Pubdate: Fri, 13 Nov 2015
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2015 Globe Newspaper Company
Contact: http://services.bostonglobe.com/news/opeds/letter.aspx?id=6340
Website: http://bostonglobe.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/52

ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS ABOUT MARIJUANA

Voters shouldn't let the similar rhetoric of the state's two 
marijuana legalization efforts fool them: The groups are pursuing 
very different goals.

One, Bay State Repeal, would remove almost all restrictions on 
cannabis cultivation, possession, and use for adults. The other, 
pushing a more complicated proposal, would create a cumbersome 
regulatory framework that seems as concerned with creating a 
hospitable environment for the nascent marijuana industry as 
extending rights to citizens.

Both have their flaws, but for voters who favor marijuana 
legalization, the choice should be clear: Sign Bay State Repeal's 
petition to get its question on the 2016 ballot.

Even voters with no interest in marijuana have a stake in which 
version of legalization makes it onto next year's ballot.

Massachusetts doesn't need another industry ripe for 
special-interests politics, yet that is just what the second, flawed 
proposal from a group called the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like 
Alcohol in Massachusetts could invite.

The choice has come into focus after both legalization proposals won 
approval from the attorney general's office, a procedural 
determination that allowed the campaigns to begin signature-gathering 
this fall. Both plans still need 64,750 signatures from registered 
voters this year, and another 10,792 in 2016, before either can 
appear on the ballot.

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol says it has cleared 
the first hurdle, though it's always possible that both proposals 
will ultimately fall short.

Still, there's no mistaking the growing momentum toward legalization. 
Opponents promise a vigorous campaign if either plan makes the 
ballot, and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh says that he will spearhead the 
antilegalization effort if no one else will. But realistically, 
there's a good chance that marijuana will be legal in two years.

And if Massachusetts does legalize marijuana, it would be best to get 
it right on the first try, before inertia and monied interests settle 
in - if drug dealers seem difficult now, just wait until they have 
lobbyists. How states legalize marijuana matters: Voters in Ohio just 
rejected a misguided marijuana legalization effort there, partly 
because it was seen as creating a monopoly.

The example of alcohol should also be a cautionary one. After 
Prohibition, Massachusetts and many other states erected a needless 
thicket of anticompetitive laws that have hurt consumers, enriched 
middlemen, and done little to mitigate alcoholism.

Put another way, if Massachusetts is to legalize marijuana, it would 
be best to do what it didn't do after Prohibition: Rip off the 
Band-Aid once and for all. That is what the Bay State Repeal proposal 
would offer, and if marijuana is on the ballot next year, that's a 
choice that Massachusetts voters should get.

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol promotes itself as 
the more responsible route to legalization, modeled on successful 
initiatives in Oregon and Colorado. But in fact the two proposals are 
very similar when it comes to key health and public safety concerns. 
Both would leave bans in place for those under 21. Both would require 
growers to keep marijuana plants out of sight, and, in most cases, 
under lock and key. Both would tax marijuana sales, albeit at 
slightly different rates.

Both would allow landlords who have safety concerns to forbid their 
tenants from growing marijuana.

Bay State Repeal is even stricter in some respects - for instance, by 
applying the "social host" law to marijuana.

The big differences between the two stem mostly from their regulatory 
approach, and in that regard they are striking.

In Bay State Repeal's plan, marijuana would be regulated by existing 
agencies like the Department of Agriculture, and subject to testing 
and labeling requirements, much like other legal products.

There would be no government-imposed caps on the number of growers.

As its backers see it, they want to give farmers in Massachusetts the 
option to grow marijuana, as they can now grow the ingredients of 
cigarettes (tobacco) or beer (hops) if they choose.

The two pro-pot groups in Mass. offer very different proposals.

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol would create a far 
more tightly controlled market, including a whole new regulatory 
bureaucracy within the treasurer's office called the Cannabis Control 
Commission. It would charge fees up to $15,000 for licenses to grow 
marijuana for commercial purposes, or to sell it at retail.

The commission would also have the power to limit the overall amount 
of marijuana grown in Massachusetts.

The plan copies some of the most stifling aspects of alcohol 
regulation while omitting some of the beneficial ones. For instance, 
despite its name, the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol 
would place a limit on the amount of marijuana a person could have on 
their person or in their home. But there's no limit on how much beer 
you can store in your fridge.

If marijuana is going to be legal, why impose an arbitrary cap on possession?

Indeed, few of the regulatory provisions would help the marijuana 
industry's prospective consumers - which should be the purpose of any 
regulation of legal products.

They would, instead, erect needless barriers to entry and, if the 
commission enacted a limit, work to keep competition out and prices up.

Worst of all, the campaign's language also gives the state's existing 
medical marijuana facilities a head start in seeking out licenses, 
and time to lock down the market.

That's an anticompetitive provision that serves no public purpose 
(though it would help protect the investments of those firms; no 
wonder their trade association has backed it). Proponents offer the 
defense that the provision will ensure an adequate supply of 
marijuana - as if the way to grow the plant was a complicated secret 
that only existing companies could possibly understand.

While the two campaigns begin gathering signatures, there is a third 
option: The Legislature could pass a legalization plan of its own, 
preempting both ballot questions.

That's a possibility that should get serious consideration. Kevin 
Hill, an addiction expert at McLean Hospital, called on the 
Legislature earlier this year to do so. He feels that neither 
legalization campaign would tax marijuana sufficiently, or place 
stringent enough limits on advertising.

"When you have advocates creating the laws, you have flawed laws," he 
said. "Lawmakers should make laws." But while a handful of 
legislators raised that possibility earlier this year, there has been 
little momentum on Beacon Hill. Governor Charlie Baker, who opposes 
legalization, said voters should decide first, and then the 
Legislature can fix problems later.

Maybe. But the starting point of any such legislative revisions still 
matters, and that's what the referendum vote could provide.

Of the two proposals on the table, Bay State Repeal's offers a better 
framework for legalization.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom