Over 10 decades ago, marijuana, also known as cannabis, had been prohibited in the state of Massachusetts. Although its prohibition was based on very limited scientific information on the effects the drug could potentially have and to prevent the future use of stronger drugs like opium. Later, medical researchers found that marijuana had some medical benefits when used as a sedative. Medical students also admitted that after use, they registered signs of happiness and feelings of pleasure (Whitehill et al., 2019). However, they were accompanied by feelings of nausea and general discomfort. Around 1971, Massachusetts adopted the Uniform Controlled Substances Act instead of completely making it illegal. People were not allowed to possess more than one ounce of the drug failure, leading to serving time for close to six months plus a fine. So many people had been convicted by 2006 for possession, and citizens started asking the government to allow its use legally (Kealy, 2021). Petitions went around for people to sign to allow this proposal to become law. After continuous efforts to gather the highest number of voters to vote in favor of the proposal, it finally became fully legalized in 2016. The legalization of marijuana was a form of social change that was heavily influenced by various concepts of social advocacy, community psychology, systems change, policy and legal initiatives, and community protests.
One of the most common concepts that influenced the legalization of marijuana in Massachusetts was social advocacy. Social Advocacy promotes social change through organized efforts aimed at promoting the creation of a socially just society. It influences policies, laws, and people’s attitudes toward a cause of concern. Through social advocacy, the advocates for the legalization of marijuana argued that the approval of this policy would help manage the use of marijuana. It was already being used, so making it legal would allow its regulation to prevent its misuse, especially by the younger generation. Those advocating for its legalization conducted public awareness campaigns, and used lobbying and community organization to try and change the attitudes of those who were against it (Kealy, 2021). They convinced them that medical marijuana has positive benefits, including dealing with chronic pain. Legalizing it also meant that law enforcers would focus on other crimes instead of chasing down drug offenders. This method helped to increase the numbers of those supporting its legalization hence just and fairness for those who already advocated for it.
Furthermore, community psychology also impacted the legalization of marijuana in Massachusetts. Community psychology has a holistic approach to promoting social change. It is guided by principles that consider every community member by understanding every individual in it and their relationship with each other. It strives for inclusion, fairness, and accepting diversity and believes that how an individual is affected by society shapes the community and how it functions (Prilleltensky, 2021). While pushing for the legalization of marijuana, the bottom-up approach was used where the citizens/voters were the ones who helped design the policies that surrounded this law. The responsibility was not up to the government alone but the public; the highest number of voters got to decide whether the law should be passed. Those who advocated for its legalization began using the Massachusetts initiative petition process. This petition process existed in Massachusetts since 1919, and it was there to allow the public/voters to address pressing issues, but the Legislature left it unattended. Initially, people fought for the decriminalization of possessing ounces of the drug, and it was decriminalized in 2008. Years later, people advocated for the sale and use of medical marijuana, a law that was passed in 2012.
Another concept that was used to impact the legalization of marijuana was systems change. The movement to legalize marijuana in Massachusetts began around 1989 when the first freedom rally occurred. It allowed the reformation/ review of marijuana laws that existed. Using systems change concepts was to help focus on the outcomes that the legalization would bring. The advocates for marijuana legalization argued that it would help maintain and restrain the existing policies on the illegal distribution of the drug to people below the legal age, growing marijuana, drug trafficking, and driving under its influence. It would also increase the state’s savings by over $100 million annually since much money was going into marijuana (Dills et al., 2021). These arguments proved that legalization would have more positive outcomes; it just needs to be controlled. So many laws and regulations had to change to suit the changing situations. The Legislature had to lift its prohibition law on seeing that it was causing more harm than good and focus on the outcome that legalizing marijuana would bring. In efforts to regulate marijuana use, the government had to create new employment opportunities, tax marijuana and establish legal frameworks for its usage. The state government had to ensure that marijuana would be treated similarly compared to alcohol in terms of regulations and taxation, and this required significant changes to the existing laws.
Policy and Legal initiatives were also key in the legalization process of marijuana. Policies affect almost every aspect of our lives and how we do things. In most cases, for social change to occur, there has to be the formation of new policies, reforming existing ones, or both. These policies often address the issues that face society in all areas. They act as solution providers, and in Massachusetts, it took plenty of research and advocacy to come up with policies that will favor/ grant people what they want but still be in line with the laws. In 2018, the state had to create a new body to regulate and oversee the marijuana industry, The Cannabis Control Commission. The roles of this body included creating and enforcing all the laws that were related to marijuana, from how it was produced to its distribution and sale (Dills et al., 2021). Some of the policies that were put in place included; people being allowed to buy up to 28grams at a particular time, each household could only grow up to six plants that were to be away from the street, licenses were also available for application by cultivators who could only sell to dispensaries and not directly to customers with no prescription, and they banned the smoking of marijuana in places of public.
