Duxbury resident Adam Fine handout

I am an attorney and a father of young children, and I’m voting “Yes” on Question 4. As a former public defender, I witnessed how prosecution for simple possession of marijuana could ruin people’s lives and tax our limited criminal justice resources. As a father, I believe the current system -- where drug dealers are in control and no one checks IDs -- is far more dangerous than the regulated, taxed system offered by Question 4.

Regulation and taxation is working in other states. In Colorado, teen use has remained flat. Marijuana OUI cases dropped in 2015 compared with the prior year. The system generated $135 million in new tax revenues last year.


Regulation and taxation would benefit veterans and others who require medical marijuana but cannot afford a medical card, live too far from the state’s few operating dispensaries, or do not want their name placed on the state’s marijuana patient list.

Question 4 would also address the terrible social injustices and public health failures that have flourished under the current system. Even today, a person of color in Massachusetts is 3.9 times more likely to be arrested for a marijuana offense than a white person, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Court-ordered drug treatment for petty marijuana offenses has diverted limited public resources and distracted us from addressing our real drug crisis: opiate addiction.

Additionally, Question 4 would finally place controls on a market that has been flourishing in Massachusetts for decades. Prohibition has failed to keep marijuana out of our communities and out of the hands of our young people. Today’s market pushes buyers straight into the embrace of criminals who sell far more dangerous drugs, like heroin and fentanyl.

Governor Charles Baker, Boston Mayor Martin Walsh, and others are wrong when they say marijuana is a gateway drug. In states where medical marijuana is legal, opioid overdose deaths have dropped nearly 25 percent because marijuana offers a safer, nonaddictive alternative.


I am voting Yes on Question 4 because I believe societies should recognize public policy failures and endeavor to correct them. Question 4 offers Massachusetts voters the chance to do exactly that.

NO

Vinny de Macedo

State senator, Plymouth Republican

State Senator Vinny de Macedo handout

This November, voters will also be asked to decide on Question 4, which would authorize the commercial marijuana industry in Massachusetts. I’m proud to be part of a large bipartisan coalition urging voters to vote “No.”

This ballot proposal is not about whether or not citizens can use marijuana in the privacy of their own home, or whether or not it can be accessed for medical purposes. In Massachusetts we have already decriminalized marijuana so that today no one is arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana, and we’ve legalized medical use so that the substance is an available therapy when approved by a doctor.

This ballot question is about the creation of a new billion-dollar marijuana industry in our state -- it was largely written by this industry, and the campaign behind it is financed by this industry. The profit motivation behind Question 4 (think “big tobacco”) would limit the ability of communities to determine when and where new “pot shops” are opened in our neighborhoods. It would rely heavily on the marketing and sale of “edible” products -- these products, often candies, soft drinks, and sweets (yes, drug-laced gummy bears!) look identical to their non-narcotic versions. Despite the industry’s claims, these edible products are targeted to attract a new life-long client base -- our kids.


In Colorado, this experiment is underway, and it is failing. Today Colorado is home to more marijuana shops than it is to Starbucks and McDonald’s combined! As this new industry rapidly seeks to gain customers, these shops will be sited in some of our most challenged communities -- where we already battle poverty and crime, and confront the opioid epidemic. If successful, this measure would reshape the face of Main Street as we know it in our state.

To name a few, Question 4 is opposed by Governor Charlie Baker (a Republican), Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, Attorney General Maura Healey, and Speaker of the House Bob DeLeo (all Democrats) -- as well as a coalition of professional associations in the fields of addiction, healthcare, law enforcement, education, and business.

We urge you to reject the marijuana industry in Massachusetts and vote no on Question 4.

Last week’s Argument: Should short-term rentals including Airbnb be subject to hotel taxes in Massachusetts?

Yes: 62 percent (32 votes)

No: 38 percent (20 votes)

As told to Globe correspondent John Laidler. He can be reached at laidler@globe.com.