Fine said the summary fails to mention how the question “dramatically diminishes” the state’s medical marijuana program, eliminates the Social Equity Program, upends local host community agreements, and blocks residents from growing marijuana at home.

Aaron Macris from Campbell’s office said the petition encompasses “downstream effects” that would result from lost tax revenue from recreational cannabis sales, such as getting rid of the Social Equity Program and a trust fund.

Justice Scott Kafker asked whether that’s “important enough that it should be in the summary.” Macris said “no,” arguing the summary does not — and cannot — touch on every aspect of an initiative petition.

“The attorney general isn’t necessarily in a great position to judge which details need to be — at least in a petition this comprehensive — which ancillary details need to be highlighted above others,” Macris said. “I mean, when it says that this petition would repeal the laws that regulate, and tax, and legalize recreational marijuana, a voter is going to understand that’s a big deal and that if they want to understand more, they can dig into the other materials, as in the ‘yes,’ ‘no’ statement and other information that’s provided in the voter information packet.”

Macris said the petition makes clear that “something big is happening here.” He told the justices, “It’s up to voters to read the fine print if, to the extent they’re worried that might affect various details of the recreational marijuana scheme.”

In their brief, plaintiffs say the petition contains multiple subjects that are not related or mutually dependent on one another, which would violate a constitutional requirement. At the ballot box, Fine said, Bay Staters who oppose recreational marijuana and vote to repeal legalization could face the tough choice about also eliminating the Social Equity Program, which they may approve of because it “remedies the harms of marijuana prohibition.”

On the issue of relatedness, Justice Serge Georges Jr. said he found an additional penalty for young adults to be a “little bit more problematic” within the potential ballot question. The petition installs additional civil penalties on young adults ages 18 to 21 by requiring them to attend a drug awareness program for unlawful possession of marijuana.

“That seems to me, at least, to be aimed at a different policy objective than restoring the world to what it looked like before this was enacted,” Georges said.

Fine agreed, saying the petition’s juvenile justice provisions are wading into a “separate issue.” Georges also raised the concern to Macris, as he pointed to the SJC’s struggle throughout Monday to gauge what exactly the average voter needs to know within a ballot question summary.

“It may very well be that the average voter may not necessarily be excited about what happened 10 years ago but is necessarily not signing up for enhanced penalties to folks either,” Georges said. “We’re doing this kind of divining here, where it’s not in there. And when we’re talking about the relatedness, why I would need to have one if I wanted the other?”

Individuals under 18 years old already need to take a drug awareness class if they’re caught possessing marijuana, Macris said.

“We’re talking about a relatively modest change to the penalties,” he said.