Pubdate: Thu, 29 Dec 2016
Source: Boston Globe (MA)
Copyright: 2016 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

FIX POT LAW, BUT NOT IN SMOKE-FILLED ROOM

THE PASSAGE OF the marijuana legalization referendum in November doesn't
mean that the new law's exact language must stay frozen in amber forever.
But the fact that the law was approved directly by the voters should mean
that lawmakers consider changes with more caution than they showed on
Wednesday, when both the House and Senate approved a six-month delay to
some of the law's provisions without hearings or a formal roll-call vote.

That decision, reached in informal session and sent to Governor Charlie
Baker for his signature, doesn't change the basic structure of the
legalization law. But if approved by Baker, it would slightly delay the
opening of marijuana retail stores in Massachusetts and the creation of a
new commission to oversee the industry. Legislative leaders say the delay
will help implement legalization effectively.

Whatever the merits of the decision, though, making changes to laws
without voting isn't how an accountable, representative government is
supposed to function. Going forward, the Legislature should ensure that
changes to the marijuana law follow normal legislative procedures.

Question 4, which passed by more than 7 percentage points, set up a
complicated regulatory system that's bound to require fine-tuning as the
state creates a new bureaucracy. Indeed, lawmakers started discussing
changes virtually the day after the election. But retail pot sales aren't
due to start until 2018, meaning there will be plenty of opportunities for
lawmakers to amend the law through ordinary votes.

Might that create political headaches? Sure: Voting to change the law
could leave rank-and-file lawmakers vulnerable to accusations they're
overturning the will of voters. But they are, after all, paid to
legislate, and most voters can tell the difference between tweaking a law
and gutting it. Either way, without voting records it's harder for voters
to hold individual lawmakers accountable. Using procedural loopholes to
shield legislators from those votes would be an embarrassing way to govern
Massachusetts.

Baker, who opposed marijuana legalization all along, said through a
spokesman that he's reviewing the six-month delay. Opinions on the
marijuana law, and the many policy decisions that come with legalization,
are bound to vary. But supporters and opponents should be able to agree
that when the Legislature amends a voter initiative, those changes should
be aired, debated, and voted on in the most transparent way possible.
- ---
MAP posted-by: