March 22, 2018
It’s no secret that this reporter is looking at both sides of the vote in November on the marihuana issue. Meeting with people with opposing opinions and discussing the issue happens weekly. The future of Michigan could be determined by this one issue, even more so than a conservative or liberal leaning by a candidate or even the whole legislature.
Continued digging into this subject uncovers more elements than just allowing someone to smoke a joint without being arrested. These articles, only in the Lakeview Area News, means our readers are far above low-information voters, which, sadly to acknowledge, is a description that fits too many.
What are the basic issues of this campaign to legalize pot? Those opposing it are seeing the cost to society, while the pro-marihuana group wants the freedom to personally escape responsibility. Remember, the pain-relief issue is, and should be, a separate pharmaceutical matter.
One side believes there is no such thing as an accountable way to “escape life” and its responsibilities, while the other side argues, “Yes, there is.” With neither side budging, we are doing the democratic thing and putting it up for a vote. Both sides need to know about the fine print on the ballot and what it really means.
Michigan’s proposal from “Regulate Marihuana Like Alcohol,” if passed, will:
*Allow the highest per-person possession limit in the nation, even more than Colorado
*Force every municipality to allow recreational marihuana businesses unless they hold an election to “opt out.” Special elections are not permitted
*Allow marihuana sales to children since the rules are vaguely stated
*Allow transfer of 2.5 ounces to another person without regulation and
*NOT regulate THC potency.
Add to the list, the LACK of regulations regarding additives to marihuana cigarettes. For example, nicotine can be added to increase addictive properties. This proposal does NOT prohibit marihuana and alcohol sales and consumption in the same business at the site of purchase. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is nullified should you want to know who owns/operates a nuisance marihuana business. Plus, if a person is addicted to marihuana, the fact cannot be used as a factor in determining custody of a child following divorce.
In essence, the proposal, if enacted into law, creates a free-for-all marihuana-activity state.
Observation of the most successful businesses and business creators causes you to see that those who move society forward are the richest. The marihuana industry wants to be rich by providing a responsibility escape and facilitate moving society backward. The wording of the proposal provides carte blanche to do whatever you want with a potent, mind-altering drug.
While the proposal title is “Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol,” it should read, “Let’s All Get High, Michigan.” And the state is ready to count the additional tax money, although some believe lost productivity will hurt revenue.
Citizens appear to be all about increased public safety, better health care, safer and better streets and schools. We want strong and fair law enforcement and fire safety; however, you will see a little box on your ballot that if checked “yes,” will be a vote against moving society forward.
After five-years of marihuana legalization, Colorado is a poster-state showing us how we can be just like them, if we choose. Perhaps we do need to make changes to our position on marihuana, and perhaps the proposal on the ballot in Novembers is not the right one.