Saturday, 22 July 2017
Clarence Fanto | The Bottom Line: Recreational marijuana rules come into focus, but benefits remain murky
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!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment