The Campaign Ran a Measure Out of Touch with Public Opinion Against the Recommendations of Its Own Strategists

The list of problems with the Question 4 campaign is long, and this postmortem will examine the major issues in depth one by one.

Part 1 (released on October 17, 2025) analyzes the decision to run a policy out of touch with public opinion as indicated by polling, against the recommendations of the Massachusetts ACLU and Dewey Square Group strategists hired by the campaign.

Part 2, initially released in installments as Part 2.1, Part 2.2, and Part 2.3 (on October 21, October 31, and November 6, 2025), analyzes the campaign’s costly handling of a polarizing psychedelics activist and underground practitioner.

Part 3 (released on November 8, 2025), analyzes the campaign’s decision to divert resources to a new nonprofit, co-founded by a close associate of Yes on 4’s campaign director, while polling behind.

WHY THE CAMPAIGN FELL SHORT

1. The Campaign Ran a Measure Out of Touch with Public Opinion Against the Recommendations of Its Own Strategists

By conventional political logic, the polling never justified the ballot measure as written, as publicly, albeit indirectly, confirmed by the campaign’s political consultants during a podcast last fall (complete, rough AI transcript here):

Question 4 campaign consultant Conor Yunits: [The No side of a ballot question] is easier, if you can make 10 arguments against a question, you really only need one to resonate. [...] Because of that, you have to start from a higher place on the Yes side. In terms of-- you got to be polling high 60s, low 70s to even have a viable campaign.

Question 4 campaign consultant Lynda Tocci (in reply): I think that’s right.

The ballot measure never polled above 56% support unassisted (before respondents were provided supportive information) in any representative poll. Moreover, in 2023, Marijuana Moment reported that “an initial poll” by the ballot campaign “showed support starting below 50 percent.” The article noted that a New Approach spokesperson characterized the results as “worrisome” and acknowledged that “polling home cultivation as a standalone policy did reveal that the campaign will need to prioritize education on that issue.”

But the spokesperson also said a subsequent internal poll had shown “it is possible to win with both of these initiatives,” referring to the two versions of the ballot measure: the one that allowed home cultivation of psychedelics and the one that did not. According to Marijuana Moment, the difference between the poll that showed “support starting below 50%” and the poll that showed “it [was] possible to win” was that the latter poll included “expanded explanations of the proposed reforms” (i.e. additional persuasive information). The spokesperson told Marijuana Moment the recent polling justified the campaign’s choice to advance the home cultivation version, saying “it means we can go with a more expansive policy.”

This rosy appraisal belied the actual numbers. In the first September 2023 poll the spokesperson referred to:

In the second September 2023 poll, which included additional persuasive information:

Even when respondents received “expanded explanations,” support remained far from the “high 60s” campaign consultants thought indicated a viable Yes campaign. And the moderate support was likely generated by misleading respondents into believing the measure was more restrictive than it actually was.

In a June 2024 internal poll, Question 4 received 56% support (53% support if excluding yes-leaning undecideds) when it was characterized as: “[allowing] persons over age 21 to use certain natural psychedelic substances under licensed supervision and to grow and possess limited quantities of those substances in their home and [creating] a commission to regulate those substances.”

The June 2024 poll did not mention Question 4 would allow persons over age 21 to freely distribute homegrown psychedelic substances, and the survey language suggested impactful restrictions, subject to meaningful regulation by “a commission,” for home possession and cultivation. The poll did not make clear that Question 4 proposed decriminalizing home cultivation, possession, and distribution of vast, commercial quantities of psychedelic substances, with practically no regulation. And even this heavily sanitized proposal received “[definite]” support from just 36% of respondents.

While I only saw the topline numbers for the September 2023 polls, I am confident in my speculation that they characterized the home cultivation measure very similarly, if not identically, to the June 2024 poll. Had respondents been asked if they approved of 12’ by 12’ of home growing space, no quantity limits for homegrown psychedelics, and being able to give away homegrown psychedelics to others with essentially no limits, support would likely have been lower.

In October 2023, an independent poll by Priorities for Progress found the measure had 41% support and 46% opposition, suggesting the internal poll from September 2023 showing 42% support and 53% opposition was close to the mark. More than a year later, Question 4 was supported by just 43% of voters, suggesting the multimillion-dollar campaign had little success in persuading undecideds.

What was known internally is that the Dewey Square Group consultants enlisted to run the Question 4 campaign claimed they opposed the inclusion of home cultivation and specifically advised that the 12’ by 12’ allotment for home growing was a huge political liability. As predicted, the 144 square feet of growing space became an opposition talking point.

In an internal poll from before the ballot measure language was finalized, only five standalone policies received at least 60% support:

In that same poll, home-growing psychedelics received only 38% support, with half of that 38% just “somewhat” supportive. In contrast, 59% of respondents opposed home-growing, with the overwhelming majority “strongly” opposed. The only standalone policy less popular than home cultivation was allowing individuals younger than 21 to use psychedelics, which had 36% support. The complete survey data is not publicly available, but you can read more excerpts from internal polling here.

It is puzzling how, despite this knowledge, New Approach decided to draft and put before voters a policy to allow practically unlimited home cultivation, with almost no safeguards to prevent access for minors. In Question 4, there was no limit to the quantity of psychedelics an individual could grow and store at home, possession of psychedelics by minors was decriminalized, and the penalty for failing to secure a psychedelic from a minor was a $100 fine and confiscation of the psychedelic.

