Last November, my home state, Massachusetts passed a bill that would allow for recreational cannabis consumption. Like in many other cases, what the people vote for, doesn’t mean it’s what they will get. Since November, there’s been one hold up or another. The latest incident could prompt a lawsuit.
Per Leafly
Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker is expected to sign a cannabis overhaul bill that the state Legislature sent to his desk on Thursday, but one Republican lawmaker is already warning that one of the bill’s provisions could invite a lawsuit.
The bill, H.3818, would effectively repeal and replace the law that voters passed in November to legalize adult-use cannabis. Cannabis would still be legal for adults 21 and older, but with new regulatory tweaks. The legislation would set a higher cannabis tax than what voters approved, merge government oversight of medical and adult-use systems, impose restrictions on advertising and change how cities and towns can ban retail cannabis stores and other facilities.
The bill’s approval marks a milestone for lawmakers, who have been at loggerheads for weeks over cannabis regulations and only recently struck a compromise.
Even that compromise may not stand, though. According to the state Senate’s top Republican, Sen. Bruce E. Tarr of Gloucester, changes to how cities and counties ban cannabis facilities would set a “very dangerous precedent” and could spark a legal challenge.
Specifically, in municipalities that voted in favor of legalization, a vote would still be required to ban or severely limit cannabis businesses. But in cities and towns that voted against the measure, local officials could enact limits themselves.
“A group of people in Massachusetts will have their right to vote extinguished by virtue of the way they voted on a ballot question,” Tarr said on the Senate floor (“with incredulity,” according to the Boston Globe).
Tarr warned that by disenfranchising those voters, lawmakers could risk a constitutional challenge down the road that could potentially lead to “the incapacitation of this lawsuit.”
