2008 Massachusetts Question 2
# 2008 Massachusetts Question 2

Elections in Massachusetts :

General

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022 :

Federal government

U.S. President

1788–89

1792

1796

1800

1804

1808

1812

1816

1820

1824

1828

1832

1836

1840

1844

1848

1852

1856

1860

1864

1868

1872

1876

1880

1884

1888

1892

1896

1900

1904

1908

1912

1916

1920

1924

1928

1932

1936

1940

1944

1948

1952

1956

1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

Dem

2008

Dem

GOP

2012

2016

Dem

GOP

2020

Dem

GOP

2024

Dem

GOP

U.S. Senate

Class 1: 1788

1790

1796 (S)

1796

1798

1800 (S)

1803

1808 (S)

1810 (S)

1811

1813 (S)

1815

1815 (S)

1816 (S)

1818 (S)

1820

1820 (S)

1822

1826

1827

1829 (S)

1833

1839

February 1841 (S)

1845

1851

1851 (S)

1857

1863

1869

1874 (S)

1875

1881

1887

1893

1899

1905

1911

1916

1922

1928

1934

1940

1946

1952

1958

1962 (S)

1964

1970

1976

1982

1988

1994

2000

2006

2010 (S)

2012

2018

2024

Class 2: 1788

1793

1796

1800 (S)

1803 (S)

1805

1810

1811 (S)

1816

1822 (S)

1826 (S)

1828

1835

January 1841 (S)

1841

1845 (S)

1847

1853

1855 (S)

1859

1865

1871

1873 (S)

1877

1883

1889

1895

1901

1905 (S)

1907

1913

1918

1924

1930

1936

1942

1944 (S)

1948

1954

1960

1966

1972

1978

1984

1990

1996

2002

2008

2013 (S)

2014

2020

U.S. House

1788/1789

1790/1792

1792/1793

1794/1795

1796/1797

1798/1799

1800/1801

1802/1803

1804

1806

1808

1810/1811

1812/1813

1814/1815

3rd

1816/1817

1818/1819

1820/1821

1822/1823

1824/1825

1826/1827

1828

1830/1832

1833/1834

1834/1835

1836

1838/1839

1840/1841

1842/1844

1844/1846

1846

1848/1850

1850/1851

1852

1854

1856

1858

1860

1862

1864

1866

1868

1870

1872

1874

1876

1878

1880

1882

1884

1886

1888

1890

1892

1894

1896

1898

1900

1902

1904

1906

1908

1910

1912

1914

1916

1918

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1991 (1st)

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2001 (9th)

2002

2004

2006

2007 (5th)

2008

2010

2012

2013 (5th)

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022 :

State government

Governor

1800

1801

1802

1803

1804

1805

1806

1807

1808

1809

1810

1811

1812

1813

1814

1815

1816

1817

1818

1819

1820

1821

1822

1823

1824

1825

1826

1827

1828

1829

1830

Apr. 1831

Nov. 1831

1832

1833

1834

1835

1836

1837

1838

1839

1840

1841

1842

1843

1844

1845

1846

1847

1848

1849

1850

1851

1852

1853

1854

1855

1856

1857

1858

1859

1860

1861

1862

1863

1864

1865

1866

1867

1868

1869

1870

1871

1872

1873

1874

1875

1876

1877

1878

1879

1880

1881

1882

1883

1884

1885

1886

1887

1888

1889

1890

1891

1892

1893

1894

1895

1896

1897

1898

1899

1900

1901

1902

1903

1904

1905

1906

1907

1908

1909

1910

1911

1912

1913

1914

1915

1916

1917

1918

1919

1920

1922

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

State Senate

1787

1824

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

2022

State House

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2020

2022

Governor's Council

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

Ballot measures

1980: Proposition 2½

2002: English Language Education in Public Schools

2006: 2008

Greyhound Protection

Sensible Marijuana Policy

State Income Tax Repeal

2010: No Sales Tax for Alcohol

Sales Tax Relief

Comprehensive Permits and Regional Planning

2012: Right to Repair

Death with Dignity

Medical Marijuana

2014: Automatic Gas Tax Increase Repeal

Expansion of Bottle Deposits

Casino Repeal

Paid Sick Days

2016: Expand Slot Machine Gaming

Charter School Expansion

Farm Animal Confinement

Legalization, Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana

2018: Gender Identity Anti-Discrimination

2020: pending :

Boston

Mayor

1822

1823

1824

Apr 1825

Dec 1825

1826

1827

1828

1829

1830

1831

1832

1833

1834

1835

1836

1837

1838

1839

1840

1841

1842

1843

1844–45

Dec 1845

1846

1847

1848

1849

1850

1851

1852

1853–54

Dec 1854

1855

1856

1857

1858

1859

1860

1861

1862

1863

1864

1865

1866

1867

1868

1869

1871

1872

1873

1874

1875

1876

1877

1878

1879

1880

1881

1882

1883

1884

1885

1886

1887

1888

1889

1890

1891

1892

1893

1894

1895

1897

1899

1901

1903

1905

1907

1910

1914

1917

1921

1925

1929

1933

1937

1941

1945

1949

1951

1955

1959

1963

1967

1971

1975

1979

1983

1987

1991

1993

1997

2001

2005

2009

2013

2017

2021

City council

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021 :

