Wendy Wakeman frames the issue as David vs. Goliath.
"We have Big Marijuana making billions of dollars, and then we've got parents and we've got healthcare workers and we've got teachers all concerned about the safety of this untested product, this under-tested product," she told WAMC. "We really don't know what marijuana's impact is. So, I think that there is a concern that we're a little outgunned by the professional marijuana industry, which just makes a lot of money off of the product.”
Wakeman is the spokesperson for the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, the group behind the ballot question in the commonwealth. In her telling, the coalition is David — the little guy going up against the titan of the cannabis industry in a fight for the well-being of the people of Massachusetts. But Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance filings show the coalition has received the entirety of its $1.5 million in fundraising from one source: Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a Virginia-based nonprofit founded in 2013 by former Democratic Congressman Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, former White House Office of National Drug Control Policy advisor Kevin Sabet, and conservative political pundit David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush.
Smart Approaches to Marijuana is backing a similar ballot initiative in Maine, and successfully supported opposition to decriminalizing some psychedelics in Massachusetts during the 2024 election.
The Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts’ tactics for securing the signatures required to get the repeal question on the ballot are facing scrutiny for misrepresenting its intent. An objection filed with Secretary of State William Galvin’s office this month alleges coalition staffers hired to collect those signatures told potential signatories that the petition “would get fentanyl off the streets, provide affordable housing in their communities, or fund public parks.”
Wakeman dismisses those claims.
“We absolutely, 100% trained our people to ethically gather the signatures," she said. "There was no intent to defraud the public. People who signed knew what they were signing, were presented with clear language for what they were signing. There have been a few cases where folks have said that they didn't know what they were signing- And, you know, I don't know who bears the cost of that. I think the person who signed the piece paper without knowing what it was really has to answer for their own ability to function in society, don't you?”
Democratic State Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier, who represents Pittsfield in the State House, says the controversy around how the signatures were collected and the misinformation spread during the effort raise questions about both the ballot initiative itself and the need to reform the process entirely.
“It gives me pause when people are incentivized to collect signatures and they get paid by the signature, for example, and then that there's not, that we don't have rules around just telling the truth about why you're asking for somebody's signature," the legislator told WAMC. "And these allegations were pretty consistent across the state, that people were told the wrong thing. So, there's not really a way to pull that back right now, and so, it's going to go forward anyway. So, that is a problem that I have.”
Democratic State Sen. Paul Mark of the Berkshire, Hampden, Franklin and Hampshire District, a sprawling constituency that represents 57 Western Massachusetts communities, says he doesn’t back the ballot measure.
“If it was a complete repeal of recreational use, I think would have a very significant impact," he said. "I think you're talking about a lot of jobs, a lot of revenue, a lot of businesses that have invested a lot of money. And I think the language I read says it would go into effect as of 2028, so they'd have a two-year wind down process, and also, you're talking about a big win for the neighboring states that also offer those products recreationally.”
He says he understands concerns that have arisen from the legal cannabis industry — including about the pervasive odor.
“But I don't think the right move would be to just eliminate recreational sales that have been in place for quite a long time," said Mark. "And like I said, a lot of jobs and a lot of investment has been made about this.”
Farley-Bouvier agrees with Mark and says the commonwealth’s existing marijuana laws need reform, not repeal.
“The Cannabis Control Commission needs reform, and the House has taken up a bill that would very much change how it is run, how it's appointed, where the buck stops," she said. "And that absolutely needs to happen, because it is- Just the structure of it to begin with led to great confusion and was not helpful to people in the community."
The leadership of the regulatory body has been regularly consumed by turmoil beginning with the suspension of then chair Shannon O’Brien over misconduct allegations in 2023. The State Inspector General described the CCC as a “rudderless agency” without clear leadership in 2024, and last year legislators voted to overhaul it entirely. After a legal battle, O’Brien is again at its head as chair since the fall- though the commission’s current leadership is expected to be dissolved by the legislature once the dust settles on Beacon Hill.
Unsurprisingly, members of the cannabis industry in Western Massachusetts are opposed to the measure.
“There is a concerted effort, not just here in Massachusetts, but actually throughout the United States. So, Maine has a similar ballot, Arizona has a similar ballot, and so, we have a fairly well funded group that is definitely going after our freedom and what the voters have put in place to be able to have safe access to cannabis every single day. And I think that that's something that not only is something to look at from our industry standpoint, but also from our country's standpoint," said Meg Sanders, CEO of Canna Provisions, a cannabis company with locations in Holyoke and Lee. “Before you go to that voting booth in November or send your ballot in, please touch base with your town. Please understand the direct impact. And I can tell you, in Lee, we generated over $240,000 in sales tax revenue alone. So that is a significant number, and that's from July 24 to June 25. That's a big number, and that helps make sure that property taxes stay reasonable and other services are covered. We contribute quite a bit to everyone in the community, whether you're consuming cannabis or not.”
Local leaders back up Sanders’ argument.
“We've definitely gained some tax revenue from these retail places, and the owners and operators of those facilities are members of the community, and they've definitely added to Lee’s community-building that we've been trying to do. And so, it's been beneficial for Lee," said Sean Regnier, the select board chair of Lee, the Central Berkshire community that's home to two cannabis retailers.
He said while some residents are against cultivation because they are opposed to the smell, sales have been a boon for the town coffers. He doesn’t support the initiative that would ban both.
“We're a small town in Berkshire County, but compared to some of the other towns around, we're not quite as small," Regnier told WAMC. "We run an annual budget now that's close — I think it might be just over $25 million. So, a quarter million is definitely a good chunk of our budget. And that's coming from one retail facility.”
The Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts says the ballot initiative it backs is really about keeping people safe. But in Wakeman's conversation with WAMC, the spokesperson made dubious claims about the impact of recreational marijuana in Massachusetts.
“There's been a real skyrocketing number in terms of people who are driving drunk," she said. "Who had- Excuse me, driving high, driving drunk, driving under the influence. Additionally, whenever in Massachusetts, somebody's in a car accident, fatal car accident, 50% of the time that driver tests positive for marijuana usage.”
When pressed for data to support that claim, Wakeman provided a fact sheet from Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts that cited a 2025 American College of Surgeons study on marijuana usage among drivers in fatal collisions.
The study in question was conducted in Ohio, not Massachusetts. And while it found around 42% of roughly 250 drivers who died after a crash had bloodstreams containing THC – the main psychoactive compound in marijuana that produces intoxication – the study notes that the findings show “no change in THC positivity after legalization.” While the report describes driving under the influence of marijuana to be a “significant and persistent public health risk,” it unambiguously states that it is “unchanged by the legalization of recreational cannabis.”
Voters will decide on the ballot initiative on Tuesday, Nov. 3.
