State House News Service

Retired Ohio Exec Bankrolling Mass. Medical Marijuana Initiative

BOSTON — Proponents of legalizing medical marijuana in Massachusetts have a huge money advantage over opponents of the 2012 ballot question, almost entirely due to the contributions of one deep-pocketed out-of-state advocate.

Peter Lewis, the Ohio chairman and retired CEO of Progressive Insurance, has given $465,000 to the Committee for Compassionate Medicine, the ballot committee behind Question 3. Lewis is a well-known benefactor for pro-medical marijuana laws across the country.

The committee raised $512,860 since January, according to its report required to be filed with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance 60 days before the election.

By contrast, the Vote No on Question 3 committee raised just $600 since January from two donors, $100 from Massachusetts Family Institute director Kris Mineau and $500 from Westborough “homemaker” Josephine Hensley.

The Committee for Compassionate Medicine spent almost $406,000 over that same period through Sept. 2, largely on consulting fees – $158,362 to the Dewey Square Group, $52,500 to Corrigan & Associates and $24,000 to the American Civil Liberties Union. The committee spent $83,000 on SpoonWorks Inc. for professional signature-gathering to qualify for the ballot.

“We’re just beginning to kick off the campaign so not to worry. There’s some strong grassroots out there through the Massachusetts Prevention Alliance,” Mineau told the News Service.

Backers of Question 2 that would allow terminally ill patients to self-administer lethal drugs after requesting a prescription from a doctor, have also benefited greatly from out-of-state money, taking in tens of thousands of dollars from national groups and donors, including $85,000 from the Death With Dignity National Center in Portland, Oregon.

The Dignity 2012 committee raised $302,637 from January through September, according to its OCPF report, and spent $246,390.

Meanwhile, the Committee Against Physician Assisted Suicide raised $900,550 from late April through September, including $250,000 from the American Family Association in Tupelo, Mississippi and tens of thousands of dollars from archdioceses around the country.

The group announced last week that Rosanne Bacon Meade, former president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, would lead the committee, and Meade promised a “vigorous effort” to defeat the ballot question, which is also opposed by Massachusetts Medical Society, the Hospice & Palliative Care Federation of Massachusetts, the American Medical Association and the American College of Physicians.

A separate group also opposed to Question 2 – Massachusetts Against Doctor Prescribed Suicide – raised $109,686 and spent $66,480.

“You can rest assured these are not a Massachusetts initiatives,” Mineau said, referencing the heavy out-of-state spending.

A Public Policy Polling survey released in August found broad support for Question 3 with 58 percent of respondents favoring medical marijuana and 27 percent against.

Life-ending prescriptions for certain patients was also favored by a margin of 58 percent to 24 percent, according to the PPP survey.

Ballot Question 3 would make Massachusetts the 17th state, including Maine and Rhode Island, to have laws allowing the medical use of marijuana.

The proposed law would eliminate state criminal and civil penalties for the use of medical marijuana by patients diagnosed with a “debilitating medical condition” such as cancer, glaucoma, HIV or AIDS, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s, ALS, hepatitis C or multiple sclerosis.

Under the language of the ballot question a patient would have to obtain a written certification from a physician to qualify for a 60-day supply of medical marijuana for personal use. The initiative would allow non-profit medical marijuana treatment centers certified by the Department of Public Health to grow, process, and provide marijuana to patients or their caregivers.

Law enforcement officials have had a mixed reaction to the ballot question, and Gov. Deval Patrick has so far declined to weigh in on the issue deferring for now to the voters.

Worcester County District Attorney Joseph Early told the News Service in July that he is personally opposed to the ballot question, but did not intend to do any campaigning to help defeat the measure, while Middlesex District Attorney Gerry Leone said he was “open” to considering the benefits of medical marijuana.

The Massachusetts District Attorney’s Association has not yet taken a formal position on Question 3. The Massachusetts Medical Society has also staked out a nuanced position on the ballot question, opposing recreational use of the drug while calling for more study of the pros and cons of medical use.

A 2008 ballot question decriminalizing possession of less than one ounce of marijuana passed easily despite an eleventh hour push from law enforcement for voters to reject it.

WBUR Topics · Boston · Politics
  • Steven_Epstein

    The Massachusetts Prevention Alliance is an association of federally funded busy bodies.

  • Stephen Kirk

    If a drug company tried to market/sell an inhaled drug with the body of literature that marijuana has behind it, they would be hounded out of existence by the press.

    For whatever reason, the left-wing press gives a pass to a substance that has been increasingly shown to have multiple harmful psychiatric (ie. increased risk of schizophrenia) and physical (ie. increased risk of testicular cancer and dose dependent risk of COPD) consequences.

    The supporters of medical marijuana should spend their money on controlled, blinded studies to show the long term risk/benefit of marijuana, rather than on slick political campaigns.

    • Frank Cinco

       Prohibition didn’t work the first time, and it’s not working now.  If you can’t see that marijuana legalization will decrease organized crime, and produce millions in tax revenue, you are blind.

  • Xceles

    Medical Cannabis is only going to be able to have research done on it in the first place if there is a legal and safe population to do controlled and widespread study on. The best place to do this research would be the smartest place on the god damn planet! My home town of Boston Massachusetts where I am proud to say we take a scientific look at everything including the faith based drivel of Mr. Stephen Kirk below who answers his own ignorance in his closing statement. The research on Cannabis is already available. It has proven that CBD only found in Cannabis relieves Chemo therapy side effects allowing patients to eat. Putting your head in the sand and saying that studies show a 1% increased risk of Schizophrenia is so absurd it makes my ribs hurt from laughter.  When your friend, your family begin to suffer from debilitating illness will you deny their care with your faith based 1% credibility arguments? Here guy, I got a story for you since you like anecdotal evidence. My neighbor and good friend since high school had complete kidney failure at age 25.  Blood replacement therapy every week leaves his arms bruised and bleeding. In my town Opiate painkillers are a death sentence to youth. So what you are saying to me is that my friend needs to take heavy pain killers and risk Opiate addiction? My friend of 10 years deserves to wake up with morning dope sickness because you think his choice to smoke Cannabis could give him a side effect even you can’t prove? You are disgusting. All you scum who pose as righteous and true while you scorn those who only seek relief from the pain of intense medical procedures. A leap of faith is not needed for Marijuana legislation right now. What is needed is rational science that has been common knowledge to the public for the past 200 years. Cannabis is medicine that will improve the lives of those close to me. I hope in your journey to see the truth you find that those you love may need Cannabis on their side. Maybe you can find it in your soul to be by their side as well.
    “Peace & Love “Vash the Stampede

  • ShawnTippie

    What about all the federal money they get and the police union money, drug companies also support them, tobacco and the booze industry pour big money into just say no campaigns. I would say the no side is well represented, by big government. Why should anyone put money into no when our tax money is already funding it everyday.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mikecann Mike Cann
Most Popular
SUPPORT