LENOX — Coming soon to a storefront near you: a pot shop selling recreational marijuana, as it's called.
Bad
enough that distracted driving while motorists text and talk has become
hazardous to all of us — now we have to worry about people getting high
and driving while impaired.
Yes, the voters have spoken, and
Massachusetts is not the only state dealing with the legalization, and
growing social acceptance, of marijuana as another pain-numbing
substance for troubling emotions or aimless lives. As a result, law
enforcement agencies must develop and utilize tools and procedures to
make certain that driving while high is treated as sternly as driving
while drunk.
Now that state lawmakers have finished hashing
through a compromise bill for Gov. Charlie Baker to sign, as he's
expected to, we can look forward to the pot industry stepping up eagerly
to fill some of the many vacant storefronts pockmarking our landscape.
The
law allows adults 21 and older to grow, buy, possess and use limited
quantities of cannabis, the plant that produces marijuana, the
psychoactive drug that creates pronounced physical and mental impacts on
its users — some 25 million Americans are regulars, according to recent
studies.
Sorry, but I can't join the general jubilation over
this latest advance in our civilization. Experts disagree on whether
marijuana is a "gateway drug" leading to cocaine, heroin, various
opioids or whether it's relatively benign like alcohol! But Dr.
Jennifer Michaels, the county's specialist on drugs, has outlined
convincingly the disturbing effects of pot on the still-developing
brains of teens and young adults.
All I know is that I don't want
school bus drivers who are stoned, as well as a long list of others who
bear responsibility for safety and security on our roads and in our
public spaces. Of course, what adults do in the privacy of their own
homes is their business and none of mine.
Sure enough, it's the
will of the people — since the 2008 statewide vote to decriminalize
possession and use, with restrictions, Massachusetts citizens have
approved two more ballot questions on marijuana — first in November
2012, legalizing the sale and use of the drug to qualified patients
diagnosed with a medical condition enabling them to get a prescription.
In November 2016, recreational pot for adults was legalized in another statewide vote, 53.7 percent to 46.3 percent.
Now,
lawmakers have compromised on changes to the law, setting a combined
state and local tax rate of up to 20 percent (though medical marijuana
remains tax-free) and allowing pot shops to open a year from now.
To
some legislators, it's another crop to cultivate and put on the market.
State Sen. Adam Hinds predicts a big payday for area farmers in a
billion-dollar industry. The Pittsfield Democrat explained that without
the compromise bill, "the law would have cut out our local farmers."
State
Rep. William "Smitty" Pignatelli explained that he was happy to vote
for a bill "which clearly establishes a legal framework for the
production of industrial hemp and which will better allow access for
small farmers to the marijuana industry."
The Lenox Democrat has
been skeptical of marijuana's benefits in the past, but "this
legislation respects the will of the voters," he told me, "though I'm
not a big fan of marijuana, never have been."
"I want to make
sure that farmers in the Berkshires and across the commonwealth will
have the opportunity to get in on the business," he said. "We cannot let
the cultivation of what is essentially an agricultural product be taken
over by big corporations from outside Massachusetts.That's why I was
proud to vote in support of this bill."
It's hard to believe that
more widespread use of marijuana, which still runs afoul of federal law
as a controlled substance, is beneficial to our society, already deeply
damaged by the opioid epidemic that killed 59,000 Americans last year, a
higher death toll than the entire Vietnam war.
Pittsfield-based
state Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier emphasized the potential economic
windfall for cities and towns, which can choose to add 3 percent to the
state's 10.75 percent levy on retail sales and the 6.25 percent state
sales tax.
The compromise legislation does give voters a chance
to opt out. In towns like Lenox and all the others across the Berkshires
that backed the 2016 ballot question, voters could ban pot shops
through a referendum. The 91 out of 351 communities in the state that
opposed recreational pot can only ban the retail sale by a vote of their
select boards or city councils.
The state Senate's top
Republican, minority leader Bruce Tarr of Gloucester, claims that the
double standard could be unconstitutional and "has the potential to set a
very, very dangerous precedent" based on challenges to the concept of
equal protection under the law. Democratic Sen. William Brownsberger of
Belmont calls that position "nonsense" while acknowledging the adopted
solution is a "novel approach absolutely, totally commonsensical."
Locally,
many residents gave the cool shoulder to a recently formed company
seeking to locate a marijuana facility in the village of Lenox Dale. The
main objection was not to medical use, but to strong indications that
the site could provide retail sales in the future.
Not in our
backyard! Notably, Lenoxians had voted 1,833 to 1,034 in favor of the
2012 ballot question legalizing medical marijuana, and 1,607 to 1,414
for the 2016 recreational pot ballot initiative.
If this town
sets up another vote on whether to bar retail sales anywhere in the
community, or only in certain zones, it will be the ultimate test of
NIMBYism. I don't plan to patronize pot shops, whether in Lenox or
across the town line. But there's much to be said for consistency. A
"yes" vote last year did not mean "except in my town."
As the saying goes, elections have consequences. Do they ever!
No comments:
Post a Comment