Pubdate: Mon, 20 Jun 2016
Source: Ipswich Chronicle (MA)
Copyright: 2016 GateHouse Media, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.wickedlocal.com/ipswich/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/3663
Author: Ethan Hartley

STOPPING POT: GROWING OPPOSITION TO LEGALIZATION

IPSWICH - Come November, Massachusetts could become the fifth state 
to legalize recreational marijuana. But a growing group of opponents 
- - including some of the highest elected state officials - intend to 
make sure that doesn't happen.

The Regulation and Taxation of Marijuana Act likely will go before 
voters this fall - proponents are gathering the 10,792 additional 
signatures needed to get it on the ballot - and if passed, it would 
legalize the commercial sale, taxation, recreational use and growing 
of marijuana in the state.

The act would allow those 21 years and older to possess up to 1 ounce 
of marijuana outside their homes and up to 10 ounces within an 
"enclosed, locked space" within their residences. It would also allow 
up to 12 homegrown plants per residence.

The Campaign for a Safe and Healthy Massachusetts formally opposes 
the initiative and says the commercialization of the marijuana 
industry in Massachusetts would be dangerous for kids and only 
benefit those who seek to profit from full legalization.

"This new proposed law is written by and for the commercial marijuana 
industry, not the people of Massachusetts," reads the campaign's 
website. "As the industry profits, taxpayers will be left to foot the 
bill for the increased costs in health care and public safety."

In addition, the state supreme court will hear two lawsuits that seek 
to block the ballot question arguing proponents have misrepresented 
the question and its ramifications.

The driving force supporting the initiative has been the Campaign to 
Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, which says full legalization will 
deal a significant blow to the marijuana black market, save money on 
law enforcement and punishment for marijuana crimes and reduce direct 
access to the drug for those under 21.

Joining the opposition are some of the highest-ranking members of 
Massachusetts' government, including Gov. Charlie Baker, Democratic 
House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh.

"We will join healthcare professionals, law enforcement, educators 
and family advocates to educate the public about the risks associated 
with this dangerous proposal and the serious adverse consequences 
facing states who have adopted similar laws," Baker said in a recent statement.

Leading proponents see the legalization issue differently.

"The thinking behind this is concluding that prohibition has failed," 
said Jim Borghesani, spokesman for the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana 
Like Alcohol. "All it has done is enriched gangs and cartels and made 
access to marijuana easier for young people. We think a regulated 
system would be a much more effective method of eliminating the 
illicit market and closing off access to young people."

Ipswich Police have remained neutral in the debate.

"The Ipswich Police Department will always enforce the laws of the 
commonwealth, and we will never tolerate those who drive under the 
influence, whether by alcohol, legalized marijuana, or illegal drugs. 
We do not create policy, that is for politicians and the government. 
Our job is to enforce the law and keep our residents, visitors, and 
business community safe," said Lt. Jonathan Hubbard.

Polling has shown voters are split on the issue. Most recently, in 
early May, a Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll of 500 people 
showed 45 percent opposed legislation, 43 percent supported it, and 
another 11 percent remained undecided. That is the first widespread 
poll in which the majority has opposed legalization.

Concerns about the ballot initiative

State Sen. Jason Lewis, D-Winchester, chairman of the Special Senate 
Committee on Marijuana, led a group of fellow senators to Colorado 
and interviewed 75 experts over the course of last year to research 
the possible consequences of marijuana legalization and commercialization.

The committee released its 118-page report in March, and the results 
did not support the ballot initiative.

"My position is not that I'm fundamentally opposed to legalization, 
but I am strongly opposed to the ballot question and what the ballot 
question would represent for Massachusetts," Lewis said.

Opponents, like Lewis, argue voters should be aware that legalizing 
marijuana through this initiative means a full-scale 
commercialization of the drug in Massachusetts as well.

Lewis likened the possible consequences of advertising and exposure 
to the younger generations as a road that many states have been down 
before with the tobacco industry.

"And [the commercialized marijuana industry] will be an industry that 
will be, as we've seen in Colorado and elsewhere, highly motivated to 
increase their sales and profits by targeting young people," Lewis said.

One of the opposition's main concerns about legal sale of marijuana 
is that the product itself has changed since the 1960s and 1970s, 
when the average THC content of a marijuana cigarette, or joint, was 
between 2 percent to 3 percent. Today, according to Lewis, the 
average THC content of weed in Colorado is 18 percent, and hash oil 
extracts (also known as "dabs") may go as high as 90 percent potency.

"It's just a very different drug," Lewis said.

