Any issue under consideration by the
legislature that is controversial will generate a lot of emails and
phone calls from constituents and from advocates, both pro and con.
Marijuana legalization is the controversial issue of this session,
and I heard from many of you as well as from organizations advocating
for and against legalization. I have taken the time to read the
emails and listen to the phone calls, and I have tried to answer most
of them. I also discussed the issue with fellow legislators, with
doctors, police, attorneys, and teens. I found people in all those
categories on both sides of the issue.
My two major concerns about marijuana
have to do with driving under the influence and its use by youth.
Anything that alters perceptions and slows reactions is dangerous
when combined with driving. This is true of marijuana and equally
true of alcohol. Young people, whose brains continue to develop well
into their twenties, risk their futures with heavy use of marijuana
which dulls ambition as addiction takes over. And while tobacco is
more of a stimulant, it can do considerable damage to a person's
physical health. All of these have greater effects on young people
than on adults.
So, any of these substances can be
abused with terrible consequences. Prohibition did not work for
alcohol and, so far, hasn't worked for marijuana, either. However,
education and regulation can minimize abuse even if it doesn't
eliminate use. The fact is, marijuana has been easy to get whether
we want to recognize it or not. Ask a high school student and they'll
probably tell you that it is easier to obtain marijuana than alcohol.
Those that want to use it will use it with or without legalization,
and those that recognize the danger will avoid it. There will be
irresponsible people who get behind a wheel while high just as there
are irresponsible people who get behind a wheel after drinking. We
should not tolerate either behavior, whether or not the substances
are legal.
Another concern is whether marijuana is
a gateway drug, leading a user to try more dangerous drugs. Data does
not substantiate that, and we are now seeing that over-prescription
of pain killer drugs to treat injuries or pain after surgery has been
a much greater precursor to opiate addiction.
H.170 eliminates all penalties for the
possession of one ounce or less of marijuana for a person 21 years
old or older while retaining civil and criminal penalties for
possession of larger amounts and criminal penalties for unauthorized
dispensing or sale of marijuana. It also allows up to two mature
marijuana plants to be cultivated by a person 21 or older with a
limit of two plants per dwelling. The bill retains civil penalties
for possession of marijuana by a person under 21, the same as for
alcohol, and exacts heavy penalties on anyone who furnishes marijuana
to a person under 21 and on anyone, regardless of age, who drives
under the influence. Consumption of marijuana in public places is
also forbidden. The bill was presented on the floor of the House, but
before much debate took place, the body voted to send the bill to the
Human Resources Committee for further consideration.
As one doctor told me, “accepting
that there are potential dangers associated with the use of marijuana
should not automatically lead one to favor continued criminalization.
The policy of criminalization also has serious adverse effects for
individuals and for society. These include impacts on the criminal
justice system, how citizens view the law, and high rates of
incarceration. Criminalization will not stop people from using
marijuana. … It may even be beneficial to go further and legalize
sale so that marijuana users could be protected from illegal dealers
who may adulterate marijuana with dangerous substances.” I agree
with this assessment and will vote for H.170 when it comes to the
floor again.
I encourage you to let me know your
concerns and opinions. I can be reached by phone (802-233-5238) or by
email (myantachka.dfa@gmail.com).
