What to know about Mass. Ballot Question 8, which would prohibit recreational marijuana

A decade ago, more than 53 percent of Massachusetts voters approved a ballot measure that officially made recreational marijuana legal. Recreational dispensaries have opened across the state since then, fueling the growth of a major new industry. 

Adult-use marijuana establishments grossed more than $1.65 billion in sales in 2025, according to the state’s Cannabis Control Commission. Retailers recorded a record number of unique transactions, and the number of marijuana businesses in the state reached a new peak. The industry recently exceeded $10 billion in all-time gross sales.

The fate of the recreational marijuana industry hangs in the balance this fall. On Nov. 3, voters will weigh in on a ballot question that would repeal the laws making recreational cannabis legal. Here’s what to know. 

What would change?

Question 8 asks voters whether or not they support a law that would prohibit the legalization, regulation, and taxation of the retail sale of adult-use recreational marijuana. The new law would change the penalties associated with marijuana possession. 

If approved, Question 8 would allow people over the age of 21 to possess one ounce or less of marijuana, including no more than five grams in the form of concentrate. They would be able to “gift or transfer” these amounts to another person that is 21 or older.

For people 21 and older, the possession of between one and two ounces of marijuana would result in a civil offense. This would include a $100 fine and the forfeiture of the marijuana. 

For people under the age of 21, the possession of two ounces or less of marijuana would result in a civil penalty and a $100 fine. They would also have to forfeit their marijuana, complete a drug awareness program, and engage in community service. Their parents or legal guardians would be notified. 

Businesses currently licensed to sell adult-use recreational marijuana would be able to apply to become licensed medical marijuana dispensaries. They would be allowed to sell their remaining inventory of recreational marijuana to medical dispensaries. 

The Cannabis Control Commission would still exist, but only to regulate the medical marijuana market. 

If approved, Question 8 would repeal laws permitting the personal cultivation of marijuana in homes. 

A “no” vote would not make any changes to the existing laws, allowing recreational marijuana sales to continue. 

What the proponents say

A group called the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts is leading the “Yes on 8” campaign to repeal recreational marijuana use. 

“The rollout in Massachusetts seems to have gone too far, too fast,” Wendy Wakeman, the chair of the coalition, told Boston.com. 

Much of the coalition’s argument for the repeal of recreational marijuana centers on public health concerns. Wakeman called marijuana an “understudied” drug that has “real harms” for users. 

Proponents of the repeal are concerned by the packaging of edibles in forms similar to cookies and candy. They say unintentional pediatric ingestions are a real danger, and point to data that correlates calls to poison centers and pediatric emergency care centers with legalization. 

The coalition is highlighting a 2025 Massachusetts General Hospital study that found evidence that the commercialization of recreational marijuana is disproportionately affecting young people with psychiatric illnesses. 

“There are families who are suffering the loss of their children, who are suffering through real mental illnesses of their children, because of the use of marijuana,” Wakeman said. 

Another argument is based on road safety. Proponents reference research that found that more than 50 percent of marijuana users drive within an hour or less of consumption.

Police do not have the tools to test whether a driver is under the influence of cannabis, Wakeman said. 

Proponents are characterizing the CCC as a “disaster” that has been plagued by “widespread mismanagement, a toxic internal culture, financial oversight, and regulatory noncompliance.” 

Agreements between municipalities and marijuana businesses have been a “trap” in some places, Wakeman said. She referenced a saga in Newton where a judge recently ordered the city to pay back millions it collected from marijuana companies.

When asked about the tax revenue generated by recreational marijuana sales, Wakeman said that revenue has been lower than promised under the “halcyon scenarios” proposed when recreational sales were first legalized. 

“Promises made are not promises kept,” she said. 

Wakeman characterized the opposition as being influenced by foreign actors, citing a financial contribution of more than $41,000 that the marijuana company Curaleaf made to the “No on 8” campaign and reported ties between that company and a Russian oligarch. 

What the opponents say

The “No on 8” campaign is advocating for the continued legalization of recreational marijuana. It is being led by a group called the Committee to Protect Cannabis Regulation. 

They call the effort to repeal recreational marijuana an “existential threat to the industry” that will undo a decade of economic development and essential regulations. 

An industry that ensures the safe testing, packaging, and sale of marijuana will be replaced with an illicit market that has no safeguards, they argue. That would force police to waste time and resources on marijuana enforcement, instead of focusing on serious crimes. 

They point to research that shows how marijuana arrests have disproportionately impacted communities of color. A 2020 study from the ACLU found that Black people were four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white people, despite similar usage rates. 

Opponents say that hundreds of small businesses would shut down and thousands of jobs would be killed if Question 8 passes. About 18,000 people work in the industry, The Boston Globe recently reported. 

Marijuana establishments generated $289 million in state tax revenue in fiscal year 2025, according to the CCC. Opponents to Question 8 say that the state cannot afford to lose this revenue. 

“It essentially undoes all of the good that’s been done up until now,” Jordan MacKenzie Whittaker, the co-founder and CEO of cannabis business development and consulting firm The Weedaker Group, told Boston.com. 

MacKenzie Whittaker, who describes herself as a supporter of the “No on 8” campaign but is not officially affiliated with the Committee to Protect Cannabis Regulation, described how a repeal of the recreational marijuana laws would harm those who spent a decade building legitimate businesses. 

“There’s a number of people who have found a pathway to the regulated market. They were the homegrowers, and the caregivers, and the people that were working in an unregulated market that found their pathways to be legitimate,” she said. “Now this de-legitimizes all the work that’s been done by the hundreds of thousands of people that have participated in Massachusetts.”

Opponents are also attacking the “Yes on 8” campaign by framing it as an effort backed by “wealthy and powerful anti-cannabis activists from out of state.” 

Reports from the Office of Campaign and Political Finance show that the “Yes on 8” campaign has received around $2.4 million from SAM Action, a Virginia-based organization that works to prevent marijuana legalization in various states. 

“These are, what I would say, out-of-state weirdos,” MacKenzie Whittaker said. “If they do it here in Massachusetts then the whole industry across the nation is at risk.”