Election Results 2014

On November 4, 2014, Massachusetts voters in selected districts had a chance to weigh in on marijuana policy by responding to non-binding questions appearing on Election Day ballots.

One Public Policy Question (PPQ), sponsored by the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts, appeared on ballots in eight districts and asked if the state representative from that district should be instructed to support a measure regulating marijuana similar to how alcohol is regulated:
“Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?”

A second PPQ, sponsored by Bay State Repeal, appeared on ballots in six districts and asked what should replace marijuana prohibition after its repeal:
“Polls public opinion on “replac[ing] the state’s restrictions on marijuana with a law that regulates the cultivation of and commerce in marijuana, by persons over the age of 21, in the same manner as laws that apply to the cultivation and sale of fruits, vegetables and herbs.”

See the table below for more information on the measures.

 

District/Question Number	Question	Sponsor	Results
4th Barnstable Question 6 in Provincetown, Truro, Wellfleet, Eastham, Orleans, Chatham, Harwich, and Precinct 3 of BrewsterQuestion 9 in Orleans	“Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?”	Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts	WIN 73% (results incomplete)
4th BerkshireQuestion 5 in Lenox, Lee, Great Barrington, Stockbridge, Alford, Becket, Egremont, Monterey, Mount Washington, New Marlborough, Richmond, Sandisfield, Sheffield, Tyringham, Washington, West Stockbridge, Blandford, Russell, and Tolland Question 6 in Otis	“Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?”	Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts	WIN 74% (results incomplete)
1st EssexQuestion 5 in Newburyport, Salisbury, and Amesbury	“Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?”	Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts	WIN 72%
2nd FranklinQuestion 5 in Athol, Petersham, Phillipston, and precinct A of Belchertown Question 6 in Erving, Gill, New Salem, Orange, Warwick, and Wendell Question 7 in Royalston and Templeton	“Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?”	Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts	WIN 69%
14th MiddlesexQuestion 5 in Concord, Carlisle, Precincts 1, 2, and 6 of Acton, Precincts 1 and 9 of Chelmsford	“Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?”	Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts	WIN 72% (results incomplete)
15th Middlesex Question 5 in Lexington Question 6 in Wards 1 and 7 of Woburn	“Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?”	Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts	WIN 72%
24th MiddlesexQuestion 5 in Belmont, Ward 11, Precincts 1 and 3 of CambridgeQuestion 6 in Precincts 2, 4, 8, 10, and 12 of Arlington	“Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?”	Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts	WIN 74%
8th NorfolkQuestion 6 in Sharon, Precinct 4 of Mansfield, Precincts 2, 3, 4, and 6 of StoughtonQuestion 7 in Precincts 3 and 4 of Walpole	“Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of legislation that would allow the state to regulate and tax marijuana in the same manner as alcohol?”	Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts	WIN 73%
4th Essex House DistrictQuestion 5 in Hamilton, Ipswich, Manchester-by-the-Sea, Rowley, Topsfield, and Wenham	Polls public opinion on “replac[ing] the state’s restrictions on marijuana with a law that regulates the cultivation of and commerce in marijuana, by persons over the age of 21, in the same manner as laws that apply to the cultivation and sale of fruits, vegetables and herbs.”	Bay State Repeal	WIN 54%
7th Essex House DistrictQuestion 5 in Salem	Polls public opinion on “replac[ing] the state’s restrictions on marijuana with a law that regulates the cultivation of and commerce in marijuana, by persons over the age of 21, in the same manner as laws that apply to the cultivation and sale of fruits, vegetables and herbs.”	Bay State Repeal	WIN 61%
8th Essex House DistrictQuestion 5 inPrecinct 4 of Ward 3, and Precinct 4 of Ward 4, of Lynn, and MarbleheadQuestion 6 in Swampscott	Polls public opinion on “replac[ing] the state’s restrictions on marijuana with a law that regulates the cultivation of and commerce in marijuana, by persons over the age of 21, in the same manner as laws that apply to the cultivation and sale of fruits, vegetables and herbs.”	Bay State Repeal	WIN 57%
3rd Middlesex House DistrictQuestion 5 in Hudson, Maynard, Stow, and Bolton	Polls public opinion on “replac[ing] the state’s restrictions on marijuana with a law that regulates the cultivation of and commerce in marijuana, by persons over the age of 21, in the same manner as laws that apply to the cultivation and sale of fruits, vegetables and herbs.”	Bay State Repeal	WIN 60%
6th Middlesex House DistrictQuestion 5 in Framingham: Precincts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15	Polls public opinion on “replac[ing] the state’s restrictions on marijuana with a law that regulates the cultivation of and commerce in marijuana, by persons over the age of 21, in the same manner as laws that apply to the cultivation and sale of fruits, vegetables and herbs.”	Bay State Repeal	WIN 62%
2nd Hampshire House DistrictQuestion 5 in Easthampton, Granby: Precinct 2Question 6 in Hadley and South Hadley	Polls public opinion on “replac[ing] the state’s restrictions on marijuana with a law that regulates the cultivation of and commerce in marijuana, by persons over the age of 21, in the same manner as laws that apply to retail and agricultural businesses.”	Bay State Repeal	WIN 64%