Springfield

Mayor

1953

1955

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973 (S)

1973

1975

1977

1979

1983

1981

1985

1987

1989 (S)

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2015

2019 :

Worcester

Mayor

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023 :

vte :

The Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative, also known as Massachusetts Ballot Question 2, was an initiated state statute that replaced prior criminal penalties with new civil penalties on adults possessing an ounce or less of marijuana. The initiative appeared on the November 4, 2008, ballot in Massachusetts.

The measure was passed on Nov 4. and became public law on January 2, 2009

Question 2:

* Replaced criminal penalties with a US$100 fine of which the proceeds go to the city where the offense takes place.
* Eliminated the collection of Criminal Offender Record Information (CORI) reports for minor marijuana related infractions.
* Maintained then-current penalties for selling, growing, and trafficking marijuana, as well as the prohibition against driving under the influence of marijuana.
* The law requires additional penalties for minors such as Parental notification, compulsory drug awareness program, and 10 hours community service that was not required under prior law. It also requires a larger US$1,000 fine and possible delinquency proceedings for those under 17 if they do not complete the requirements of the law.

The law represents a break with prior law in Massachusetts, where people charged with marijuana possession faced criminal penalties of up to six months in jail and a US$500 fine, as well as a CORI report being filed.

On Tuesday, September 10, 2008, a city councillor in Worcester called for a vote on a measure to express the opposition by the city of Worcester to the initiative. The city council rejected and voted down the measure by a 10-1 vote, with the only vote for the measure coming from the councillor that requested the vote.

## Supporters

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

### Organizations

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

### Individuals

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

### Religious Leaders

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

### Newspaper Editorial endorsements

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

### Polls

A Suffolk University / WHDH Channel 7 poll has shown that 72 percent of Greater Boston residents are in favor of replacing criminal penalties with civil fines for carrying an ounce or less of marijuana. "The public may be signaling that pursuing small-time marijuana users is a waste of taxpayer resources," said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Bureau at Suffolk University. "This issue suggests there is a libertarian streak in the thinking of the Massachusetts voter." The poll was conducted with 400 residents between July 31 and August 3, 2008.

A FastTrack poll by WBZ TV /Survey USA on September 17 showed that 69% of all Massachusetts voters would favor either decriminalization or legalization. It was broken down to 30% want it remain a crime, 31% want it changed to a civil fine and 38% would like it to be legalized completely. The poll had a margin of error of 4.5%.

### Arguments in favor

Supporting arguments advanced by the proponents include:

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

### History

The National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse (also known as the Shafer Commission) was created by Public Law 91-513 in 1972 to study marijuana abuse in the United States. It published its findings in a report called Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding and recommended that the president should decriminalize possession of marijuana in amounts that constituted "simple possession".

So far 30 non-binding public policy questions calling for civil fines for possession of marijuana rather than criminal penalties have passed in legislative districts throughout Massachusetts since 2000. These questions were passed with an average of 62% of the vote in favor. No Public policy question related to replacing criminal penalties with civil fines has ever failed in the state of Massachusetts.

The Joint Mental Health and Substance Abuse Committee of the Massachusetts General Court voted 6-1 in favor of a bill that would have made possession of less than an ounce of marijuana punishable by a civil fine.

### Funding

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

## Opposition

The Coalition for Safe Streets, a committee organized to oppose Question 2, launched a statewide campaign Sept. 5 to defeat the measure. Jonathan W. Blodgett, the Essex County District Attorney serves as the Coalition's treasurer and chairman.

Michael O'Keefe, the president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, is opposed to the initiative. He believes that the measure will lead to an increase in minors using the drug by sending the wrong message to them.

The O'Keefe Committee is one of ten committees representing district attorneys in Massachusetts that have contributed to the Coalition.

William Breault, chairman of the Main South Alliance for Public Safety in Worcester, also plans to oppose this initiative.

### Funding

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

## Controversies

On September 17, 2008, the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy filed complaints with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance and the Attorney General's office against the Massachusetts District Attorney Association, the 11 state district attorneys and O'Neill and Associates, a Boston public relations firm. Violations of the campaign finance law could result in up to 1 year in jail and a $1,000 fine.

Also, Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone has stated that in the event the majority of voters in the State of Massachusetts were to pass the initiative, he will attempt to override the vote and defeat it in an appellate process.

### Alleged Complaints

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

## Petition drive to qualify

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

## Results

Sensible Marijuana Policy Initiative :

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

## Enactment

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

