Barring divine intervention, Massachusetts will vote on legal pot in 2016. But what will “legalization” mean? Will it be legal for you and me to grow dope in our homes? Or will growing dope only be legal for the owners of pot stores and marijuana dispensaries? Whether to include a strong home-grow provision is shaping up to be the most important question among the various parties crafting and supporting a statewide initiative in 2016. Will the proposed law be like Colorado’s, which does provide for recreational home-growing? Or like Washington’s, which does not? Home-growing was supposedly dropped from the Washington initiative to give more assurance that the measure would pass. In fact, Washington’s measure passed with 55.7% of the vote compared to Colorado’s 55.3%—not a resounding difference. As a result, anyone who grows any weed for recreational purposes is open to state as well as federal prosecution. You might think the experiences in Colorado and Washington would make it clear that a home-grow provision doesn’t make an initiative too toxic. If that isn’t clear enough, recent Quinnipiac polls confirm that the percentage of voters opposing home-grow is smaller than the percentage completely against legalization. But this experience and clarity seems to be lost on the framers of a legalization initiative proposed for Nevada. “An Initiative to Regulate and Tax Marijuana,” recently launched by the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, allows for growing six plants at a time – but only if you do not live within 25 miles of a pot store. (Regulate like alcohol? Is it illegal to make your own beer or wine if you’re within 25 miles of a bar?) In the opinion of many Bay State activists, a “legalization” initiative that prohibits all or most home-growing has nothing to do with public safety or ensuring that the measure passes: The only benefit is to the emerging Big Weed industry, forcing the rest of us to buy its product at its prices or risk prosecution. Even that benefit may be small: Just as only a small percentage of us brew our own beer, only a small percentage of stoners will grow their own dope, and those who do will spend money on hydroponics systems and fertilizer. Home-growing may not be a big consumer issue, but it is a giant civil rights issue. If it isn’t legal, the police can still say, “We know there’s marijuana in there, we’re busting down the door,” and so the war on marijuana is simply advanced on new terms. For those of us who espouse “home-grow or no go” for Massachusetts, any acceptable ballot initiative has to be about the right of people to be secure in their homes.   FURTHER READING REPEAL VS. LEGALIZATION THE ROAD TO LEGAL MUST BE PAVED WITH DOLLARS MASS POLITICIANS AND THEIR LAME POT JOKES