http://www.mpp.org/states/massachusetts/2014-massachusetts-public.html

Which of the questions do you think has the better chance of passing in 2016? Tell us!
Help us #legalizema2016!
www.masscann.org

________________________________________________________________________________________________

State, Local Marijuana Legalization Measures Win Big On Election Day
by Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director

Oregon and Alaska legalized and regulated the commercial production and sale of marijuana for adults, while voters residing in the nation’s capitol and in numerous other cities nationwide similarly decided this Election Day to eliminate marijuana possession penalties.

Voters in two states decided in favor of a pair of statewide measures to regulate the commercial production, retail sale, and personal use of marijuana by adults. Alaska and Oregon are the third and fourth states to enact regulations on the licensed production and sale of cannabis, joining Colorado and Washington. All four states have enacted their marijuana legalization laws via voter initiative.

Commenting on the new laws’ passage, NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said: “The majority of voters in these states, like a majority of voters nationwide, agree that a pragmatic regulatory framework that allows for the legal, licensed commercial production and retail sale of cannabis to adults best reduces the risks associated with the plant’s use or potential abuse. Elected officials in Alaska, Oregon, and elsewhere should welcome the opportunity to bring these common sense and long overdue regulatory controls to the commercial cannabis market.”

Under the new Oregon proposal (Measure 91), adults who engage in the non-commercial cultivation of limited amounts of cannabis for personal use (up to four marijuana plants and eight ounces of usable marijuana at a given time) will not be subject to taxation or commercial regulations. Imposition of the new law will not “amend or affect in any way the function, duties, and powers of the Oregon Health Authority under the Oregon Medical Marijuana Act.” The legalization measure takes effect on July 1, 2015.

Under the Alaska measure (Ballot Measure 2), the adult possession of up to one ounce of cannabis as well as the cultivation of up to six-plants for personal consumption will be legal and untaxed. Commercial production and retail sales of cannabis will be subject to licensing and taxation. Since 1975, Alaskans have enjoyed personal privacy protections allowing for the possession and cultivation of small quantities of cannabis. However, state law has never before permitted a legal market for marijuana production and sales. The initiative becomes law 90 days after the election is certified, which is expected to be in late November.

Some 56 percent of Oregon voters backed Measure 91 while 52 percent of Alaskans endorsed Measure 2.

In California, nearly 60 percent of voters backed Proposition 47, which defelonizes simple drug possession crimes, such as the possession of hashish. Under the measure, Californians with felony records for certain marijuana possession offenses will also be eligible to have their records expunged. Those serving time for felony drug offenses will also be able to petition for resentencing.

In the US territory Guam , 56 percent of voters decided in favor of Proposal 14A, the Compassionate Cannabis Use Act. The new law directs “the Department of Public Health and Social Services to regulate the use of marijuana as treatment for medical conditions.” The Department has up to nine months to provide rules for the territory’s medical marijuana program.

By contrast, a proposed Florida amendment (Amendment 2) fell shy of the 60 percent support threshold necessary in that state to amend the state’s constitution. Fifty-eight percent of Florida voters endorsed the measure, including supermajorities in most every age group except for those voters age 65 and older. Said NORML’s Deputy Director: “This vote wasn’t a rejection of medical marijuana in Florida, but rather an affirmation that most Floridians want patient access to cannabis therapy. NORML hopes that the Florida lawmakers will hear this message loud and clear and take action in 2015 on behalf of the will of the majority of the electorate.”

Municipal voters overwhelmingly decided in favor of depenalizing cannabis on Election Day. In Washington, DC, some 70 percent of District voters approved Initiative 71, which removes criminal and civil penalties regarding the adult possession of up to two ounces of cannabis and/or the cultivation of up to six plants. Adults who engage in not-for-profit transactions of small quantities of cannabis or who possess marijuana-related paraphernalia are also no longer be subject to penalty under this act.

