URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v16/n515/a10.html
Newshawk: http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm
Votes: 0
Pubdate: Sat, 30 Jul 2016
Source: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner (AK)
Copyright: 2016 Fairbanks Publishing Company, Inc.
Contact:
Website: http://newsminer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/764
Author: James F. Ostlind
Note: James F. Ostlind has been a borough resident for 44 years. He
is the founder of Drug-Free Fairbanks.
QUESTIONS ABOUT MARIJUANA BUSINESSES PERSIST, AND ANSWERS ARE ELUSIVE
Although the initiative to prohibit marijuana business in the
Fairbanks North Star Borough outside of cities will not appear on
this October's ballot, there are issues that still remain very
problematic. In addition, Mr. Travis Fraser's community perspective
of July 17, "Marijuana petition seeks to overturn voters' wishes,"
deserves a response.
On Nov. 4, 2014, statewide voters adopted Proposition 2, which
provided for the legalization and commercialization of marijuana in
Alaska. The vote was 53 percent in favor and 47 percent against. How
that result was arrived at should be of concern to all Alaskans.
Those Alaskans opposing Prop. 2 spent a total of $267,612 to defeat
it. The other side, supporting Prop. 2, included two powerful drug
advocacy groups based in Washington, D.C.: Marijuana Policy Project
and Drug Policy Alliance. They contributed $855,350 to promote the
passage of Prop. 2. How much support for this issue was mobilized
with $855,350?
Do you think the outcome of that election represents the will of the
people? We've already had enough trouble with Outsiders telling us
how to manage our resource development, hunting and fishing, energy
use, home heating, environment and on and on. Now, here comes Big
Marijuana telling us what our drug laws should be.
The same law that legalized marijuana use and commercialization
created the local-option provision. All municipalities have the
option to accept, restrict or prohibit altogether marijuana
businesses through ordinance or voter initiative. This power may be
exercised starting with the implementation of the law and at any time
thereafter. The exercise of the local option has nothing to do with
attempting to "overturn the voters' wishes."
Our Borough Assembly does not reflect the will of local voters.
According to Mr. Fraser,
55 percent of local voters supported Prop. 2. The percentage of
support for the marijuana industry on the Borough Assembly is far
higher at 78 percent ( seven out of nine members ). As a result, we
have marijuana businesses going into residential neighborhoods
because of inadequate zoning protection. In addition, every single
conditional-use permit for marijuana businesses has been approved
even though the people living near them attended hearings and nearly
all voiced legitimate complaints about health, safety and
quality-of-life issues.
Concerns about increased traffic, noise, light pollution, law
enforcement availability/effectiveness ( the borough has no police
power, so Alaska State Troopers will be responding, when available ),
degradation of residential environment and so forth were ignored or
dismissed as inconsequential. Residents disappointed with the outcome
of conditional-use permit hearings who have taken their concerns
directly to the assembly have been met with the same lack of
interest. Additionally, permits have been issued to marijuana
businesses that are in violation of local and/or state buffer
regulations. These were documented in a Community Perspective by
Assemblyman Lance Roberts appearing June 21 in the Daily News-Miner.
When these violations were brought to the attention of the
administration, they refused to take action to rescind them or at
least notify the state marijuana board that such violations existed.
What's ahead for Alaska when Big Marijuana takes control?
Colorado's Initiative 139 experience may be instructional. Recently,
a state voter initiative was introduced in Colorado to make
improvements to that state's recreational marijuana regulations.
Three new regulations were listed: require child-proof containers;
require health warning labels; limit THC potency to 16 percent. The
marijuana industry didn't like these restrictions and sued to stop
the initiative.
Eventually, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled in favor of the
initiative supporters. By then there wasn't enough time for
volunteers to collect the nearly 98,000 signatures needed to put the
initiative on the ballot by the Aug. 8 deadline. Backers of the
initiative raised money to hire signature firms to collect the
signatures. The marijuana industry offered to pay the signature
companies a lot of money to sign contracts saying they wouldn't get
signatures for Imitative 139 and started buying them off. This
process repeated itself over and over until the initiative backers
finally gave up. An excellent editorial more fully explaining this
issue appeared in the Colorado Springs Gazette on July 8, 2016.
The collection of signatures for both the Fairbanks borough and city
of Fairbanks initiatives prohibiting marijuana businesses will
continue at our booth at the Tanana Valley State Fair, which runs
Aug. 5-14. While these initiatives won't appear on the ballot until
October 2017, we are working hard to have them available to the
voters. If the marijuana industry turns out to be a good thing for
Fairbanks and the borough, then these ballot measure will fail. If
the marijuana industry doesn't work well in our communities, then
your investment of a few minutes to sign one of the petitions will
have been one of the best investments of time you ever made for your community.
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom
|