by Ben Kaplan
8/15/2016

It’s green, a bit smelly, and can make people very hungry when consumed. It’s also on the ballot for this November. Question 4 on this year’s ballot proposes the legalization of recreational marijuana in Massachusetts. If passed, Massachusetts would become the fifth state to have it. It is one of eight states facing the same decision this November. The plant has been stirring up a fair amount of controversy throughout the state as people weigh the pros and cons of its legalization, creating a division in surrounding communities and the government. Big names in Massachusetts’ politics have spoken out on both sides of the issue. Governor Charlie Baker, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, and Attorney General Maura Healey have been adamantly outspoken against marijuana whereas Boston City Council members Michelle Wu and Mike Moran, as well as former general Attorney General Karen Hawkes, support the movement. The discord is understandable, as there are a large number of aspects to consider when legalizing a drug that is still considered schedule one by the DEA. Besides the obvious part of selling it, taxation, packaging, and public health must also be considered. Even though the discussion has been going on for a number of years now, much of the public still feels either uninformed on the issue, or has had too much information thrown at them to make any sense of it.

To further this discussion, the Holliston Democratic Town Committee invited two speakers to present at their meeting this past Saturday, Will Luzier and Jody Hensley. Mr. Luzier is a representative of the “Yes On 4” campaign, a movement to promote the legalization of properly taxed and regulated marijuana. He has an extensive political background in Massachusetts starting from when he was a self-defined, “college activist and hippy minus the long hair.” Ms. Hensley, at the recommendation of State Representative Carolyn Dykema, came forward as a private citizen to speak about this issue that she is passionately against. Before she became a member of the school committee in Westborough (where her two sons go to school), she was active with the Massachusetts Prevention Alliance and was involved in working on numerous chemical health issues. She is also associated with the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts but was not directly representing them at this meeting. Both parties had equal time to present their cases and field questions from the committee and public.

Both Ms. Hensley and Mr. Luzier opened with a brief overview of their stance. Ms. Hensley proposed that as the bill currently stands, it gives too much power to what she describes as an “addiction for profit industry,” similar to Big Tobacco. She believes that this law would lay the groundwork for a marijuana industry that ignores the dangers to mental health and cognitive abilities that marijuana may pose. Mr. Luzier on the other hand stated that “Yes on 4” supports the bill because they believe that marijuana should receive the same treatment as substances like tobacco and alcohol, will provide a significant amount of revenue to the state, will drastically decrease the black market for it, and will address a “long-standing social injustice,” i.e., the imprisonment of minorities on minor drug-related charges.

Will Luzier is a representative for "Yes on 4" campaign that promotes the regulation and taxation of recreational marijuana

Regarding the idea of “Big Marijuana,” Ms. Hensley states that the industry already has extreme amounts of influence in areas such as Colorado and Washington where it has been already legalized, and there is no reason to believe that this would not happen in Massachusetts. The ballot question is based on House Bill 3932, a proposed bill that did not end up passing. Hensley says that the ballot would allow the industry to dominate the regulations. She cites Section 3 of the bill, which creates a new chapter (#77), which would create a cannabis advisory board. The board would be made up of fifteen members, but eight or nine of them would be industry members (including a cultivation expert, retailing expert, and testing expert). Mr. Luzier, who believes that it would make sense that any regulations regarding an industry should have input from members of that industry, says that according to the law, there would also be a Cannabis Control Commission, formed by the State Treasurer. It’s purpose would be very similar to the Massachusetts Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission. The C.C.C model was actually based on that of the A.B.C.C. Hensley also cites corporate and commercial interests in the budding industry. She mentions how companies such as ArcView, Dixie Elixirs, and Vincente Sederberg have contributed funds to popular pro-marijuana movements like the Marijuana Policy Project. It is Ms. Hensley’s belief that the marijuana industry has more interest in making a profit than protecting the community.

The community effect of legalization of recreational usage was also a point brought up. Mr. Luzier states how “the reason why many high schoolers smoke marijuana instead of drinking alcohol is because it is easy to get. A dealer would not ask a student for their ID.” Hensley argued that legalization has done nothing to stop the presence of the illegal drug trade in Colorado. In fact, she asserted that it even could be beneficial to criminals because they can hide in plain sight. Luzier acknowledges that it is near impossible to rid communities of the black market completely, the purpose of legalization is to minimize its presence. While some would argue that legalization would increase availability, Luzier believes that a heavily regulated industry would actually decrease its accessibility to those who are underage. “Since these are commercial facilities (the C.C.C) would have the ability to shut businesses down if they were found to be selling to underage individuals,” he says, “Much like with alcohol, it would be in the business owner’s best interests to follow the law.”