Unlike legalization measures in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, I-71 does not establish a regulatory framework for the regulation of a commercial cannabis market. However, members of the DC City Council are currently considering separate legislation to regulate the commercial production and sale of marijuana to adults. (Because Washington, DC does not possess statehood, all District laws are subject to Congressional approval prior to their implementation.)

Voters in several Michigan cities, including Saginaw (population 51,000), Port Huron (30,000), and Berkley (15,000) also decided in favor of local ballot measures depenalizing offenses involving the adult possession of up to one ounce of marijuana. Michigan lawmakers are anticipated to debate a statewide decriminalization proposal in 2015.

Likewise, voters in South Portland, Maine approved a municipal ordinance eliminating local penalties in regard to the adult possession of up to one ounce of cannabis. Voters in Lewiston, Maine rejected a similar measure.

In New Mexico, voters in Bernalillo and Santa Fe counties decided in favor of advisory questions in support of the decriminalization of one ounce or less of marijuana at a city, county and state level. Bernalillo and Santa Fe counties represent a third of the state’s population.

Finally, in Massachusetts, voters in several state representative districts voted in favor of various nonbinding public policy questions calling on state officials to legalize and regulate cannabis-related commerce.
– See more at: http://blog.norml.org/2014/11/05/state-local-marijuana-legalization-measures-win-big-on-election-day/#sthash.ajqz22br.dpuf

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

See the ballot initiatives in more detail thanks to Marijuana Policy Project:

http://www.mpp.org/legislation/2014-Ballot-Initiatives.html

Statewide Initiatives

State	Initiative	Sponsored by	Results
Alaska	Ballot Measure 2: An initiative to legalize and regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol for those 21 and older; also allows home cultivation	Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol	WIN 52-48
Florida	Amendment 2: A constitutional amendment to allow patients with debilitating medical conditions to use marijuana and to obtain it from regulated dispensaries; required 60% to pass	United for Care	LOSS 58-42 (required 60% to pass)
Oregon	Measure 91: An initiative to legalize and regulate marijuana similarly to alcohol for those 21 and older; also allows home cultivation	Vote Yes on 91, the 2014 Campaign to Legalize, Regulate, and Tax Marijuana in Oregon	WIN 55-45

 

U.S. Territory/Federal District Measures

U.S. Territory/Federal District	Initiative	Sponsored by	Results
Guam	Proposal 14A, Joaquin (KC) Concepcion II Compassionate Cannabis Use Act of 2013: Guam’s legislature placed this measure on the ballot to allow voters to decide whether to allow patients with debilitating medical conditions to use marijuana and to obtain it from regulated providers.	Referendum submitted by the Guam Legislature	WIN 56-44
Washington, D.C.	Initiative 71: An initiative to make it legal for adults to possess and grow limited amounts of marijuana	DC Cannabis Campaign	WIN 69-31

 

Local Measures

Local	Initiative	Sponsored by	Results
California	Numerous local ballot initiatives appeared on city and county ballots across the state. Most were aimed at improving local regulations, but some presented by local government officials would restrict medical marijuana-related activity.	Many grassroots organizations	Click here for results.
Colorado	A number of local measures asked voters whether to allow or ban adult-use marijuana stores in their county, city, or town. In addition, several Colorado localities had marijuana tax issues on the ballot.	Various local campaigns	Click here for results.
Maine	Local measures in Lewiston (Question 2) and South Portland would make possession of up to one ounce of marijuana legal for adults 21 years of age or older. They also expressed support for regulating marijuana like alcohol at the state level.	Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol in Maine	Lewiston: LOSS 45-55South Portland: WIN 52-48
Massachusetts	Non-binding marijuana policy questions (Public Policy Questions, or PPQs) appeared on ballots in selected districts across Massachusetts.	Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts and Bay State Repeal	Click here for results.
Michigan	Eleven local decriminalization measures appeared on city ballots across Michigan.	Safer Michigan Coalition	Click here for results.
New Mexico	Non-binding questions on decriminalization appeared on the ballots in Bernalillo and Santa Fe Counties.	DecrimNM	Bernalillo County: WIN 57-42Santa Fe County: WIN 73-27

http://www.mpp.org/legislation/2014-Ballot-Initiatives.html