This is the one making all the national news: Legalized Marijuana.
(UPDATE: Thanks, Stan, noting that it’s Amendment 64, not 24. Corrected.)
Amendment 64 could be a lot of things, but I’ll be honest up front that it’s a kitchen sink combination of marijuana legalization, taxation, hemp production, etc. and so forth. And that’s probably it’s biggest weakness. We’ll get to that further down.
The state constitutional amendment does the following:
- Regulates “growth, manufacture, and sale” of pot in state/local-licensed establishments.
- Allows 21-year olds to “possess, use, display, purchase, transport, and transfer” pot in quantities of 1 ounce or less.
- Allows 21-year olds to have up to six marijuana plants.
- Requires the state to set up an excise task, primarily oriented toward school construction.
- Requires the state to enact legislation about growth, possession, and sale of industrial hemp.
Now individually, I have no problem with any of these provisions. I don’t use pot, and have no particular desire to, but I don’t see it as being particularly better or worse than alcohol or tobacco, with analogous health, behavioral, medical, and practical risks. Conversely, the failure (and high costs in dollars, lives, economic ruin, prison population explosion, personal life disruptions) of the War on Drugs (Pot Sub-Campaign) is demonstrable and unquestionable. Legalizing pot seems a relative no-brainer (cue stoner jokes, yeah, I know).
And, yeah, you restrict it to age 21+, you control the amount that can be possessed, and all that jazz. Just like you do with alcohol. Except no-smoking bans will keep it out of restaurants.
And industrial hemp? It’s just darned crazy that hemp production is against the law, for no other reason than that it’s kind of like marijuana, even if unusable as a drug. Hemp production used to be a vital, useful, industrial crop. It can be again, to everyone’s benefit.
Arguments again the proposition boil down as follow:
- It will still be against federal law. True. Colorado has already approved medical marijuana growth and sale, and that’s led to some interesting conflicts with the federal government. But the idea that fighting for legalization of marijuana should therefore be done at the federal level instead turns federalism on its head (even if many of the traditional “states rights” folks are against the idea of states legalizing pot). If Colorado — and other states — take this step, the chances that the federal government will follow suit go up significantly.
- Pot is bad for you. Discussed above. Will pot usage increase? Probably (though it might well substitute for alcohol usage amongst some), but I don’t suspect by much. And the law has clear age 21 restrictions; yes, just as under-age drinking occurs now, under-age pot smoking will occur — as it does now. Will it increase? Possibly, but not necessarily. And we’ll be able to talk about it in a much more open and straightforward fashion than the absolutism and zero tolerance of the current War on Drugs regime.
- There are a lot of moving parts in this ballot proposal. A lot of stuff — tax requirements, business regulations, etc. — that shouldn’t, on principle or even from a practical fashion, be locked into a constitutional amendment. Fair enough, and probably my biggest objection. Ideally, I’d rather see a law that was much broader in principle and less restrictive in how the legislature makes it work.
On the other hand, in this era when government budgets are considered the highest moral priority in the land, this is a huge winner. Not only does it reduce the spending in our police and judicial and penal systems spent on cracking down on pot in an absolute fashion, but it actually raises sales and excise tax revenue. And the flow of some of that same money into criminal organizations will also drop, which is a good thing.
This is not the ideal marijuana legalization amendment, but I don’t think its problems rise to the level of causing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. I support a “Yes” vote on Amendment 64.