A decade ago, 54 percent of Massachusetts voters said yes to Question 4, a ballot initiative that legalized possession, home cultivation, and commercial distribution of recreational marijuana. Judging from recent surveys, voters are not inclined to reverse that decision by approving Question 8, an initiative on next Tuesday's ballot.

Question 8, a.k.a. the Eliminate Recreational Marijuana Sales and Allow Limited Possession Initiative, would permit adults 21 or older to possess up to an ounce of cannabis. But they would have to get it from the black market, since Question 8 would not allow them to grow it or buy it from state-licensed retailers.

The initiative "would keep personal possession of marijuana legal, keep medical marijuana legal, and stop commercial marijuana stores," its supporters say. They allege that legalization has impaired "productivity" and led to increases in "fatal car accidents," "workplace injuries," "healthcare costs," "crime (like DUI's)," "ER visits," and "mental health conditions like psychosis, severe anxiety, and schizophrenia, particularly in young adults."

Voters do not seem impressed by those arguments. In eight polls between mid-February and mid-October, support for Question 8 ranged from 20 percent to 41 percent. In the most recent survey, conducted by The Boston Globe, 71 percent of respondents said they planned to vote no on Question 8, which suggests that experience with legalization has substantially increased opposition to pot prohibition in Massachusetts.

Question 8's sponsor, the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, is funded almost entirely by Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM). As of October 20, the Virginia-based group had spent $3.7 million on the project, compared to $2.8 million in spending by the opposition, which includes several marijuana businesses.

SAM's co-founder, Kevin Sabet, who served as a drug policy adviser during the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations, says he was motivated by the concerns of Massachusetts residents who approached him. "Many of them voted for this initiative 10 years ago and feel betrayed," Sabet told WGBH, an NPR station in Boston. If so, the polls indicate such converts are far outnumbered by former Question 4 opponents who have traveled that road in the opposite direction.

"We're under no illusions that the bluest state in the country is going to pass this easily with flying colors," Sabet told WBUR, another Boston NPR station, a few weeks ago. "But we want to have that conversation."

The conversation clearly is not going the way Sabet hoped. Massachusetts, which was the fifth state to legalize recreational marijuana, is now one of two dozen, which together account for most of the U.S. population. In October 2025, Gallup put nationwide support for marijuana legalization at 64 percent, which was down a bit from the peak of 70 percent recorded in 2023 but still 16 points higher than in 2012, when Colorado and Washington started this ball rolling.

Public support for legalizing recreational marijuana tends to be even higher in states that have done it. In Civiqs surveys last December, support in 15 states where voters had approved legalization ranged from 62 percent in Missouri to 77 percent in Oregon. It had increased since legalization in every state but New Jersey, where it was down one point from the 67 percent of voters who approved Public Question 1 in 2020. In Massachusetts, support had risen from 54 percent to 76 percent.

The fate of two other drug policy initiatives that voters will consider next week is less clear. As far as I can tell, pollsters have not asked voters about them.

Colorado's Proposition 132 would make manufacturing or distributing any amount of illicit fentanyl a Level 1 drug felony punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of eight years. Under current law, the penalties vary depending on the amount of fentanyl involved.

In Idaho, House Joint Resolution 4, a proposed constitutional amendment, would strip voters of the power to legalize marijuana or any other psychoactive substance. If the initiative passes, which requires approval by a simple majority, that power will be reserved to the state legislature.

The post Massachusetts Voters Don't Seem Inclined To Repeal Marijuana Legalization Next Week appeared first on Reason Magazine.

One of the biggest problems in our world of politics is voters' common refusal to accept the concept of tradeoffs. Author Robert Mulligan says it "is one of the most basic principles in economics, that in order to have more of one thing, you have to accept having less of something else." Likewise, economist Thomas Sowell noted, "There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs."

It's a basic idea that we all understand on a personal level. I've been thinking about trading my 15-year-old car for a new one, as it would be nice to have a vehicle with power windows and Bluetooth. But buying one means using money I could spend on other pleasures. Such is life.

Politics is funny, though. Politicians make promises where everyone gets everything their heart desires. We can have a single-payer healthcare system without any of the resulting shortages. We can have tariffs that don't drive inflation—or that wall Mexico pays for. It would be nice if lawmakers just leveled with us about the ups and downs of policy choices.

One initiative this election, Proposition 45, best epitomizes that tradeoff issue. It seeks to reform the state's "landmark" environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Do we want more building and the good it brings, or do we maintain the Byzantine regulatory process so we can stop construction of projects we don't like?

Complex regulations aren't best reformed at the ballot box, but since Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the law in 1970, CEQA has entangled construction projects of every sort in a maze of hearings, Environmental Impact Reports, and litigation. CEQA was meant to assure developers mitigated any environmental damage. That sounds fine, but it has led to long delays, enormous costs, and special interests that use the process to stop projects or exact non-environmental demands (e.g., union wage concessions).

There's wide consensus in the Legislature that CEQA has exacerbated the state's housing crisis, halted business growth, and slowed our economy. The law even endangers the state's environmental priorities, as cynical actors have used it to derail parks, transit projects, infill housing, wildfire-fighting brush-clearance projects, you name it.

Lawmakers have exempted various projects from CEQA, but have done so on a piecemeal basis—and only those that fit a narrow scope. Sponsored by the level-headed California Chamber of Commerce, Proposition 45 attempts broad reform for any "essential" project. Per the measure, that includes housing, water systems, clean energy, health facilities, police and fire stations, brush clearance, broadband, education facilities, and transportation projects except for the bullet train.

As the Legislative Analyst's Office explains, Proposition 45 "creates more binding time limits for state and local governments to do both CEQA and permitting reviews. This includes time limits for determining if a project application is complete, finishing the EIR, and granting other types of approvals and permits." Some of the changes are deep in the weeds, but it's all meant to speed things up—and to limit what the courts can review.

"CEQA lawsuits, inclusive of appeals, typically take four to five years to resolve, stalling most approved projects and often deterring lenders, investors and grant-making agencies from funding them," explained a September report from the Holland & Knight law firm. Ask any knowledgeable person about why California is incapable of building anything efficiently and they will point to these CEQA impediments. If the state wants to reduce housing prices, it needs to fix this logjam.

As a voter, you must answer a simple question: Do the benefits outweigh the downsides? Again, the downside is that in speeding up approval of projects that you like, it will also speed up the process for projects that you don't like. No wonder opponents are raising the arguable specter that Proposition 45 will help companies build data centers, given those centers are widely unpopular.

We need more housing, including suburban subdivisions. We need more businesses. We need better freeways. We need to speed the process for brush clearance to prevent devastating wildfires. So, yes, I eagerly support this measure. Will it likely mean I'll see the speedier construction of, say, underused light-rail lines and absurdly costly subsidized apartment buildings that annoy me? Probably. Oh well, some bad will come with the good, no matter what the campaigns tell you.

For instance, the "yes" side claims that Proposition 45 offers the "same strong protections." California's environmental protections will still be strong, but they obviously won't be the "same." And opponents claim CEQA needs reform, but this particular fix is the wrong way to go about it. That canard just reflects a myopic refusal to accept downsides inherent in any reform.

To me, Proposition 45 has far more pros than cons. You do you. But be an adult and recognize the tradeoffs. As sci-fi author Robert Heinlein wrote, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL)."

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

The post California Voters Have a Chance To Address the State's Broken Environmental Regulations appeared first on Reason Magazine.