“If licensed adult-use retailers disappear, consumers will continue to seek cannabis through other channels… None of the alternatives will produce the safe and regulatory tested products, jobs and tax revenue the current legal market generates.”

By Steve Reilly, Insa

If you are a Massachusetts voter who has not been following the debate over cannabis policy, Question 8 on this November’s ballot deserves your attention.

The measure asks voters whether Massachusetts should repeal the laws that allow and regulate adult-use cannabis sales. The implications go well beyond whether a dispensary remains open. The question reaches the system of licensed businesses, product testing, taxation and regulatory oversight that Massachusetts has built over the past decade—seeking to eliminate 27,000 jobs and $300,000,000 in tax revenue that will need to be made up somewhere else.

Understanding what is actually being proposed and what would replace the current system is essential before casting a ballot.

Massachusetts voters approved adult-use marijuana legalization in 2016. Since then, the commonwealth has developed a regulated market overseen by the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC), with licensed cultivators, manufacturers, retailers and testing laboratories operating under regulated state rules. Although there have been documented issues with regulatory oversight, the legislature recently took action to make improvements, and the ballot question could ultimately undermine that progress rather than build on it.

Question 8—formally titled “An Act to Restore a Sensible Marijuana Policy”—would repeal the state laws governing the possession, distribution, cultivation and taxation of adult-use marijuana. While the medical market would remain legal and adults 21 and older would still be permitted to possess up to one ounce without civil or criminal penalties, possession of more than one ounce and up to two ounces would carry a civil penalty.

The effect would be to penalize possession over an ounce, while keeping lesser amounts fully legal but eliminating the commercial dispensaries where product can be purchased. The practical effect will be to sow confusion and chaos with regards to what cannabis you can possess and where you can obtain it, likely pushing consumers into the illicit market. This is intentional by those brining the initiative who hope to diminish public support.

A “yes” vote is not simply a vote to change cannabis regulations or impose new restrictions on dispensaries. It would eliminate the existing adult-use retail system.

So what does that mean for consumers?

Today, an adult-use consumer can enter a licensed Massachusetts cannabis retailer and purchase products that are subject to state requirements for testing, labeling, packaging, security and business oversight. The regulated system also establishes rules around who can sell cannabis and where it can be sold.

If Question 8 passes, that licensed adult-use retail structure would go away, giving way to an unregulated market where these products continue to be legal to possess and use. The practical question for consumers is not whether cannabis possession remains legal, rather it is whether Massachusetts will continue providing a commercially regulated, licensed place for adults to purchase cannabis products.

That raises important public-safety questions.

There is also an economic consequence. Since legalization, Massachusetts’s adult-use cannabis market has generated more than $10 billion in cumulative sales, including approximately $1.65 billion in 2025 alone. In 2025, the cannabis industry generated approximately $308 million in state revenue and another $51 million in local-option tax revenue for municipalities that supports cultivation and manufacturing employees, laboratory workers, security companies, construction and real estate businesses, technology providers, professional services and other vendors.

Eliminating the adult-use licensing and taxation framework would fundamentally alter the businesses and public revenues that have developed around it.

One of the central arguments for legalization was that a regulated marketplace could provide adults with an alternative to an illicit market. But if licensed adult-use retailers disappear, consumers will continue to seek cannabis through other channels. Whether that means medical dispensaries, personal cultivation, transfers between adults or illicit sellers will depend on how the market responds.

None of the alternatives will produce the safe and regulatory tested products, jobs and tax revenue the current legal market generates.

As a registered voter, the choice on Question 8 is consequential. Question 8 represents a decision between maintaining a regulated adult-use marketplace that has existed for nearly a decade and moving Massachusetts toward a different model in which marijuana remains legal but unregulated.

As voters consider the question, they should look beyond campaign slogans and understand exactly what the initiative would change, what protections would remain, what would disappear and how those changes could affect consumers, communities, employees and businesses.

Cannabis policy should ultimately be about public safety, responsible access, accountability and informed consumer choice, not an unregulated free-for-all market. Whatever position a voter takes on Question 8, that decision should begin with a clear understanding of what is actually on the ballot. More information is available at at stoptherepealma.com.

