On Tuesday, Oct. 4, the final debate covering the November statewide ballot questions took place at the University of Massachusetts Boston through a joint project between the McCormack Graduate School of Policy and Global Studies, WBUR, and “The Boston Globe.”
The debate was on question 4, the petition to legalize and tax marijuana in Massachusetts.
Supporting legalization was Jim Borghesani, the Communications Director for Yes on 4. Opposing legalization, representing the Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts, was State Senator Jason Lewis. The debate was centered around regulation, revenue, public health, and safety risks.
Borghesani made the case that prohibition of marijuana has failed to keep it out of teenagers’ hands, and that it has come at great public cost.
“It has cost law enforcement and society millions of dollars to enforce,” said Borghesani.
He also noted that the current medical marijuana system does not adequately provide for all patients, and legalization would make it more readily available.
“We really don’t have a functional medical system right now. We have seven dispensaries in the entire state; people have to travel 50, 60, 70 miles to get their preferred medicine. We think that has to change,” Borghesani said. 
Lewis refuted Borghesani’s claim by reminding the audience that “virtually no one is being arrested for possession of marijuana,” costing law enforcement very little to enforce. Instead, Lewis asserted that the true intention of the bill is sheer motivation of profit.
“What this is really about is commercializing big marijuana in Massachusetts. This ballot question is written by and for the marijuana industry and unfortunately it puts their profits ahead of the health and safety of children and our community,” Lewis said.
Senator Lewis’s main argument for striking down the bill was that it was written solely by marijuana businesses, which purposely failed to give explicit regulations in order to generate a greater revenue; one of these overlooked regulations was advertisements.
“This ballot question does not write any restrictions on TV advertisements, radio, billboard, or social media,” Lewis said.
Borghesani was quick to respond by reminding the audience that restrictions on advertisements haven’t been determined yet; therefore, it was wrong to assume that they would be allowed.
“We are giving them [Cannabis Control Commission] an open field to set up regulations any way they want and we think they will learn from other states and they will put toward probably the most stringent regulatory system in Massachusetts,” Borghesani said.
Yet Senator Lewis insisted that it shouldn’t be left open for the commission to decide.
“It shouldn’t be left up to these faceless bureaucrats who might not have any public health or public safety expertise,” Lewis said.
The other regulation discussed regarded the control that residents will have in choosing to opt in to the presence of marijuana facilities in their communities. The bill allows the community the ability to limit marijuana facilities to 20 percent of the existing package stores in that town. The community can also hold a vote to prohibit marijuana establishments all together. Borghesani believed this was significant local control, but the Senator thought otherwise.
“This ballot question is written explicitly to take away control from our community and our home owners,” Lewis said.
Moreover, Borghesani was also pressed on the low taxes; critics of the bill claim that a 28 percent tax will be too low to cover the administration cost and social costs of legalization. A UMass Boston student questioned Borghesani on the subject.
He responded by stating that it was “absolutely sufficient to fund the administration.” According to him, it would generate a return for the taxpayer.
Moderator Meghna Chakrabarti continued to press him on the supposed lack of revenue, bringing up a joint statement from officials opposing legalization. The statement claimed that revenue would not cover the additional costs of ambulance rides or emergency room visits.
Borghesani refuted the claim by using other legal states as examples.
“We have not seen increased public safety costs in any other legal state, it has not happened,” Borghesani said. “That’s just sort of alarmist rhetoric that we’ve seen from our opponents over and over again,” he added.
According to Borghesani, it would generate a return for the taxpayer.
“What we have seen is reduced law enforcement costs and tax revenue coming in that have helped with schools, with treatment, with education programs; we’re seeing a net gain for these states,” Borghesani said.
However, the Senator was sure that it would not generate any revenue, but would instead be a “money loss” for the taxpayer.
“This will not generate any new revenue to help our schools or fix the T or anything else,” Lewis said.
Lastly, the Senator claimed that legalizing marijuana will increase its use by teens, and that with the upgrade in potency, it would only harm the developing brain.
“The kind of marijuana that’s on the market today is extremely high potency, has a very significant harmful impact on the developing brain. That’s what we’re concerned about is teens, and teens who will now have access to marijuana,” Lewis said.
Borghesani again refuted this by characterizing Senator Lewis’ rhetoric as “fear tactics,” pointing out that increase of marijuana use among teens has not been occurring in any other legal state.
“Teen use is absolutely flat since legalization. We have not seen teen use increase in any other state,” Borghesani said. “We have seen teen use continuously decline since 1997,” he added.
Moreover, Borghesani contended that legalizing marijuana in a regulated market will actually be safer for residents.
“Let’s make it a safe market so that we can put the 900,000 million regular marijuana users into a commerce system where they can buy a product that is tested, where they can buy it in stores where they check IDs, stores that are licensed, that are tax paying,” Borghesani said.