Lewis also argued that, since the marijuana industry is still so new, 
there are still many problems in Colorado regarding the labeling, 
packaging, dosage and delivery systems of modern-day marijuana.

"Today, most people don't even smoke marijuana," said Lewis. "They 
vape it, they dab it, they eat food and drink beverages infused with 
THC, and that can lead to accidental consumption by kids who mistake 
it for products without THC, and it can also very often lead to 
overconsumption and misuse by adults, because it's very hard to 
understand what the dosage is."

Borghesani disagrees. He points out the ballot initiative calls for 
the creation of a "Cannabis Control Commission," which he said would 
enact strict regulations regarding those issues.

"We specifically charge the Cannabis Control Commission to promulgate 
labeling and portion control and packaging regulations. We anticipate 
they will be the most stringent regulations in the nation," 
Borghesani said. "We specifically say there will be no marketing 
towards children whatsoever."

However, concerns about regulation are also paramount to the 
opposition's stance. How will communities actually enforce laws to 
prevent people from driving while high, for example, or make sure 
people don't sell their homegrown marijuana for profit in other 
states on the black market? They also claim the initiative 
specifically limits local control over the amount of pot shops that could open.

"In Colorado there are now more pot shops than Starbucks and 
McDonalds combined," Lewis said.

Concerns about youth use

Another pillar in the opposition argument revolves around the fear 
that more teens and young adults will be able to access and use 
marijuana, which a growing body of scientific research is concluding 
has significantly negative physical and mental effects on their 
developing brains.

"The culture is different than it was 15 years ago," said Michelle 
Lipinski, principal of North Shore Recovery High School in Beverly. 
"The openness about weed is pervasive. The perception of risk is so low."

Lipinski has over 24 years in the education field, and started North 
Shore Recovery High 10 years ago out of her desire to help kids 
struggling with drug addiction. Although she is not morally or 
vehemently opposed to the legalization of marijuana, she has 
legitimate concerns about the consequences it may have for at-risk 
youth, many of whom start using marijuana in their early teens.

"It makes them numb," she said about why some kids use marijuana 
habitually. "And that feels so good that they keep wanting to be numb 
and so they become dependent on it. It may not be a physical 
dependence, but it's a dependence where they can't feel normal without it."

Lipinski said she doesn't support the ballot initiative, because 
there is not yet enough effective preventative education established 
when it comes to marijuana abuse, and that in her experience, the 
path to worse drugs for some children definitely begins with marijuana.

"For me it's all about the data," she said. "If you can show me that 
this can be legalized and it's going to stay out of the hands of 
children who are going to end up getting into much riskier behavior 
because of this drug, then that's fine."

Borghesani, however, believes kids are at far greater risk from the 
system they currently live in.

"The more dangerous market is the one that exists now where sales are 
in the hands of dealers who don't ask for IDs and depend on dealing 
to people of all ages and, most importantly to them, people of young 
age," he said. "It will be very different when it's a legitimate 
business that will lose its license if they do sell to an underage person."

Just the wrong time?

Lewis, Lipinski and Danvers Police Chief Patrick Ambrose all agree on 
one point about the ballot initiative - it's simply the wrong time.

"I think we're seeing an ongoing epidemic with heroin going on in all 
of our communities," Ambrose said, adding he believes marijuana is 
clearly one of the "gateway" drugs that can lead to opioid abuse.

"Right now we're in the middle of the largest opiate crisis that has 
ever been," Lipinski said. "Why add another drug? Why right now? Can 
we just wait a couple years and see what happens?"

The call to "wait and see" - referring to waiting for more 
consequences and data to come out of places like Colorado - is 
another of the rallying cries from folks in opposition to legalizing 
marijuana in November.

"I think if instead we continue to learn from the experience of 
states like Colorado and Washington, we will be able to make much 
better policy decisions down the road," Lewis said.

Borghesani, again, didn't mince words in his rebuttal to their point.

"There's never a wrong time to correct a miserably failed public 
policy," he said. "Remember, we're not going to have to slide blind 
into this. We're going to be able to pick up best practices from 
other states. By the time November comes around, four states that are 
already in this process have learned from their mistakes, and we're 
going to learn even more from their mistakes and their successes."

Lewis argued there are better alternatives to allowing a 
profit-driven, commercialized industry to set up shop in 
Massachusetts, such as state-operated facilities that are forbidden 
from advertising.

"There's a way we could do this that I think would balance the fact 
that there are people who want to consume marijuana in the state - 
that is undeniable," he said. "But a balance with public health 
concerns and with public safety concerns. And that's not what this 
ballot question does."

Despite all the back-and-forth, the Massachusetts voters likely will 
have the final say.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom