Pubdate: Tue, 16 Dec 2014
Source: Alaska Dispatch News (AK)
Copyright: 2014 Alaska Dispatch Publishing
Contact:  http://www.adn.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/18
Note: Anchorage Daily News until July '14
Author: Bruce Schulte
Note: Bruce Schulte is an Anchorage small-business owner and 
spokesman for the Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Legislation, an 
advocacy group for sensible marijuana regulations.

PROPOSED ANCHORAGE POT BAN IS FLAWED ON MANY LEVELS

On Nov. 4, Alaskans voted in favor of Ballot Measure 2 -- an 
initiative to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol.

Most Anchorage voters thought that was the end of it, that the state 
would develop guidelines for the marijuana Industry and that a 
responsible, regulated industry would begin to replace the current 
marijuana black market. And that's as it should have been.

Unfortunately, that's not what is happening in Anchorage. On Nov. 18 
before the election results were even certified -- Assembly Member 
Amy Demboski proposed an ordinance (AO 2014-148 on the agenda for the 
Dec. 16 Assembly meeting) that would ban all commercial marijuana 
activities from the Municipality of Anchorage immediately.

To put this in perspective, it's important to consider the timeline 
of this initiative and some key milestones:

The election results were certified Nov. 24; the law becomes 
effective Feb. 24 and the state has until (approximately) Nov. 24 to 
finalize the rules and guidelines that the marijuana industry will be 
held to. The first permit applications for prospective businesses 
need not be accepted until February 2016 -- 15 months from now. That 
leaves a window of three months -- between finalization of the rules 
and the first permit application -- during which the Assembly and the 
voting public will have the opportunity to evaluate all the rules and 
then consider whether Anchorage should add additional guidelines of 
its own or opt out altogether.

The ability to opt out was written into the ballot measure -- 
although it was intended to benefit some of the bush communities that 
have had a history of alcohol-related issues.

While Anchorage does have that option, reasonable people would expect 
that our elected officials would at least wait to see what the final 
statewide rules looked like before they considered any further steps 
(like opting out).

So why has this ordinance been proposed and why now? Amy Demboski 
describes her ordinance as a "wait-and-see" approach.

In an ADN article she suggested that Anchorage should opt out now and 
then (maybe) opt in later.

Really? Why opt out at all when the rulemaking process has not even 
begun and permits for marijuana businesses won't even be considered 
for over 15 months?

That argument fails a simple test of logic.

Assemblyman Paul Honeman said he wants to opt out now because "he 
worries that the state could strip local communities of the power to 
set their own local rules, including opting out of the nascent 
industry." Mr. Honeman's justification is flawed in two respects. 
First, to remove the local control option from the initiative would 
be a fundamental change to the law that the Legislature cannot make 
for two years.

Second, in a state with so many dry and damp communities because of 
alcohol-related issues, would any legislator seriously suggest that 
any community be disallowed from opting out of legalized marijuana 
(even though all evidence indicates it is far safer a substance than 
alcohol)? The answer, of course, is a resounding no way. And I 
believe that Mr. Honeman knows that -- he's just hoping that it 
sounds convincing so that it will obscure what they're really trying to do.

So what's their real agenda?

Given that the stated justifications for this ban-ordinance are so 
hollow one is left with the only remaining explanation: They simply 
want to overturn the results of the election. A small minority of 
Assembly members, working from no more information than voters had on 
Nov. 4, seem to believe that they just know better than the voters 
and they want to use their power on the Assembly to negate the 
election results.

This reeks of back-room politics and it flies in the face of the very 
concept of representative government.

What they are not saying is that if this ordinance passes, the only 
way Anchorage can ever realize the benefits of a legitimate marijuana 
industry is if the Assembly overturns its own ordinance (doubtful) or 
if another voter initiative is undertaken to force an overturn.

Ms. Demboski knows this and is still willing to lock Anchorage out 
and to what end?

Anchorage has banned fireworks too -- and we've all seen how 
effective that has been. Imagine that every illegal firework you see 
on New Year's Eve represents an ounce of marijuana purchased within 
the municipality in an unregulated black market, or in a neighboring 
community from a licensed retail store, with Anchorage having no 
control over it, and receiving no tax revenue from it. That's what AO 
2014-148 would do for Anchorage.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom