Title: Hensley v. Attorney General
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: SJC-12106; 12117
State: Massachusetts
Issuer: Massachusetts Supreme Court
Date: July 6, 2016

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revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound 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 one-
sentence 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 marijuana-
related 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 one-
sentence 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 one-
sentence 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 one-
sentence 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."