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.

New court documents reveal that the jury foreperson in Lindsay Clancy's trial sent a total of six notes to the judge before he declared a mistrial.

The Plymouth County District Attorney's Office included the notes in its opposition to Clancy's motion to dismiss the murder charges, making a number of statements regarding the holdout juror, who has been identified as Michael Desronvil. 

Clancy, 36, faced three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, Cora, Dawson and Callan, all under age 6, who were found strangled at the family's home in January 2023. 

Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial on Friday, Sept. 4, after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict, ending in an 11-1 divide.

LINDSAY CLANCY MISTRIAL HOLDOUT SAYS HE THOUGHT SHE WAS 'METHODICAL' IN THE 'EXECUTION' OF HER CHILDREN

Timeline of juror notes:

Aug. 28: Jurors asked to see evidence items, "specifically, pill bottles and a knife."

Sept. 1: "After many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to a unanimous verdict."

Sept. 2: "After much deliberation, we are still unable to come to a unanimous decision."

Sept. 3: "A member of the jury is unable to follow the instructions regarding reasonable doubt. How should we proceed?"

Sept. 3: "Juror # [redacted] has made statements acknowledging doubt, but refuses to apply it to the verdict as the law states. This is why we cannot come to a unanimous decision."

Sept. 4: "With a heavy heart that we report that we are unable to come to a unanimous decision and will not be able to."

The holdout juror, Desronvil, told Fox News' Kayleigh McEnany after the trial that he thought Clancy was "methodical" in what he called the "execution" of her children.

"That was really big for me, you know, from watching the video and also listening in the courtroom," he said. "The thought process that goes behind… to fulfill the commitment of doing that." 

Through his attorney, Desronvil said he "didn’t have any doubts."

LINDSAY CLANCY HOLDOUT JUROR ASKS FOR ONE THING IN NEW VIDEO AFTER MISTRIAL DRAMA

After the mistrial was declared, Lindsay Clancy's attorney, Kevin Reddington, kept pushing for a further investigation into Desronvil, but his efforts were blocked by Sullivan.

In opposition to Clancy's motion to dismiss, the district attorney's office wrote that Sullivan was correct in his decision to reject a proposed investigation into the holdout juror.

"The Court was rightly concerned that a juror, summoned individually for a more 'meaningful and probing' colloquy with the judge, might feel pressured to change their position, and it was entitled to prioritize the avoidance of coercion over an inquiry into the dynamic giving rise to the foreperson's grievance," prosecutors wrote.

In response, Reddington maintained that the holdout juror wasn't following reasonable doubt and said a further inquiry could have provided grounds to remove him from the jury.

LINDSAY CLANCY JUROR ADMITTED 'REASONABLE DOUBT' BUT STILL REFUSED INSANITY VERDICT, FOREPERSON SAYS

"The notes either clearly communicated that a member of the jury was not applying the law as instructed as to reasonable doubt or at the very least were so consistent with that conclusion as to require further judicial inquiry as a matter of law," Reddington said. 

Reddington on Wednesday also disputed claims from Patrick Clancy's counsel that she would testify in a civil case against her healthcare providers, calling them false.

During a hearing Wednesday in Norfolk County Superior Court, attorney Howard Cooper said he expects Lindsay Clancy to testify in a lawsuit filed by her ex-husband, Patrick Clancy, against her healthcare providers.

Patrick and Lindsay Clancy have each sued hospitals and healthcare providers, alleging that failures in her medical care contributed to the deaths of their three children.

LINDSAY CLANCY'S LAWYER TORCHES CONSPIRACY THEORIES ACCUSING PATRICK CLANCY

"We believe that Lindsay Clancy, once her Fifth Amendment issues are resolved one way or the other, will testify that she told these defendants explicitly that she had homicidal ideation, that she was worried about something awful happening to her kids," Cooper said in court.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE FOX TRUE CRIME HUB

In a statement obtained by Fox News Digital, Reddington said his client has never said she'll testify, adding that she never told her healthcare providers that she had homicidal thoughts toward her children.

SEND US A TIP

"It has come to my attention that counsel for Patrick Clancy represented to the court in his civil case that my client, Lindsay Clancy, will testify about statements she made to her healthcare providers," Reddington said. "Lindsay Clancy never told any of her healthcare providers that she harbored homicidal ideation toward her children. She never indicated that she intended to testify in Mr. Clancy's lawsuit, and no one acting for her ever represented that she would."

"Mr. Clancy's counsel does not speak for Lindsay Clancy," he added.

LISTEN TO THE NEW 'CRIME & JUSTICE WITH DONNA ROTUNNO' PODCAST

Attorneys representing the hospitals and healthcare providers have asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuits, arguing that Lindsay Clancy never disclosed having homicidal thoughts to those treating her.

On Thursday, Clancy's attorneys also filed its response to the district attorney regarding its motion to dismiss on grounds of double jeopardy, arguing that if there was further inquiry into the lone holdout juror, there would have been grounds to remove him from the jury.

GET BREAKING NEWS BY EMAIL

Clancy faced three counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of her children, who were found strangled at the family's home in January 2023.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

We can learn a lot from a long-dead labor leader about how to reckon with technology that threatens our jobs.

