Marijuana question still has its pros, cons

By Grant D. Crawford

One by one, states across the nation have been passing new marijuana laws in recent years.

Currently, 29 states in the U.S. allow the use of medical marijuana. By November 2018, Oklahoma could be the 30th.

State Question 788, the Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative, will be on the ballot as a state statute in November 2018. The initiative would legalize marijuana for medical purposes, including the construction of dispensaries, commercial growers and processors.

The use and sales of marijuana was first banned in the states by the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.

The Act was eventually replaced years later by the Controlled Substances Act in the 1970s. In 1996, marijuana began making its comeback when California became the first state to approve its use for medical purposes.

Not every state has been as quick to reestablish the substance, typically because of conflicting opinions about its effect on humans' everyday lives.

Sen. Dewayne Pemberton, R-Muskogee, is one of individuals not in favor of legalization, and he has his reasons.

"Being a 36-year educator, I haven't seen any real positive results of marijuana use, so I'm not much in favor of legalizing marijuana for any reason," he said. "I think it causes, a lot of times, people to be lackadaisical, and also there's some research that there are some problems with possible brain damage."

For years, studies and experts have claimed the use of marijuana can hamper the development of adolescents' brains. However, conflicting studies have been published indicating that daily marijuana use is not associated with brain issues in adolescents or adults.

"The societal benefits, the patient's benefits, far outweigh any sort of scare tactics that the opposition might be using," said William Jones, board member of Oklahomans for Health, the organization leading the initiative's campaign. "I think a lot of that just falls on misconception of medical marijuana."

Alternative medicine has grown increasingly popular within the past few years, but that doesn't mean all the field's practitioners are sold on marijuana - yet.

Shivani Chase, of Balanced Life Ayurveda, said she probably would not suggest the use of marijuana to her clients.

"I'd have to learn more about it," she said. "I think there are other herbs and formulations out there that would be much more effective. On the other hand, if someone is using marijuana for pain control, or whatever they're using it for, it's probably going to be better for them than a pharmaceutical."

Still, Chase believes marijuana should be legalized.

"Personally, I don't know why we would have marijuana be illegal, if at the same time we have alcohol legal," she said. "That doesn't make sense to me. Both can be used to help the body, and both can be incredibly harmful to the body. It's not a simple yes or no to me. What's good for me might be harmful for you. So I wouldn't say marijuana is good for you or bad for you; it just depends."

Chase said the legalization could possibly make marijuana safer for those who already use it, but that's yet to be determined.

While some are concerned for the safety of those using marijuana, they're also worried about the welfare of others. Pemberton said he was concerned about folks driving under the influence.
                                        
"Any type of medical drug, or whatever, impairs your ability behind the wheel, so we'd just be opening up another can of worms," he said. "We haven't even been able to deal with the one we have with alcohol abuse." 
          
Jason Chennault, Cherokee County undersheriff, said legalizing medical marijuana use still wouldn't make it legal to drive under the influence.

"I don't see the problem being much bigger with it," he said. "People just need to understand, it's still going to be illegal in that sense. I don't think anyone in law enforcement is against it for medicinal purposes. It's just, to me, it's going to have to be regulated by somebody who has the time and the money to do that."

Proponents of the state question claim the economic impact legal marijuana could have on the state is more than enough reason to vote yes. If the initiative were to pass, there would be a 7 percent tax on marijuana sales. Revenue from the tax would finance regulatory costs. Also, 75 percent of any surplus would go to the General Fund, to be earmarked for education. The other 25 percent would to the Oklahoma State Department of Health to be used for drug and alcohol rehabilitation.

"This opens up a whole new burgeoning market," said Jones. "It's not just a boost to our farmers for this new cash crop, but also it will open up new fields for doctors to prescribe these medicines.

Dispensaries will open up and then other industries will want to sort of piggyback on this, too. It increases tourism."

Public schools in Oklahoma have been receiving funding cuts consistently for the past few years.

This added revenue, in theory, could help counter that. Pemberton doesn't believe it's worth it, though.

"Bottom line is, I'd hate to think we're funding education on the back of possible drug use, or a drug that may lead people down the road to a harder drug," he said. "I don't think that's a good avenue for us to go, to be honest with you. We just need to find ways to fund our educational system through other means of creating revenues, and I don't think opening that marijuana stream up is a good one."

Not all lawmakers have taken a strict stance against the state question. State Rep. Matt Meredith, D-Tahlequah, said it's out of his hands at this point.

"If the voters of the state of Oklahoma vote to legalize marijuana, then that's what I, as a state representative, and the members of the House and Senate need to uphold," he said. "It's up to the voters, so whatever the voters decide, I'll be good with."