A proposal this far-reaching was unprecedented in Massachusetts. None of the local psychedelics decriminalization bills, such as An Act Relative to Plant Medicine, decriminalized possession for minors or allowed for unlimited home cultivation. When the campaign polled opposition arguments in June 2023, 27% of respondents did not believe the measure “would allow anyone to grow and give away whatever they want with no restrictions” (which is essentially what the measure ended up proposing). Similarly, 26% did not believe the measure “would make it much easier for children and youth to get access” “by allowing unlimited personal use and sharing.”

While a ballot measure practically identical to Question 4 was approved by voters in Colorado in 2022, the Colorado measure never polled higher than 43% in independent polls, and it received only a narrow majority (53.6%) of support on election night. It was reckless to try to pull off a similar, unexpected win in Massachusetts, a very different state, especially against the recommendations of the campaign’s own strategists, who judged home cultivation a major risk.

And it wasn’t just internal campaign consultants who warned New Approach. The Massachusetts ACLU, which had endorsed three, consecutive, successful cannabis ballot measures in the state, did not endorse Question 4 because leadership determined that the proposal was likely not viable, could set reform efforts back with a loss, and privately urged New Approach not to run the proposal.

During the campaign, I was provided a false explanation from a member of campaign leadership for why the Massachusetts ACLU did not endorse (I was told, essentially, it was because they opposed psychedelic exceptionalism) and was repeatedly discouraged from getting in touch with the organization by that same member of campaign leadership. Jamie Morey and I learned the truth earlier this year from the Massachusetts ACLU.

The campaign’s internal polling and Massachusetts’ history suggests a proposal similar to the state’s medical cannabis program, including an affordable retail or take-home component, would have been popular. What repeatedly polled in the 70s or higher was access for individuals with serious health conditions:

In 2012, medical cannabis, incorporating take home and very-limited home cultivation, won 63% of the vote in Massachusetts, when US voters were much less comfortable with cannabis than they are now. As previously mentioned, 60% of respondents in an internal poll supported allowing individuals “to purchase and use psychedelics at home for therapeutic purposes” with a doctor’s recommendation.

Although the campaign repeatedly touted “no retail sales” and “no take home” as selling points, this decision was not supported by a clear signal from polling. The only times “retail sales” was polled as a standalone policy showed a clear majority (60%) in favor of retail sales for therapeutic use and voters evenly split (47% vs 47%) on prohibiting retail sales of psychedelics generally. The only time “unsupervised home use of psychedelics” generally was polled as a standalone policy, a majority (54%) thought it should be allowed, even though “unsupervised home use” could mean a variety of things, including the absence of a doctor’s recommendation.

By contrast, what most voters clearly did not like were: home cultivation of psychedelics for all adults and access to psychedelics for minors. Question 4 would have allowed the former and dramatically reduced penalties for the latter.

Although, to my knowledge, the campaign never polled voters directly about affordability, affordability seemed to be a significant concern for many, which is why the lack of take home or retail sales was a problem. The highly regulated psychedelic therapy proposed by Question 4 was guaranteed to be prohibitively expensive out-the-gate, a fact the opposition found salient enough to repeatedly mention. For example, an opposition spokesperson said in a GBH interview, “I’d like to know how many people in the state of Massachusetts going through the painful issues that [the Question 4 campaign] talk about can afford $750 to $3500 per visit.”

The polling consistently pointed to voters distinguishing between therapeutic and recreational use, wanting to help people in need but uncomfortable with uncontrolled access. In the same June 2024 poll in which 63% found convincing, and 11% “[did] not believe,” the statement the ballot question should be opposed because it allowed “anyone” to grow “thousands of doses of psychedelics with little to no regulation,” a majority of respondents (54%) agreed “Allowing the growing of limited amounts of psychedelics is important to ensure that wealthy people aren’t the only ones who can access psychedelic therapy.” Limited home cultivation for individuals with qualifying conditions would have been an easier sell.

Anecdotally, the only reason certain grassroots supporters in the mental health community cared so much about the inclusion of home cultivation and decriminalization in the measure was because of the lack of any kind of take home. We did not want to support a measure that would maintain the criminalization of the affordable and effective way we had already used psychedelics therapeutically (at home, with the support of loved ones).

With regards to decriminalization generally, polling suggested majority support for some kind of removal of criminal penalties. In the June 2023 internal poll:

But the low support (38%) in the same poll for “allowing people to grow plants containing psychedelics at home” showed respondents distinguished between removing criminal penalties for personal use, which could include replacing possible jail time with a civil fine, and entitling people to produce psychedelics in an unregulated and unsupervised environment.

An example of popular decriminalization policy was the Massachusetts ACLU-backed, 2008 cannabis decriminalization ballot measure, which earned 65% of the vote. The initiative only decriminalized possession of an ounce or less of cannabis. A similarly modest psychedelics decriminalization proposal might have found similar success, especially in light of the fact the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society, the Massachusetts Medical Society, the Massachusetts College of Emergency Physicians, and the Massachusetts Municipal Association all publicly supported some kind of psychedelic decriminalization while criticizing Question 4. It is worth noting that the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society endorsed specific legislation decriminalizing possession of psilocybin this year.

The comparatively radical provisions of Question 4 meant the only informed voters who were likely to feel comfortable with the proposal initially were the roughly third in favor of broadly decriminalizing unregulated, non-commercial production, possession, distribution, and use of natural psychedelics. Leadership of the Massachusetts ACLU, and the campaign’s strategic leadership from Dewey Square Group, both thought it was unlikely to end well.

On election night, a Dewey Square Group consultant privately shared that, from their team’s perspective, Question 4’s loss was the expected result.