Let’s be clear: Marijuana isn’t on the ballot Nov. 8. People have been ingesting marijuana in Massachusetts in large numbers for 50 years or more. About 615,000 Bay State residents use it at least monthly, according to government estimates. They are going to keep doing it whether voters approve Question 4 or not.

A product in demand will find its market. The question facing Massachusetts voters is whether the public’s interest is best served by having marijuana sold in a black market or in a regulated one.

There are public interests to consider in marijuana policy as well as individual rights. One public interest is in keeping drugs away from children. In a black market, drug dealers don’t ask buyers for their IDs and they often have other, more dangerous drugs they are happy to sell to their young customers. In a regulated market, retailers could lose their licenses for such offenses. Black market dealers don’t put their cannabis in childproof packages; that would be required under Question 4.

There’s also a public interest in consumer products are safe, free from harmful additives, with dosage and potency information printed on the labels. Black market dealers don’t do that; under Question 4, regulators would require it.

Black market dealers don’t pay taxes, and send millions in profits to violent drug cartels. Under Question 4, licensed dealers will collect up to 12 percent of sales in state and local taxes, in addition to annual license renewal fees, revenue that can help cover the cost of the regulatory agency and more.

We would have preferred the state Legislature produce a legalization law that weighed all the competing interests, but lawmakers have long refused to take the lead on marijuana reform. So the job of writing the legislation fell to local and national marijuana policy advocates, who produced the 11-page document on the Nov. 8 ballot.

All told, they did a pretty good job. Taking a lesson from Colorado, where the Legislature had to scramble to tighten regulation of edibles and other products, Question 4 gives a three-member Cannabis Control Commission, appointed by the state treasurer, broad power to regulate the new industry. Many of the things opponents worry about - high-potency edibles, excessive advertising, packaging attractive to children - could be prohibited by a simple vote of the CCC.

Other concerns could be addressed locally. The location, operating hours and signage of marijuana facilities would be governed by local bylaws and boards. Selectmen and city councils could limit the number of operators to 20 percent of the number of package store licenses. Marijuana facilities could be banned altogether by a ballot question in a local election - and we expect many communities would do just that, before the law goes into effect.

The authors of Question 4 give regulators a year to put new rules in place, which opponents say isn’t nearly enough time. But proponents were understandably wary of the kind of bureaucratic foot-dragging that stalled implementation of the medical marijuana initiative. So, by January 2018, if no new procedures are in place, licensed medical marijuana dispensaries will be able to sell to the recreational market.

Some opponents of Question 4 have used scare tactics that echo of Reefer Madness hysteria. They’ve tried to pin the opioid crisis on marijuana, despite near-universal agreement that the problem began with the promiscuous prescribing of opioid painkillers. They’ve painted Colorado and other states that have already legalized marijuana as dystopian horror shows. That would surprise the residents of those states, most of whom say the change has been no big deal.

Other opponents take a more nuanced approach, arguing that the Legislature could devise a better legalization regime and that it’s just not the right time to change the marijuana laws. But the Legislature has earned the public’s distrust on marijuana policy, and few believe lawmakers would take a rejection of Question 4 as anything but an excuse to keep things they way they are. As for “it’s too soon,” that’s usually the weakest argument against change - and the last.

The time for change is now. If its goal was to stop people from using marijuana, prohibition has failed. It has succeeded only at enriching those who operate outside the law, and at making life more difficult for the tiny percentage of users and suppliers who get caught, a group that is disproportionately black and Latino.

Question 4 offers a better way to address the public interests in marijuana policy, and we urge a YES vote on Nov. 8.