2026-08-18
Signature collectors told Massachusetts cannabis workers they were signing a petition to fight fentanyl. They were signing the petition to repeal the industry those workers depend on. Tim Swain led the court challenge to keep that question off the ballot. His team lost. He explains what is actually buried inside the question, why the court passed on it, and what happens in November. ▶ Free weekly cannabis operator brief: https://tr.ee/hfnewsletter ▶ Good Feels THC beverages: https://getgoodfeels.com/ (code HF15) KEY TAKEAWAYS - The legal challenge argued the Attorney General's summary did not tell voters what they were actually approving. Two other 2026 ballot questions were struck on that same reasoning. This one was not. - Swain identifies well over 20 changes packaged into a single yes-or-no vote, including elimination of the state social equity program and the social equity trust fund. - Massachusetts is being used as a test case. Swain's read is that a win in a state with this reputation becomes a national fundraising line. - Inside the courtroom the bench went cold during their argument. In appellate practice that silence is a signal. - On DEA rescheduling: the agency argues as the moving party, and this round the administrative law judge limited participation to seven opposing parties. CHAPTERS 00:00 The signature collectors 2:06 What litigation actually means 3:59 What the ballot question hides 10:09 Inside the SJC argument 30:06 The ground game 35:32 Why Massachusetts first 47:50 How DEA rescheduling works 1:02:26 Talk to your lawyer early GUEST Tim Swain, Trial Attorney and Chair of the Litigation Department, Vicente LLP Firm: https://www.instagram.com/vicente.llp/ HOST Jason Reposa, Founder/CEO Good Feels LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/jasonreposa Site: highfunctioning.show Statements about the ballot campaign, signature collection, and pending legal and regulatory proceedings reflect the guest's account and opinion. Nothing in this episode is legal advice. 21+ where legal.