Among the nine statewide ballot questions Massachusetts voters will decide in November, Question 8 stands out as the first in recent memory to undo a recently passed ballot question. The initiative would repeal the voter-approved 2016 measure that legalized recreational marijuana in the commonwealth.
It would dismantle a decade’s worth of cannabis industry-building that this year reached $10 billion in gross sales, and billions of dollars in tax revenue.
The question has attracted more than $5 million in campaign contributions between both sides and fueled speculation over who is behind it. At a legislative hearing on the issue earlier this year, lawmakers needled the question’s supporters over who is funding the repeal campaign.
Campaign finance records show the main group backing the initiative is the Coalition for a Healthy Massachusetts, which has so far raised more than $3 million in support of banning the legal sale of recreational marijuana. Much of that money has been spent on collecting signatures during the early phases of the ballot initiative process, consulting fees and advertising.
The coalition is almost entirely funded by the fundraising arm of a Virginia-based anti-drug advocacy group called Smart Approaches to Marijuana, or SAM for short. They have provided the overwhelming majority of cash being used to advocate for Question 8 over the last two years.
Smart Approaches to Marijuana is a nonprofit that describes itself as a “nonpartisan organization for health-first marijuana policy.” The group has a slight link to Massachusetts: it was co-founded in 2013 by Boston-born former U.S. Representative Patrick Kennedy, who served the people of Rhode Island. Kennedy established SAM alongside Kevin Sabet, who served as a White House drug policy advisor under the Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama administrations.
In an interview with New England Public Media (NEPM), Sabet said SAM was approached by Massachusetts families impacted by marijuana legalization. He said the public health concerns around its use are why they’ve pumped so much money into the initiative.
Sabet said local residents reached out to them: “Many of them voted for this initiative 10 years ago and feel betrayed.”
SAM’s nonprofit status means it is not required to disclose their funding sources, which has led some pro-marijuana groups to label the organization as “dark money”. SAM maintains that it is primarily funded through grassroots donations, family foundations and conference speaking fees. Sabet said they don’t disclose their donors to protect families that might be targeted or harassed if they were made public.
“I've been approached by parents who have just spent $250,000 on treatment for their son because of marijuana use addiction,” Sabet said. “They're afraid to talk about it in public.”
Question 8 has also generated a wave of online speculation that it’s being driven by the alcohol or tobacco lobby to undercut cannabis sales. Sabet dismisses those claims as “conspiracy theories.”
“From our point of view, we have nothing to hide,” he said. “I've been very open that we are getting money from families that have lived this nightmare.”
NEPM has found no evidence to substantiate claims that Question 8 or SAM are connected to the alcohol or tobacco industries.
Sabet argued the “dark money” accusations lobbied against SAM are hypocritical, and pointed to the flood of out-of-state money from political action committees (PACs) that funded the initial campaign to legalize marijuana in Massachusetts back in 2016.
Much of that initiative was bankrolled by New Approach, a Washington, D.C.-based group that provided $5.46 million of the $6.8 million the pro-legalization campaign raised.
“If you look at the New Approach PAC and the different PACs that passed this initiative ten years ago, it's all dark money,” Sabet said. “There's zero revealing of things. And unfortunately, with ballot initiatives, that's often the case.”
Sabet said SAM invested in Question 8 knowing the ballot measure may not pass. The most recent statewide poll from MassINC Polling found 61% of likely voters oppose repeal, while 27% support it.
Sabet believes their $3 million in contributions can still kickstart debate over recreational marijuana even if voters reject Question 8.
“Sometimes you have to put the gun on the table to force the conversation,” he said.
SAM has been involved in previous anti-drug campaigns in Massachusetts. Tax documents from 2024 show the fundraising arm SAM Action contributed $128,600 to oppose a failed ballot initiative that would have partially legalized some psychedelics in Massachusetts.
On the other side, there are four committees opposing Question 8, of which only two have reported significant financial activity. The Committee to Protect Cannabis Regulation has raised more than $2 million. Another group — the committee to Keep Cannabis Legal, Vote No on 8 — has raised just over $13,000.
Contributions have come primarily from cannabis retailers and manufacturers who would likely be put out of business if recreational marijua was repealed — including $265,000 from INSA and $250,000 from Ascend Wellness Holdings, both multistate cannabis companies.
“Why wouldn't they be the ones to be funding this?” said Ryan Dominguez, chair of the Stop the Repeal Campaign, connected to the Committee to Protect Cannabis Regulation. “With all the money that’s been invested here in Massachusetts, why wouldn’t these businesses step up to try to save themselves?”
Dominguez told NEPM that while he is sympathetic to the public health concerns that underpin most of rhetoric behind Question 8, he counters that making recreational marijuana illegal again will drive consumers back into an illicit market with none of the current regulations that protect users.
“Without any of those safeguards or investments, it's just going to get worse,” Dominguez said. “The demand is there for cannabis. People are going to be looking to get it, whether that's in the illicit market or driving to one of our neighboring states that has legalized cannabis.”
Every other state in New England, except for New Hampshire, allows for the legal sale of recreational cannabis.
Dominguez argues that the debate over recreational marijuana has been artificially created by SAM, using its funds to propel a ballot initiative that is out of step with prevailing views in Massachusetts.
“It’s not coming from our residents,” he said. “It’s an out-of-state group that’s coming in and telling our residents who voted for this back in 2016 that they made the wrong decision.”
Data presented using third party software. Inclusion of this tool does not imply an endorsement by New England Public Media or GBH News.
