The Massachusetts attorney general has published dozens of initiatives proposed for the 2026 electoral ballot, including a couple that would reverse the legalization of adult use marijuana in the state.
The Office of the Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell (D) published 47 initiative requests presented by 19 groups before a deadline on Wednesday. Now you will review each request to determine if it can be legally certified.
The two marijuana measures, which would eliminate the commercial market for the use of adults while maintaining the access of patients under the medical cannabis program and continue to allow the legal possession of an ounce of recreational marijuana, are being headed by Caroline Cunningham, who previously escaped against an initiative of the psychedelics legalization that the voters finally rejected last year.
According to new measures, entitled “An act to restore a sensible marijuana policy”, adults 21 years or more could possess up to an ounce of cannabis, of which only five grams could be a product of marijuana concentrate.
The possession of more than one ounce, but less than two ounces, would effectively decriminalize, with offenders subject to a fine of $ 100. Adults could also continue giving cannabis to each other without remuneration.
But the provisions in the Marijuana Law approved by the voters of the State that allow commercial cannabis retailers and access to adult regulated products would be repealed under the proposal.
The right of adults to cultivate cannabis at home would also be repealed.
There are two versions of the initiative. They are largely identical, except that one would establish the power limits in medicinal marijuana, which requires that the Cannabis Control Commission (CCC) prohibit the flower of more than 30 percent of THC and concentrates more than 60 percent of THC or that has more than 5 mg of THC per service. There would also be a prohibition of cannabis concentrates that “cannot clearly provide standard portions of 5 mg measures or measures of 5 mg and concentrate packages that exceed 20 measurements measured or measures.
After reviewing all the proposed onesinitiativesTo determine if they are consistent with the constitutional requirements for the placement of the voting, the Office of the Attorney General will certify them and issue summaries completed, eliminating the proponents to begin the signature meeting.
They will have to deliver 74,574 valid signatures of voters registered to the Secretary of State’s Office before December 3, starting a separate verification process to certify the signatures.
It has not yet been seen if cannabis measures make the cut. Voters approved the legalization in the vote in 2016, with the launch of the sales two years later. And the last decade has seen the market evolve and expand. Until last month, Massachusetts officialsreported more than $ 8 billion in sales of adult marijuana.
Approximately one month after state officials announced that the tax rate of cannabis taxes would increase from 15 to 19 percent on July 1, the assembly voted 74-0 to approve the legislation of the Matt Haney Assembly (D) to delay the change for five years.
The bill now goes to the Senate for consideration, but the defenders hope to see their language incorporated to a separate budget trailer that would enter into force with promulgation, unlike next year, as would be the case under Haney’s bill.
Although the legislation introduced would have directly repealed the proposed tax increase, since then it has been modified to delay its implementation until fiscal year 2030-2031.
United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) officials applauded the assembly vote.
Joe Duffle, president of Local UFCW 1167, said that increasing the tax rate “would only increase the number of failed legal cannabis” in the state.
“AB 564 Freezes the special cannabis tax at 15 percent and gives cannabis legal businesses an opportunity to fight to keep afloat in an industry that is all contracting saying. “Without this bill, the illegal cannabis industry will only bloom and will continue to put unseeded cannabis products, not turns and not regulated in the hands of consumers.”
https://www.instagram.com/p/dka13eonrwi
Under the legislation, The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), Working With The Department of Finance, Would Be Require by a Cannabis retailer that the department estimates will generate an amount of renvenue equivalent to the amount what would Have Been Collected in the prior fiscal year year, ”The text by Bill says.
The department would need to “estimate the amount of income that would have been collected in the previous fiscal year in accordance with the weight -based cultivation tax” and “estimate this amount projecting the income of cultivation taxes based on the weight that would have been collected in the previous calendar year based on the information available for the department”.
“The specific objective of the reduction of the CANNABIS special tax rate is to provide immediate fiscal deduction to the cannabis industry,” says the measure. “The legislature can measure the effectiveness of this objective for the amount of gain or loss in the tax revenue of special cannabis taxes resulting from the reduction of the tax rate of special cannabis taxes allowed by this law.”
Also Mandates That CDTFA, on December 1, 2026, and every later year, California “presents a report to the Legislature … which details the amount of gain or loss in the tax revenues of special cannabis taxes resulting from the reduction of the tax rate of special cannabis taxes allowed by this law.”
The ruling of the Supreme Court of the State also arrived only weeks after California officials presented a Report on the current state and the future of the state marijuana marketWith independent analysts hired by regulators concluding that the federal prohibition of cannabis that prevents interest trade is significantly reinforcing the illicit market.
Governor Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill in 2022 that would have He empowered him to enter Commerce Agreements of Interestatal Cannabis with other legal states, but that power was concerned with the federal orientation or an evaluation of the State Attorney General who sanctioned said activity.