Lastly, community protests also impacted marijuana legalization in Massachusetts. “We are here today to protest over the injustice that the Department of public health is causing the people of Massachusetts; corruption has made it impossible for patients to access medical marijuana.”, “We are losing patients from our families every day over something that this department would have prevented if they had gone through with the legalization plans, something they had promised to do two years ago.” These are words from protestors who turned put in large numbers in front of the office of the Department of Public Health (Swinburne et al., 2019). There were so many campaigns from around 1989 when people began the movement for this legalization. People came out in large numbers and formed campaign groups meant to fight for this cause. They were successfully organized, and each had a sense of collectiveness that encouraged participation since people now believed that they and their community could get what they wanted; they could be heard. There was the ‘Yes on 4 campaign’ to urge the state government to regulate marijuana like alcohol. This campaign led to the passing of Question 4, which was the legalization and regulation of marijuana in Massachusetts for people over the age of 21 years.
Just like any other movement, the movement for the legalization of marijuana in Massachusetts had its challenges. The community member faced various problems that pushed them to protest and even challenges during their protests. One of the challenges faced was opposition from the Legislators and society’s influential people. According to Rick Steves, a television host and travel blogger, Massachusetts was not progressive politically; those opposing the legalization presented arguments that made no sense. Continuous efforts by the legalization advocates seemed frustrating every time the Legislature rejected their legalization bill. They found that there was a limited representation since comparing their bill to legalization efforts that had been there before; those seemed to be well known and had so many supporters among voters; hence their terms were well respected and quickly passed (Kealy, 2021). During debates to support the decriminalization of marijuana, the legislators and those that were against its legalization acted rationally despite what was at stake. So many people of power were against its legalization and challenged their efforts; church leaders, law enforcers, and economically influential people. This was a challenge because these were people that the public looked up to for guidance in various ways, and their being against marijuana legalization meant the masses would follow and listen to them.
Another challenge that the legalization advocates faced was the stigma and pessimism that was associated with the use of marijuana. Marijuana is a drug, and many negative stereotypes and attitudes toward it exist. People were afraid that it would promote the use of drugs and drug dealers would have an excuse to keep dealing; it would cause an increase in criminal cases like theft, car accidents from people driving under the influence of marijuana, and so on. These were mostly from parents who were afraid their children would become victims of addiction. Finding a way to persuade these opponents to see the benefits that the legalization of marijuana would bring was much work since they needed their votes to pass the bill (Kealy, 2021). This made it hard for the legalization to go through, and it took years before the number of voters who were in favor of the law to be more than those who were against it. However, they used various ways to minimize the problem, like creating public awareness, sensitization, and understanding the individual needs of opponents and why they were against legalization. In the long run, they managed to balance the problem.
The lack of evidence and information to support the legalization of marijuana during debates before legislatures was also a challenge. For a bill to be passed, much information and evidence to support the argument and in its favor was needed to be able to debate over it. Advocates for legalization did not have enough information regarding the benefits of legalizing marijuana. They could barely prove that the benefits of legalizing it outweighed the risk of not decriminalizing it. It was hard to convince the Legislature that this bill had to be passed. They needed to find reliable evidence that the criminalization and over-enforcement of possession of marijuana were done based on incorrect information (Kealy, 2021). This problem kept delaying the process. Information had to be found via research on its usage, its source, who was safe to use it, its effects, and how it compares to alcohol and other drugs. The Legislature did not get all the information needed to pass this bill on time, which explains why it was passed in stages before being fully legalized. Legalization advocates kept campaigning consistently and painted a rosy picture of what the legalization would do, eventually convincing the legislatures.
The legalization of marijuana in Massachusetts is a historic movement and an example of how various factors contribute to social change. Certain concepts related to social advocacy, community psychology, systems change, policy and legal initiatives, and community protests impacted the legalization of marijuana. In 2016, Massachusetts became the first state on the East Coast to legalize recreational marijuana for people over the age of 21. After a number of campaigns and policy changes to try and do away with the effects drug wars had on people’s lives and support that the resources put into fighting drug users be used to find responsible ways to control drug use, it finally came into effect. The movement also took years due to the challenges faced during the protests and campaigns. However, community members came together to challenge these challenges. For example, community organizations worked to ensure that regulations were implemented to prevent underage use and address the impact of the war on drugs. Additionally, community members worked to ensure that the revenue generated from the sale of marijuana was reinvested in communities impacted by drug criminalization. Marijuana was legalized in Massachusetts, but there are still changes in policies and guidelines to make the laws that govern this rule better for both the state and the public.
References
Dills, A. K., Goffard, S., Miron, J., & Partin, E. (2021). The effect of state marijuana legalizations: 2021update.CatoInstitute,PolicyAnalysis,(908).https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep30177.pdf
Kealy, S. J. (2021). Marijuana Legalization and the Role of the Massachusetts Legislature. BUL Rev.,101,1173.https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/bulr101§ion=35
Prilleltensky, I. (2021). Value-based praxis in community psychology: Moving toward social justice and social action. American Journal of community psychology, 29, 747-778. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1010417201918
Swinburne, M., & Hoke, K. (2019). State Efforts to Creative an Inclusive Marijuana Industry in the Shadow of the Unjust War on Drugs. J. Bus. & Tech. L., 15, 235. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgibin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/jobtela15§ion=14
Whitehill, J. M., Harrington, C., Lang, C. J., Chary, M., Bhutta, W. A., & Burns, M. M. (2019). Incidence of pediatric cannabis exposure among children and teenagers aged 0 to 19 years before and after medical marijuana legalization in Massachusetts. JAMA network open, 2(8),e199456-e199456. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/article-abstract/2748051
write