"What I was in England, I experimented with marijuana, a time or two, and I didn't like it. And I didn't inhale and I didn't try it again."
(President Bill Clinton/March 1992)
"Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though — Mickey, my potential initiator, had been just a little too eager for me to go through with that."
(President Barack Obama, "Dreams of My Father")
The case for legalization for marijuana has just been made.
Thank you and good night. (mic drop)
Why are we still dancing around a topic that's had more debates than who's hotter —Jessica Alba or Penelope Cruz?
By the way, that's a trick question. They're both smokin'.
Marijuana, dope, Mary Jane, smoke, pot, weed, Maui Wowee, herb, 420 and the legendary Wacky Tobacky. C'mon now, admit it. You knew every one these street terms for the green in question.
Before we get into the weeds (pun intended) let me ask you this.
Do you or have you partaken? Are you a wake and baker?
If you are, well, nobody cares. Unless you're an airplane pilot ready to take off or a doctor about to perform surgery.
What people care about is that some are trying to change the game to fit their narrative.
I know, that's the essence of policy creation or cessation.
But the legalization of recreational use of marijuana was, is and always will be a fractious debate.
And there are two sides to the story.
Pro-pot. (Sounds like the name of a brutal South Asian dictator.)
Leading the pack is the exertion of moral equivalency.
The argument that marijuana should be legal if alcohol is legal is a common point in the debate over drug policy, centered on comparisons of the health effects, societal impact, and regulatory principles of both substances.
Proponents of this view argue that current laws are "intellectually dishonest" because they prohibit a substance (cannabis) that is widely considered less harmful than a legal one (alcohol). Key points often raised include:
- Reduced Harm: Alcohol is more toxic than marijuana, and an individual cannot overdose on marijuana in the same way they can on alcohol, which causes hundreds of overdose deaths annually.
- Public Health: Legalizing and regulating marijuana sends a more fact-based message about relative risks, potentially steering people away from the more dangerous substance (alcohol).
- Public Safety: Violent crime is often linked to alcohol use, whereas this is not the case for marijuana, which may be a less dangerous alternative.
- Regulation and Taxation: Legalization allows for regulation, safety testing, and taxation, generating state revenue and controlling distribution, much like alcohol is regulated.
- Failure of Prohibition: The prohibition of marijuana, like the historical prohibition of alcohol, has not stopped its widespread use but has fostered a black market and resulted in disproportionate arrests.
The traditional argumentative points why legalization of marijuana is justified is difficult to, well, argue.
Or is it?
Consider Con-Pot.
Opponents and those with a more cautious stance highlight different concerns:
- Health Risks: While not as acutely toxic as alcohol, long-term marijuana use has been linked to potential health issues, including memory loss, cognitive decline, mental health problems (including psychosis), and increased risk of heart attack and stroke.
- Driving Impairment: Marijuana use impairs motor skills, judgment of time and distance, and reaction time, posing a significant public safety risk on the road.
- Simultaneous Use: Some studies indicate that rather than acting as a substitute, many users consume alcohol and marijuana simultaneously, a behavior shown to be more risky than using either substance alone.
- Cultural and Historical Context: Alcohol is legal not necessarily because it is safe, but due to centuries of cultural acceptance and use in Western civilization. This is a different historical context than that of marijuana.
- Societal Cost: Opponents argue that the potential tax revenue might not outweigh the societal costs associated with increased addiction, health problems, and other potential public ills.
Interestingly, it's clear. There are objectively compelling points on both sides of what has become a heated argument. The only difference is that the pot proponents would be chill while the cocktailers would be punching holes in the wall.
Yes! I've used patently unfair stereotypes to advance an unclear position! I feel so mainstream.
In our society, we subscribe to the rule of law. We defer to the following in resolving differences via our proxy system of representative government extolling the virtues of the balance of power:
Creation of Law — Legislative branches at the municipal, state and the federal level draft then pass bills and the respective executive branch signs or vetoes. Signing the passed legislation enacts it into law.
Enforcement of Law — Police, Sheriffs, State Police, Border Patrol, FBI and a myriad of law enforcement agencies and departments are tasked with knowing the law and, here it comes, enforcing it. When a law is violated discretionary actions are taken which includes apprehension and arrest.
Determination of Law — The resolution of legal proceeding is found in the court system. Both sides of a legal issue, both criminal and civil, are rectified here, including the legal challenges to the law itself. If a dispute is adjudicated at the Supreme Court level the decision rendered there is above reproach and the challenges end.
What does this have to do with legalization of marijuana?
Because despite numerous attempts to follow the representative process the legalization of recreational marijuana has consistently failed in the state legislature even as recently as last session.
So, if you don't get what you want the traditional way then try another way.
That's exactly the path State Representative David Tarnas is taking. He is proposing a legalization of recreational marijuana initiative to appear on the November election day ballot. Since failure is the calling card in the legislature, he believes he can succeed if there is a direct binding vote from the people.
Maybe so, but one cannot circumvent the legislative process completely.
Putting legalization on the ballot would come in the form of a proposed constitutional amendment under Tarnas’s plan, which would require a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the legislature. Tarnas is the Chair of the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee and is a rep from the Big Island. Ironically, the State House has decidedly refused to advance legalization of recreational marijuana bills passed by the State Senate. Assuming there will not be a change in opposition, Rep. Tarnas wants the voters to decide.
However there are some assumptions in this strategy.
Will Tarnas be able to wrestle a two-thirds vote out of the senate and the obstructionist house to advance the bill? And, if so, would Governor Josh Green vote yes to affirm? Would he be reticent in an election year thereby at the very least he could allow the bill to become law without his signature? Or would he veto?
Finally.
What would you do?
Let's say the bill passes with the required majority, the governor signs and the question of legalize recreational marijuana appears on the November ballot.
What would you do?
Understand this tact is being taken by Rep. Tarnas with the assumption that most locals support this policy. I believe that assumption is fortified by select voices given a pulpit in traditional and social media unduly influencing this false narrative.
My opinion?
More locals are opposed to the legalization of recreational marijuana rather than in favor.
I would love to see a direct vote on this issue then finally, finally we can put this topic to bed.
For the latest news of Hawai‘i, sign up here for our free Daily Edition newsletter.
