erroneously suggest that the new law will 

legalize the possession and use of synthetic THC that did not 

derive from the Cannabis plant.

The other four changes are as follows:

i. We changed the word "distribution" to "transfer," 

to match the actual word used in the proposed act. The 

word "distribution" has a connotation in criminal narcotics 

law that is not appropriate here.29

ii. Because "products containing marijuana 

concentrate (including edible products)" cannot be 

"cultivated," we added a separate phrase referring to the 

cultivation of marijuana.

iii. We added the word "all" to the phrase "in 

limited amounts" so as to make clear that the phrase refers 

to all of the mentioned activities, i.e., possession, use, 

transfer, and cultivation.

iv. We struck the words "marijuana accessories." The 

original statement incorrectly suggests that the new law 

would impose an additional tax on marijuana accessories, 

which it does not. Accessories would be taxed only under 

the existing sales tax statute, not under the new law.

We reject the parties' requests for other changes in the 

statement.

We have considered the alternative of issuing an order 

requiring the Attorney General and the Secretary to amend the 

 

29 We reject the argument by the Allen plaintiffs that the 

words "without remuneration" should also be added. That level 

of detail is not needed in the one-sentence statement in order 

to make it fair, and the point is adequately made in the 

summary.
34

statement in light of our concerns rather than redrafting it 

ourselves, but there is simply not time to pursue that 

alternative if the guide and the ballot are to be sent to be 

printed as scheduled in early July. We are satisfied that the 

statement is fair and neutral, and neither false nor misleading, 

as we have amended it.

4. Timing of actions under G. L. c. 54, § 53. In her 

reservation and report in the Hensley case, the single justice 

commented on the lateness of the plaintiffs' constitutional 

challenges to the Attorney General's certification and summary. 

Their action was brought inexcusably late. In Dunn, 474 Mass. 

at , which we also decide today, we discuss the importance of 

commencing actions raising art. 48 challenges to a petition much 

earlier in the initiative process, preferably not later than 

February 1 of the election year, so that the action can proceed 

at a more orderly pace. We now take this opportunity to address 

the timing of the Allen action, which was brought pursuant to 

§ 53.

Under § 53, after the Attorney General and the Secretary

jointly prepare the ballot question title and the one-sentence 

"yes" and "no" statements, the Secretary is required to publish 

them in the Massachusetts Register no later than "the second 

Wednesday in May" of the election year. Challenges to the title 

and statements must be commenced in the county court no more 
35

than twenty days after publication. This means that such

actions may be commenced in late May or, in some years, early 

June, and that there inevitably will be a mad scramble to have 

the cases briefed, argued, and decided, because we make every 

effort to resolve ballot cases before the voter information 

guide and ballots are sent for printing in early July.30

Section 53 sets a deadline for publication; it does not bar 

earlier publication. To avoid this mad scramble, we ask the 

Attorney General and the Secretary to consider preparing and 

publishing the title and one-sentence statements under § 53 no 

later than twenty days in advance of February 1 of the election 

year, so that parties who commence an action asserting 

constitutional challenges under art. 48 might also bring a 

statutory claim under § 53, in the same case at the same time. 

If that were done, challenges brought under the statute would 

proceed in the normal course, at a more orderly pace, and not, 

as here, at the proverbial eleventh hour.

Alternatively, we ask the Legislature to consider amending 

the statute, either along the lines described above or in some 

other reasonable fashion, so that statutory actions challenging 

 

30 The parties in the Allen case acted timely under the 

statute. Nothing we say is intended as criticism of their 

conduct. Indeed, the title and statements in this case were 

published a few days before the statutory deadline, and the 

Allen plaintiffs commenced their action in the county court a 

few days after that.
36

titles and statements can be brought earlier in the initiative 

process to allow the court to give them the full attention they 

deserve in a more manageable time frame.

Conclusion. A judgment shall enter in the county court in 

the Hensley case (1) declaring that the initiative petition 

contains only related subjects within the meaning of art. 48, 

and that the Attorney General's certification of the measure was 

therefore correct; and (2) declaring that the Attorney General's 

summary of the petition was "fair" under art. 48. An order 

shall enter in the county court in both the Hensley case and the 

Allen case, pursuant to G. L. c. 54, § 53, requiring the 

Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth to amend 

the title so that it provides, "Legalization, Regulation, and 

Taxation of Marijuana"; and requiring them to amend the 

one-sentence "yes" statement so that it reads as follows:

"A YES VOTE would allow persons 21 and older to possess, 

use, and transfer marijuana and products containing 

marijuana concentrate (including edible products) and to

cultivate marijuana, all in limited amounts, and would 

provide for the regulation and taxation of commercial sale 

of marijuana and marijuana products."

So ordered.
Appendix.

"SUMMARY OF 15-27

"The proposed law would permit the possession, use, 

distribution, and cultivation of marijuana in limited amounts by 

persons age 21 and older and would remove criminal penalties for 

such activities. It would provide for the regulation of 

commerce in marijuana, marijuana accessories, and marijuana 

products and for the taxation of proceeds from sales of these 

items.

"The proposed law would authorize persons at least 21 years 

old to possess up to one ounce of marijuana outside of their 

residences; possess up to ten ounces of marijuana inside their 

residences; grow up to six marijuana plants in their residences; 

give one ounce or less of marijuana to a person at least 21 

years old without payment; possess, produce or transfer hemp; or 

make or transfer items related to marijuana use, storage, 

cultivation, or processing.

"The measure would create a Cannabis Control Commission of 

three members appointed by the state Treasurer which would 

generally administer the law governing marijuana use and 

distribution, promulgate regulations, and be responsible for the 

licensing of marijuana commercial establishments. The proposed 

law would also create a Cannabis Advisory Board of fifteen 

members appointed by the Governor. The Cannabis Control 

Commission would adopt regulations governing licensing 

qualifications; security; record keeping; health and safety 

standards; packaging and labeling; testing; advertising and 

displays; required inspections; and such other matters as the 

Commission considers appropriate. The records of the Commission 

would be public records.

"The proposed law would authorize cities and towns to adopt 

reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of 

operating marijuana businesses and to limit the number of 

marijuana establishments in their communities. A city or town 

could hold a local vote to determine whether to permit the 

selling of marijuana and marijuana products for consumption on 

the premises at commercial establishments.

"The proceeds of retail sales of marijuana and marijuana 

products would be subject to the state sales tax and an 

additional excise tax of 3.75%. A city or town could impose a 
2

separate tax of up to 2%. Revenue received from the additional 

state excise tax or from license application fees and civil 

penalties for violations of this law would be deposited in a 

Marijuana Regulation Fund and would be used subject to 

appropriation for administration of the proposed law.

"Marijuana-related activities authorized under this 

proposed law could not be a basis for adverse orders in child 

welfare cases absent clear and convincing evidence that such 

activities had created an unreasonable danger to the safety of a 

minor child. The proposed law would not affect existing law 

regarding medical marijuana treatment centers or the operation 

of motor vehicles while under the influence. It would permit 

property owners to prohibit the use, sale, or production of 

marijuana on their premises (with an exception that landlords 

cannot prohibit consumption by tenants of marijuana by means 

other than by smoking); and would permit employers to prohibit 

the consumption of marijuana by employees in the workplace. 

State and local governments could continue to restrict uses in 

public buildings or at or near schools. Supplying marijuana to 

persons under age 21 would be unlawful.

"The proposed law would take effect on December 15, 2016."