Katelyn Baker
Well-Known Member
There's a great deal of fear and loathing about the legalization of marijuana, and I buy just about none of it.
In fact, I would not be alarmed, or even displeased, if Arizonans approve Proposition 205. Nor do I think the state would plunge into crime, chaos and hedonism should the measure pass.
That said, I could not bring myself to vote for Prop. 205.
Not out of concern for the state, mind you. Or concern for the users. Or their family, friends and employers.
If anything, marijuana users are why I almost voted for the "Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol" initiative.
Crime, health claims have been challenged
The fact is, prohibition of pot, not unlike the larger war on drugs, has not worked. It has created a cottage industry of drug-testing and largely useless diversion courses, and ballooned programs dependent on court fines and fees.
Law enforcement officials the likes of county attorneys Bill Montgomery and Sheila Polk decry Prop. 205 as a measure that they say will result in disturbing jumps in ER admissions, traffic fatalities and violent crimes, and handcuff them from effectively prosecuting impaired drivers.
Others fret that marijuana use among teens will rise, test scores and academic achievement will fall, and worker productivity and responsibility will suffer.
All that may be so, although much of it seems inflated or has been challenged.
The most compelling is that impaired drivers would be difficult to prosecute on Prop. 205's language that a person "may not be penalized for any action taken under the influence of marijuana ... solely because the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana in the person's body."
The state Legislature arguably may face tougher odds to set levels of impairment because of the Voters Protection Act, which would require any changes to a voter-approved initiative to further the purposes of that initiative, and be passed by a three-quarters supermajority of the Legislature. Likely, the issue of defining impairment levels for marijuana would end up in the courts.
Still, it wouldn't preclude law enforcement from using existing tools, such as field-sobriety tests, to establish impairment ("Especially now with video cameras ... that could provide clear visual evidence," noted former Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Stephen Gerst).
Yes, use, experimentation and addiction will undoubtedly rise. And with it, the risks of more traffic accidents and fatalities, ER visits, and so on. But are we expecting an epidemic?
Is there any evidence that marijuana comes anywhere close to causing the law-enforcement, health, work and social problems as alcohol does? Or tobacco? Or prescription drugs?
What I can't approve: Power, money grabs
My problem with Prop. 205 is with the marijuana industry and the money- and power-grab they wrote into the measure.
We the voters are effectively asked to grant the already established players of medical-marijuana dispensaries a monopoly.
They would get first dibs at the marijuana retail licenses; new applicants would have to wait and then qualify only for limited-scale cultivation and production.
They would get exemption from any ordinances that Arizona cities and towns adopt to ban retail marijuana shops from operating; new applicants would otherwise be shut out.
And they would get three of seven seats on a state marijuana commission that approves and denies license applications, including those involving potential competitors (newcomers to the marijuana trade would have to wait until March 2019 to serve).
For an enterprise that's expected to generate more than half a billion dollars by 2020 — a legislative committee estimates the 15 percent retail tax and licensing fees would bring in $82 million in state revenue that year — the commission's influence and authority loom large.
Some will say this amounts to nitpicking over a measure, and a movement, whose time has come.
I say there's a distinction between legalizing marijuana and choosing — declaring — winners of those who profit from it.
So yes to weed but no to greed. The vote on Prop. 205 is nay.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Why I Support Legalizing Marijuana But Will Vote No On Prop. 205
Author: Abe Kwok
Contact: 602-444-8000
Photo Credit: Chmee2
Website: The Arizona Republic
In fact, I would not be alarmed, or even displeased, if Arizonans approve Proposition 205. Nor do I think the state would plunge into crime, chaos and hedonism should the measure pass.
That said, I could not bring myself to vote for Prop. 205.
Not out of concern for the state, mind you. Or concern for the users. Or their family, friends and employers.
If anything, marijuana users are why I almost voted for the "Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol" initiative.
Crime, health claims have been challenged
The fact is, prohibition of pot, not unlike the larger war on drugs, has not worked. It has created a cottage industry of drug-testing and largely useless diversion courses, and ballooned programs dependent on court fines and fees.
Law enforcement officials the likes of county attorneys Bill Montgomery and Sheila Polk decry Prop. 205 as a measure that they say will result in disturbing jumps in ER admissions, traffic fatalities and violent crimes, and handcuff them from effectively prosecuting impaired drivers.
Others fret that marijuana use among teens will rise, test scores and academic achievement will fall, and worker productivity and responsibility will suffer.
All that may be so, although much of it seems inflated or has been challenged.
The most compelling is that impaired drivers would be difficult to prosecute on Prop. 205's language that a person "may not be penalized for any action taken under the influence of marijuana ... solely because the presence of metabolites or components of marijuana in the person's body."
The state Legislature arguably may face tougher odds to set levels of impairment because of the Voters Protection Act, which would require any changes to a voter-approved initiative to further the purposes of that initiative, and be passed by a three-quarters supermajority of the Legislature. Likely, the issue of defining impairment levels for marijuana would end up in the courts.
Still, it wouldn't preclude law enforcement from using existing tools, such as field-sobriety tests, to establish impairment ("Especially now with video cameras ... that could provide clear visual evidence," noted former Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Stephen Gerst).
Yes, use, experimentation and addiction will undoubtedly rise. And with it, the risks of more traffic accidents and fatalities, ER visits, and so on. But are we expecting an epidemic?
Is there any evidence that marijuana comes anywhere close to causing the law-enforcement, health, work and social problems as alcohol does? Or tobacco? Or prescription drugs?
What I can't approve: Power, money grabs
My problem with Prop. 205 is with the marijuana industry and the money- and power-grab they wrote into the measure.
We the voters are effectively asked to grant the already established players of medical-marijuana dispensaries a monopoly.
They would get first dibs at the marijuana retail licenses; new applicants would have to wait and then qualify only for limited-scale cultivation and production.
They would get exemption from any ordinances that Arizona cities and towns adopt to ban retail marijuana shops from operating; new applicants would otherwise be shut out.
And they would get three of seven seats on a state marijuana commission that approves and denies license applications, including those involving potential competitors (newcomers to the marijuana trade would have to wait until March 2019 to serve).
For an enterprise that's expected to generate more than half a billion dollars by 2020 — a legislative committee estimates the 15 percent retail tax and licensing fees would bring in $82 million in state revenue that year — the commission's influence and authority loom large.
Some will say this amounts to nitpicking over a measure, and a movement, whose time has come.
I say there's a distinction between legalizing marijuana and choosing — declaring — winners of those who profit from it.
So yes to weed but no to greed. The vote on Prop. 205 is nay.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Why I Support Legalizing Marijuana But Will Vote No On Prop. 205
Author: Abe Kwok
Contact: 602-444-8000
Photo Credit: Chmee2
Website: The Arizona Republic