Steve Reilly is head of government relations for Insa, a cannabis company that operates in Massachusetts and other states.

Source link

Supporters of a proposed medical cannabis ballot initiative in Idaho said they have gathered more than 100,000 signatures and are making a final push in hopes of qualifying the proposal for November’s general election ballot by the April 30 deadline.

A group called the Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho is hoping to legalize medical cannabis as a treatment option for Idahoans with debilitating medical conditions like cancer, post traumatic stress disorder, AIDS, epilepsy, Crohn’s disease or Alzheimer’s disease.

Under Idaho law, cannabis means the same thing as marijuana, and the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.

Currently, all forms of cannabis are illegal in Idaho but recreational marijuana or medical cannabis are available in all of Idaho’s bordering states other than Wyoming.

Supporters said they want to legalize medical cannabis to give people with serious medical conditions and chronic pain an alternative to opioid medications.

“We’ve had hundreds of people email us about how they’re suffering with PTSD or they’re suffering with epilepsy and they’re driving across the border and illegally buying gummies because they would like some dignity in their care, in their state, but they can’t get it, and they’re still accessing these things because they’re right there and available,” said Amanda Watson, a Boise-based spokeswoman for the initiative. “This framework would allow for really strong regulation, restricted access and it’s a medical program.”

Opposition is being led by the Republican-controlled Idaho Legislature, which is pushing a competing marijuana measure on November’s ballot and is calling for voters to reject the medical cannabis ballot initiative.

“The Idaho Medical Cannabis Act lacks safeguards to such an extent that it would effectively legalize widespread recreational use of marijuana,” Idaho legislators warned in a resolution adopted earlier this month.

Who is behind the Idaho medical cannabis ballot initiative?

Rob Cronin, a Sun Valley businessman who has opened several restaurants in Idaho and across the country, serves as the chairperson and treasurer for the Natural Medicine Alliance PAC.

In an interview last week, Cronin said his experience as a cancer survivor and his friendship with the late Dr. Dori Tunney, a physician and philanthropist, inspired him to help push the medical cannabis ballot initiative.

Tunnery was diagnosed with glioblastoma and treated her pain with opioids that brought on severe side effects, curbed her appetite and led to a severe physical decline, Cronin and Watson said.

During treatment in California, where cannabis is legal, Tunney tried a medical cannabis gummy and Cronin and Watson said her appetite and sleep returned to normal and her pain decreased.

Cronin and Watson said Tunney began advocating for legalizing medical cannabis in Idaho in 2022, a push that continued until her death in 2024.

Cronin said he also had severe side effects when he used opioid medications after surgery from his cancer treatment. Cronin said he weighs 175 pounds today, but his weight dropped to 119 pounds due to nausea, loss of appetite and loss of sleep caused by opioids.

“The pain was just outrageous and I was hammering Vicodin like it was going out of style,” Cronin said. “I can tell you firsthand that I would have chosen a cannabis alternative to opioids all day long, because the opioid puts you on that funky roller coaster of, ‘Oh, I feel better. Oh, I’m depressed, and my life sucks. Oww, now I’m in pain. another opioid. Oh, I’m depressed again and my life sucks.’ It really messes with your head.”

Cronin and Watson said they met each other while volunteering with Tunney to support cancer patients in Idaho. Cronin and Watson said they are supporting the measure in order to try to finish the job for Tunney before the Idaho Legislature can attempt to further restrict voters’ ability to legalize medical cannabis in Idaho.

Watson said most of the funding for the initiative comes from an investment from Double Springs Ranch, which Tunney and her husband owned. The ranch is located in central Idaho and produces hemp and hemp fiber and raises Black Angus cattle.

What is a ballot initiative and what will it take to get medical cannabis on the November ballot?

In Idaho, a ballot initiative is a form of direct democracy where the voters of Idaho—not the Idaho Legislature—vote on whether to pass a proposed law.

Organizers say they are bringing the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act to voters as a ballot initiative because the Idaho Legislature has not taken action to legalize medical cannabis.

