(Photo by WCN 24/7 via Creative Commons)

TEN YEARS AGO, Massachusetts voters made a clear choice about how the state should approach marijuana. After decades of policy defined by prohibition, their 2016 vote on a ballot question created a legal, regulated retail market for cannabis.

For those of us in law enforcement, the vote prompted serious reflection. Many of us had spent our careers enforcing cannabis laws. But to what end? The question was not simply whether marijuana carried risks, but whether prohibition was an effective or appropriate response to those risks. We also had to consider the consequences of criminalizing conduct involving consenting adults.

A hard look at the evidence and our own experience pointed toward a different approach. Legalization provided an alternative to prohibition, allowing adults to obtain cannabis through lawful businesses while reducing the need for criminal enforcement. With fewer resources devoted to low-level cannabis offenses, police could concentrate on more serious threats to public safety.

In the decade since, Massachusetts has established a regulated market that provides adults with legal access to cannabis, subject to testing and consumer safeguards. But now voters are being asked to revisit that decision through Question 8, a ballot measure that would repeal the state’s adult-use cannabis retail system and move policy back toward prohibition.

There appears to be little appetite among many in law enforcement for returning to the enforcement practices of the past. In conversations with current and former officers, we’ve heard a consistent concern: Police already face considerable demands on their time and resources, and renewed cannabis enforcement would add to that burden.

That isn’t to say law enforcement has no concerns about cannabis use or the current market. Impaired driving, sales to minors, and unsafe products are legitimate public safety issues. But criminalizing cannabis commerce is not the same as addressing those harms. Renewed enforcement of cannabis prohibition could divert already limited law-enforcement resources from investigating violent crime, combating human trafficking, and protecting vulnerable members of our communities.

A regulated retail market provides consumers with information and safeguards that can be difficult to ensure when transactions occur outside an established oversight system. According to figures cited by the campaign, 84 percent of Massachusetts cannabis consumers obtained their cannabis through legal channels in 2023, compared with approximately 61 percent in 2019. This shift suggests that many consumers have chosen the regulated market when given the opportunity.

Three issues deserve particular attention in this debate: youth use, impaired driving, and product safety. Each presents genuine challenges, and each calls for thoughtful public policy rather than a return to blanket prohibition.

When it comes to protecting young people, Massachusetts has seen a substantial decline in reported cannabis use among public high school students. According to figures attributed to the state’s Youth Health Survey, past-30-day use fell from 30.2 percent in 2019 to 13 percent in 2025. Although this decline cannot necessarily be attributed to legalization, it challenges the assumption that a legal adult-use market inevitably leads to increased adolescent consumption.

Licensed retailers are required to verify government-issued identification, providing one means of limiting sales to minors. Education, prevention, and treatment remain essential, and revenue from legal cannabis sales helps support public health initiatives. Eliminating that revenue would create additional funding challenges.

Impaired driving is also a serious concern. Cannabis can impair judgment and driving ability, and operating a vehicle while impaired remains illegal regardless of how marijuana is obtained. Repealing legal retail sales would not eliminate consumption or the possibility of impaired driving. Regulation currently provides opportunities for consumer warnings, public awareness campaigns, and law enforcement training. Massachusetts has dedicated nearly $5 million to campaigns addressing responsible consumption, impaired driving, and related safety concerns.

Product safety offers another reason to preserve effective consumer protections. Licensed cannabis products are subject to testing, potency and ingredient labeling, child-resistant packaging, and tracking requirements. When a problem arises, regulators can trace products, investigate concerns, and take corrective action. These protections help consumers make informed choices and provide mechanisms for responding to unsafe products. The challenge is to maintain appropriate standards without relying unnecessarily on criminal penalties.

The work isn’t finished. We can continue improving consumer protections, public education, and efforts to prevent impaired driving. But criminalizing cannabis commerce is not the same as protecting the public. Law enforcement resources are better directed toward conduct that causes genuine harm rather than consensual transactions between adults.

A decade ago, Massachusetts voters chose a different approach to cannabis policy. Whatever improvements may still be needed, returning to prohibition would raise serious questions about enforcement priorities, consumer safety, and the effective use of public resources. Those are questions voters deserve to consider carefully as they approach Question 8.

Dianne Goldstein is a retired California police lieutenant and executive director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership. Karen Hawkes is a retired Massachusetts state trooper.