In 1928, the eighth year of Prohibition and five years before Repeal, Massachusetts activists collected signatures to put a Public Policy Question on the ballot in 36 of 40 senate districts, giving voters an opportunity to “instruct” their senator to support a resolution to Congress and the President for repeal of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution.

In 1928, the eighth year of Prohibition and five years before Repeal, Massachusetts activists collected signatures to put a Public Policy Question on the ballot in 36 of 40 senate districts, giving voters an opportunity to “instruct” their senator to support a resolution to Congress and the President for repeal of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution.

PPQs are non-binding questions that give voters, in the words of former Attorney General and Governor Paul A. Dever, an opportunity “to apprise their senators and representatives of their sentiments upon important public questions.” With correct paperwork and sufficient signatures, PPQs can appear on general election ballots to reveal where voters really stand on important public questions, like whether to repeal prohibition or perpetuate it.

A staggering 63 percent of the votes on the 1928 PPQ supported repeal, but the legislature declined to act, as vocal public sentiment remained solidly in support of the status quo. To condemn prohibition in public was to defend saloons and the worst excesses of alcohol. To acknowledge the futility of enforcement was defeatist. Prohibition was regularly scorned in private and defended in public.

Galvanized by the expressed sentiment of voters, reform activists hit the sidewalks again, this time to put a bombshell on the 1930 ballot: a binding initiative to repeal the state's prohibition laws altogether, replacing them with nothing. The effect of the voter-enacted law would be to eliminate the authority of state and local police to arrest people for booze, and cede to the federal government the full responsibility and burden of finding, arresting, prosecuting and punishing violators.

Like the 1928 PPQ, the 1930 initiative passed by another staggering 63 percent margin. Only Franklin County disapproved it. In Barnstable, Dukes and Nantucket Counties the results were razor-thin, as bootlegging provided good employment opportunities if you had a boat.

Following the leadership of Massachusetts voters, 11 more states passed similar repeals in 1932. California voters amended their state constitution to claim exclusive power to regulate and tax the alcohol industry “when lawful under Federal Constitution and law,” thus preempting claims by counties and municipalities to the new revenue. When voters in 36 state— not legislatures — ratified the 21st Amendment in 1933, states were given the right to prohibit or permit alcohol; nearly all then passed and implemented laws to regulate and tax the industry. Shootouts between beer distributors ended.

Is history repeating itself?

For every election between 2002 and 2010, Massachusetts activists collected signatures to give voters in 45 legislative districts an opportunity to apprise state senators and representatives of their sentiments on the prohibition of marijuana. Some PPQs urged legalizing medical marijuana, some urged decriminalization and some supported outright regulation and taxation. The results are staggering: voters approved all 45 by an average of 64.5 percent.

In 2008, despite strident opposition from the Governor, Attorney General, prosecutors and police, Massachusetts voters approved a binding initiative decriminalizing marijuana by 45,000 more votes than received by Barack Obama. This November, a medical marijuana initiative likely will be on the Massachusetts ballot. If the PPQ and decrim votes are any indication, it will pass, but voters in other states may attract far more attention.

Washington state voters will have an opportunity to repeal state marijuana prohibition and replace it with regulation and taxation. Colorado voters will have an opportunity amend their state constitution to insert the affirmative right of adults to have and use marijuana, and to sell it with a license. Success of either measure will force the federal government to make a choice: to deploy armies of federal agents into cities and towns, where local police will no longer have authority for street-level enforcement; or, to re-think the premises of federal prohibition, namely, that marijuana is dangerous, it has no medical utility, and that all use is abuse. Hardly anyone, save stakeholders in prohibition, actually believes these canards anymore, though most people have the good sense not to refute them in public.

On Tuesday, March 6, in Room A-2 of the State House at 1 p.m., the state legislature’s Judiciary Committee will take public comments on H1371, An Act to Regulate and Tax the Cannabis Industry, a measure filed by Rep. Ellen Story of Amherst in direct response to a PPQ instruction from 70 percent of her voting constituents in the 2010 election. The bill is co-sponsored by Reps. Gobi of Spencer, Ehrlich of Marblehead and Balser of Newton.

The legislation is unlikely to go anywhere. Look to the voters, not legislators, for leadership on this issue.

Richard M. Evans is an attorney in Northampton and the principal author of H1371.