If the constant barrage of Snapchat, Facebook, and Twitter reminders hasn’t clued you in, Election Day is coming up! On Tuesday, November 8th, voters will flock to the polls to determine the next president of the United States. However, if you feel like the current election is ruining your life, remember that presidential candidates aren’t the only things you vote for.
In Massachusetts, marijuana legalization is on the ballot—more specifically, the question proposing to make recreational marijuana use legal for adults 21 and older. Kim Napoli, Outreach Director of the Massachusetts Yes on 4 campaign to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol, cleared up a few points of confusion about legalization.
1. The sales tax isn’t going to be crazy high (yes, the wording is intentional).
You may have heard a few people express concern about the price of marijuana rising as a result of Massachusetts sales tax. On the contrary, the tax on recreational marijuana will be 3.75 percent, which will then be tacked on to the normal Massachusetts sales tax of 6.25 percent. Cities and towns will have the option to add up to an additional 2 percent, which means that the total tax on recreational marijuana will be between 10-12 percent.
In fact, 3.75 percent is actually pretty low in comparison to marijuana taxes in other states that have legalized recreational use; according to the Colorado Department of Revenue, Colorado implements a 10 percent tax on recreational marijuana.
2. It could actually halt cash flow to the black market.
Some critics complain that legalizing marijuana will just strengthen the black market. However, the price of legal, taxed-and-regulated marijuana could actually be cheaper than most black-market marijuana. This means that more people will buy from licensed dispensaries, and less people will buy from sketchy back-alley drug dealers. In other words, the black market is getting shorted.
“If the people who are running the black market can’t compete and make money, then why would they continue to sell the product if there’s no demand?” says Napoli.
Additional perk? Buying from a legal marijuana establishment means you don’t have to worry about weed being laced with harmful chemicals, drugs, or synthetic compounds; the licensing process and regulatory guidelines are super strict to ensure consumers’ safety.
3. Current laws harm people of color.
According to a recent ACLU study, black people are three times more likely to be arrested for possessing marijuana, and seven times more likely to be arrested for selling than white people.
“This essentially means that black people are getting arrested for selling it to white people, who are not getting arrested for buying and possessing it,” say Napoli. The results couldn’t be more black and white.
4. Edible marketing has some pretty strict standards. No Haribo weed gummies, folks.
Contrary to some of the anti-marijuana ads out there, the rules for labeling are extremely strict—that means no product or brand recognition. In other words, no ‘Pot-Tarts’ or ‘Weedies’ breakfast cereal.
“Generally with dispensaries, there’s just straightforward labeling. [The label] says what it is, what the content is, what the quality is. Walking into a dispensary won’t be like walking into a candy store, that’s a fear tactic.” Kim adds that marketing towards children isn’t allowed. “You won’t see a bus going by with giant weed gummy bears on it,” she says.
5. Smoking in public is still illegal.
The proposed law clearly states, “No person shall consume marijuana in a public place or smoke marijuana where smoking tobacco is prohibited.” Remember that marijuana is still federally illegal, so smoking in places that receive federal funding—think public schools and universities like UMass—is illegal too.
6. Towns can vote not to allow marijuana establishments.
Some people are under the impression that Question 4 will force towns to allow dispensaries and other marijuana-related establishments. This is false.
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean that your town will allow marijuana stores—individual legislative bodies in Massachusetts can actually place a local ban on them.
7. The opposition is mainly funded by alcohol and gambling interests.
According to a report by the Boston Globe, casino magnate Sheldon Adelson contributed $1 million to Massachusetts’ anti-marijuana campaign. Who else is on the list? Wine and Spirit Wholesalers of Massachusetts and a number of pharmaceutical interests, according to data from the Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance.
But why? Because the money spent on marijuana means less money for drug companies, less money for alcohol vendors, and less money on gambling. “Look at who’s funding the opposition: alcohol companies and drug companies and casino campaigns. These are people who prey on the vices and addictions of the human populace because they don’t want money that is coming to them to be diverted in any way. They fund the opposition to protect their interests,” says Kim Napoli.
Regardless of your personal opinions on marijuana, keep these points in mind when you head to the ballots, and do your research.