A major issue for Hensley is the public health risk that legalization could cause. The science behind both long-term and short-term effects of marijuana are still highly debated by medical professionals. The presentations stayed away from diving deeply into the physiological effects of the drug as it has been already legalized for medicinal purposes. Both speakers presented a number of statistics regarding usage rates, likeliness of addiction, and age of use. It is important to note for any possible voter that when reading a graph or statistics, be aware of its creator and what possible biases they may have. It is certainly easy enough for either side to skew the results of a study that they may have funded.

Jody Hensley is a concerned parent and member of the Westborough School Committee

Besides the effects of the drug itself, other possible safety issues include overdosing, accessibility to children, and potency. In reference to the wide amount of opioid and heroin overdoses that have occurred recently, Hensley stated that, “we must first deal with the addiction epidemics we already have before introducing new drugs to the public.”  It is a known fact that marijuana is a lot stronger today than it has been in decades past. In the late 1970s the average percentage of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, was around 7%, nowadays the average is closer to 12%, with some products containing up to 30%. Luzier, who believes that marijuana is significantly less harmful than certain substances that have been legalized, emphasized that any marijuana products would have the amount of THC in the product clearly labeled as well as information on how to consume safely. Products would also come in anti-child packaging. According to Luzier, children are way more likely to get their hands on, and poison themselves, with a plethora of products (such as laundry detergent, other cleaning products, and even crayons) than to accidentally ingest marijuana. There is already a law in place in Massachusetts that dispensaries cannot sell any product that resembles popular food or candy brands. One issue that does not have a definite answer is the prevention of driving while intoxicated. It is not possible to test blood levels for THC in the same way that it is for alcohol due to the fact that THC stays in the body for up to 30 days after ingesting. This means that a perfectly competent and sober driver could test positive for marijuana. Luzier stated that there are studies being done on a way for law enforcement officials to more easily determine marijuana intoxication in drivers.

Many of the committee members and audience members were heavily interested in the actual logistics of the ballot. According to Luzier, businesses would start applying in early 2017 with the expectation that recreational shops would start to appear in 2018. Adding on to the idea of Big Marijuana, Hensley stated how a monopoly would be imminent because the same businesses who followed along with the industry when legalizing for medical use in Massachusetts was on the ballot in 2012 would be the businesses that would have first dibs on any recreational sales. Luzier stated how while it was true that only businesses that are medical or formerly medical looking to switch would have priority, this would only be the case for the first year that the law is in place. To ease the wariness of where the product would be coming from, Luzier added in his breakdown of the plan that 75 places recognized by the Board of Health have the opportunity to ask for a cultivation license, manufacturing license, and retail license. It is possible that a purchased product could be grown and packaged in the same place it is sold in. They are also all Massachusetts based businesses. The law would prohibit any out of state distributors. The proposed tax rate of 12% was chosen because the creators of the ballot question wanted a rate that was still profitable, while still discouraging black market purchases.

Hensley also had doubts regarding the ability of choice and control for communities. She is worried that towns do not have the ability to opt out of selling marijuana in their neighborhoods. Luzier stated that if the ballot intiative were to pass, that while local government would have control over things such as placement of business, their time of operation, and signage, they could not outright ban the sale through zoning because state law allows it.

In closing, the two speakers emphasized the importance of the issue at hand. Luzier stated that a regulated and taxed system that treats marijuana not just as a product, but as a form of harm reduction and a stream of revenue is far superior to leaving it to the black market. Hensley on the other hand, reiterated that “this is the wrong law at the wrong time.”

This is the second in a string of Democratic Town Committee meetings devoted to discussing the upcoming ballot questions. Last month the committee had Brigitte Laukien from Citizens for Farm Animal Protection to talk about Ballot Question 3, which is the initiative to prohibit certain methods of farm animal containment. On September 10th the committee will be hosting someone to talk about Ballot Question 2, or lifting the cap on charter schools.