Voters in Idaho and Massachusetts face contrasting gun-related ballot questions that highlight the national tension between firearm freedoms and restrictions

Reform rabbi says he is proud of camp's links to Israel as it faces concerns by parents, including over promotional material for visit to youth military program in Israel

Happy Tuesday, and welcome to another edition of Rent Free. This week, we're going to jump right into it with a philosophical question: What is an accessory dwelling unit anyway? 

It's a question that officials in Somerville, Massachusetts, are realizing they didn't know the answer to after learning that a state law allowing ADUs in single-family neighborhoods could also require them to approve three-story backyard mini-apartments. 

As the Boston Globe reported on Sunday, Somerville's "deep ethos in favor of new housing" is being tested by the extent of the state law. Elected officials are describing the potential for three-story ADUs as a "joke," and the area's state lawmakers, including one who voted for the state law, are demanding reforms to stop them. 

The law in question was a statewide accessory dwelling unit (ADU) legalization tucked inside a major housing package of mostly new spending programs that passed in 2024. 

The bill required municipalities to allow ADUs of either 900 square feet or half the size of the primary dwelling (whichever is smaller) anywhere single-family homes are allowed. A subsequent rule issued by state regulators also forbade localities from imposing height and bulk limits on ADUs that are stricter than the limits imposed on primary dwellings. 

That latter rule is what's causing Somerville's freakout. 

Because the town allows triple-decker apartments (a three-story triplex common in New England) in all its single-family zones, the state rule means that it must also allow ADUs to be three stories tall. 

The Globe story notes that the mini-triple-deckers could still only be 900 square feet, meaning each floor of a mini-triple-decker would have to be pretty small. Thus far, no one has proposed building an ADU tower in Somerville. 

Even so, the town is worried that someone will eventually propose one of these "out-of-scale" units that it'll have to approve. Its officials are now agitating for changes to the state law to prevent this. 

On the one hand, one can perhaps understand why Somerville officials feel blindsided. 

The text of the 2024 ADU law allows localities to set "reasonable" height and bulk limits on accessory units. It was state regulators who decided after the law's passage that requiring ADUs to be shorter than the primary unit was "unreasonable." 

On the other hand, allowing a second home on a lot to be as tall as the first house sounds "reasonable" enough. Can one complain about out-of-scale development when the new unit is the same height as an existing home and a little bit smaller?

Somerville is not the first city where people's own colloquial definition of an accessory unit as "a tiny home that doesn't bother anyone" has clashed with official regulatory definitions that allow ADUs to be a fair bit bigger. 

San Diego's ADU Bonus program once allowed a technically unlimited number of ADUs to be built on single-family parcels near transit stops. (Height and bulk regulations imposed practical limits on how many units could fit on a site.) 

That enabled developers to build what were, in effect, ADU apartment complexes on large single-family lots throughout the city. This year, the city imposed new restrictions to stop these "monster" ADU developments, including a per-lot accessory unit cap. 

The latest dust-up in Somerville, like the San Diego controversy before it, provides several lessons about the realities of housing reform. 

The first is that the definition of "accessory dwelling unit" is completely arbitrary. 

In Massachusetts, an ADU is a 900-square-foot home that can be one story or three stories, depending on the town and zoning district it's being built in. 

In Montana, it's a 1,000-square-foot unit. In California, state law can require localities to allow ADUs as large as 1,200 square feet. Under certain conditions, these ADUs can even be sold separately from the main house. 

At a certain point, an accessory dwelling unit is just a dwelling unit. A house is a house. 

The second lesson is that any ADU reform that is actually intended to produce new housing units is going to cause controversy.  

State and local laws allowing ADUs have been one of the more common forms of housing reforms to pass. 

Supply-boosters see them as a way to get a modest number of new units. Supply skeptics don't see much to object to about allowing someone to install a kitchenette and bathroom in their garage.  

If the ADU regulations don't allow much more than the garage conversion, supply-boosters will be disappointed and push for expansions of the law. California passed dozens of ADU laws before they started enabling actual units to be built. 

If an ADU law actually allows more homes, the ADUs will look like homes, and the supply skeptics will be mad. 

No amount of branding or planning will resolve the inherent conflict of some people wanting more development while others oppose it in their neighborhoods. 

Thus far, Massachusetts' ADU law has been modestly productive. The state's ADU survey reports that 2,048 ADU permits have been issued since the state law went into effect in January 2025. About half of those units are attached ADUs (think the garage with the kitchenette). 

That's a little under 10 percent of Massachusetts total housing production during that time, per the Census Bureau's building permit survey.  

At 50 units permitted, Somerville has actually approved the second most ADUs of any jurisdiction in the state. (Boston has only approved 49.) 

But now that it's facing the prospect of allowing ADUs that look like actual homes, it's starting to get cold feet about the new law. 

---

Quick Links

• Speaking of Massachusetts, the town of Marblehead (of "are we kind of being pricks?" fame) has at last had its rezoning plan, which allows apartments in more districts, accepted by state officials. 
• While Spain is tightening its tenant protections and rent controls in the face of housing protests, Portugal is trying to remove regulations on its rental housing industry. Either way, housing protesters are clashing with police. 
• Single-family homebuilder confidence continues to drop. 
• The Urban Institute has a new white paper on whether data center development is coming at the expense of housing development. 
• A new report on home construction in Chicago finds that the practice of aldermanic privilege (where individual aldermen can veto projects in their district) is strangling development. 

The post ADU Nihilism appeared first on Reason Magazine.