All of Idaho’s neighboring states other than Wyoming offer either medical cannabis, like Utah, or recreational marijuana, like Washington, Oregon, Montana and Nevada.

In order to qualify for the November general election, organizers need to collect signatures from 6 percent of registered voters statewide, which is 70,725 valid signatures. On top of that raw total, organizers also need to collect signatures from 6 percent of registered voters in at least 18 of Idaho’s 35 legislative districts.

The deadline to submit signatures to the state for verification is April 30.

“I would say we are cautiously optimistic,” Watson said Friday. “We are collecting thousands of signatures a day at this point to make sure that we get over that threshold in each legislative district. There’s some rural parts of Idaho that we’re working really hard to hit that 6 percent in. Right now, we’ve collected over 100,000 raw signatures.”

The Natural Medicine Alliance of Idaho is using paid signature-gatherers in an effort to meet the requirements to qualify the initiative for the election. The alliance pays $25 per hour plus incentives, Watson said.

If the initiative qualifies for November’s general election, it would take a simple majority of votes to approve it.

Why does the Idaho Legislature oppose cannabis?

If the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act qualifies for the ballot, there would be competing marijuana-related questions on the November ballot.

The Idaho Legislature has already come out in opposition to medical cannabis and placed a proposed amendment to the Idaho Constitution known as House Joint Resolution 4 on the November ballot. If approved by a majority of voters, House Joint Resolution 4 would make it so that only the Idaho Legislature, not voters, could legalize marijuana or other narcotics.

“Too many legislatures across this nation have sat back and just waited as initiative after initiative would come after them, until they finally overwhelm it and overwhelm the legislature,” state Sen. Scott Grow, R-Eagle, said last year. “We are acting because that’s our responsibility.”

During the 2025 legislative session, the Idaho Legislature and Gov. Brad Little (R) passed a law that creates a mandatory minimum fine of $300 for anyone convicted of simple marijuana possession, the Idaho Capital Sun previously reported.

This year, the Idaho Legislature also adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 127, which encourages Idaho voters to reject the medical cannabis ballot initiative.

In the resolution, legislators warn that legalization of marijuana and medical cannabis has created problems for other states and would increase the budget and costs for the Idaho Department of Health Welfare at a time when state revenues are uncertain.

Idaho legislators also allege that the requirements to obtain a medical cannabis card would be so loose that almost anyone would be able to get one.

“The 18 medical conditions that qualify one to obtain a medical cannabis card, including insomnia, anxiety, and acute pain, are so broad that almost anyone could qualify,” Idaho legislators wrote.

On Thursday, officials with the Idaho Secretary of State’s Office said 10,232 signatures have been submitted so far, and the office has marked 4,698 of those signatures as valid.

How would the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act work?

Here are the basics of how the Idaho Medical Cannabis Act would work if it qualifies for the November election and a majority of Idaho voters pass the act.

• Idahoans would be able to apply for a renewable medical cannabis card by presenting medical records showing a substantial or terminal health condition, such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, epilepsy, Alzheimer’s, MS, post traumatic stress disorder, chronic pain.
• Meanwhile, the state would initially issue three medical cannabis production licenses across the state that would allow a licensee to grow, produce, distribute and sell medical cannabis to individuals with a valid Idaho medical cannabis card. When Idaho’s population increases by 650,000, additional production licenses could be issued – up to a total of six in the state. The application process for a production license requires a valid Idaho hemp license in good standing, submission of an operational plan, background checks and the use of a pharmacist for oversight.
• The act would allow each license holder to operate up to six retail locations, two facility locations, fulfillment centers, warehouses and distribution centers.
• For individuals with an Idaho medical cannabis card, online ordering, delivery and pickup at distribution centers would be allowed.
• Using medical cannabis in public and sharing medical cannabis with someone who does not have an Idaho medical cannabis card would be prohibited in Idaho under the act. It would also be illegal to drive, operate a boat, operate aircraft, operate heavy machinery or drive a train under the influence of medical cannabis.

Source link