By Chris Che
Boston University Statehouse Program
A review of claims about the health and legal consequences of recreational cannabis made by the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, proponents of ballot Question 8, found some supported by evidence while others omitted important context or relied on data from outside Massachusetts.
Question 8, which voters across the commonwealth will decide on Nov. 3, would prohibit retail sales of recreational cannabis and limit legal adult possession to one ounce should it pass. Medical cannabis would remain legal.
The independent fact checks, in consultation with medical and legal experts, reviewed claims made in both the “Information for Voters” guide for the upcoming election and the group’s website. The voter guide, printed by the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, noted that the state did not endorse the arguments or certify their accuracy before printing.
One of the most prominent claims made by the group is that for every dollar gained in tax revenue, taxpayers “spend $4.50 to mitigate the effects of legalization from societal expenses including increased healthcare, lost productivity, and crime (like DUIs).”
The group did not cite the source of this claim. The same figure, however, appears to come from a 2018 study commissioned by the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University, a conservative think tank, and refers to Colorado, not Massachusetts.
The group also wrote that modern cannabis concentrates and edibles have been linked to mental health conditions such as psychosis, severe anxiety, and schizophrenia, particularly in young adults.
“I think that the adverse effects associated with cannabis use, I think we can say, for the most part, are dose-dependent, said Dr. Kevin Hill, chief of addiction psychiatry at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and an associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.
“When people are using concentrates, they’re more likely to have problems, and so for years, there’s a small group of people, a small subset of cannabis users, who are going to develop psychosis.”
“The trends have been [cannabis] potency has been going up for years anyway,” said Hill. “But I am more concerned about adverse effects with rising potency and rising availability of concentrates.”
Although Hill supports cannabis legalization, he is more concerned about the state’s current lack of effort to address public health issues with cannabis since its legalization, declaring the Cannabis Control Commission has been heavily mismanaged, something the coalition also claimed on its website.
“I’ve been involved with many other states that have employed these policies, and other states like Pennsylvania have put millions and millions of dollars towards independent research on cannabis,” said Hill. He noted a friend at the University of Pittsburgh received an $8 million grant from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; a research investment he said Massachusetts government has not matched.
“There’s a small research arm of the Cannabis Control Commission, and they’re nice people; they try to do a good job, but it really is just a drop in the bucket. You also do need a lot of independent research on such a polarizing topic,” he continued. “I think when it comes to the public health side of it, overall, it’s been a net negative. I think unquestionably.”
Apart from medical-related claims, the group also made claims regarding the legal harm of marijuana, such as that since commercial legalization, marijuana is the most common drug found in fatal car accidents in Massachusetts.
“Forty-two percent of drivers in fatal crashes tested positive for THC from marijuana,” the group wrote on its website, citing a study by the American College of Surgeons.
The group, however, failed to mention that the study used coroner records of nearly 250 deceased drivers from Montgomery County, Ohio, not Massachusetts. In addition, while researchers did find that nearly 42% of deceased drivers tested positive for THC, they also found the rate did not change significantly after Ohio legalized recreational cannabis in 2023, according to the ACS findings published in October 2025.
“If I were them, I wouldn’t be emphasizing that piece,” said Hill, referring to the fatal crash data claims. “I mean, if there’s plenty of other stuff that could point to, but that’s a little misleading, I think.”
The group also claimed that driver’s license revocations increased by 65% for drugged driving in Massachusetts, citing an NBC Boston article from 2018.
The original article, published months before recreational cannabis retail sales began in the Commonwealth, asserted a 65% increase in drugged driving since 2015 – three years before the law took effect. It did not, however, specify which drugs resulted in license-revoking DUIs.
“I think they’re just fearmongering, trying to connect cannabis to an impaired driver,” Patrick Donovan, a defense attorney who previously was a Norfolk County prosecutor, said in a phone interview, calling both claims misleading.
“You’re talking about THC levels in people. How are you attributing that to intoxication? You know, it doesn’t seem that it’s the absolute causation of any of these accidents,” said Donovan, referring to the first claim. “Forty percent of people probably have caffeine in their systems.”
The group’s website also claims that 85% of cannabis users drive after consumption, and 53% drive within an hour of consumption. That came from a March 2025 AAA survey of 2,000 cannabis users across eight states. The study found that nearly 85% of respondents reported driving on the same day after cannabis use, while 53% reported driving within an hour of using.
According to Donovan, Massachusetts law currently lacks a specific THC concentration to determine marijuana intoxication comparable to the 0.08% blood alcohol concentration level for alcohol. A 2017 state Supreme Judicial Court ruling allowed police officers to testify about observations from roadside sobriety tests, but the ruling also prohibited presenting those tests as scientific proof of being under the influence of marijuana.
“I see it more as circumstantial. You get blood work if there was an accident or something really serious, and then there might be a question about it,” said Donovan. “When it comes to typical cases, it’s either like freshly smoked, or in the process of, or something like that would kind of tie it in, because in terms of how long it impairs you for, I think it’s still a very open question.”
The Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts did not respond to requests for comment on its claims as of the time of publication.
When asked whether he believed Question 8 would affect the state’s criminal justice system if it passes, Donovan said he doesn’t think the state will see more drug overdoses or drug crimes in the Commonwealth as a result of the repeal.
“I was a prosecutor back in the throes of the Oxy[contin] days,” said Donovan, “and nothing that we have going on now even comes close to that.”
