Prop 205 appears to be safe for the moment as Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jo Lynn Gentry dismissed charges against its campaign last week.
Maricopa and Yavapai county attorneys Bill Montgomery and Sheila Polk were two of the major plaintiffs to file the lawsuit but were joined by the chairman of Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy, Seth Leibsohn and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
To nobody’s surprise the plaintiffs intend to appeal the judge’s decision. However, the ruling decided that not only did the opposition fail to support their claim, but that the state legislature effectively eliminated citizens’ ability to legally challenge ballot initiatives, which may not bode well for the lawsuit’s future.
In any case, part of the defense’s argument was that the plaintiffs raised the lawsuit based on their personal ideologies. With Montgomery as an avid anti-marijuana proponent and Polk as co-chair of the ARDP, they make good case.
On its website, the ARDP has a variety of facts used to dissuade the general public against allowing marijuana to infiltrate our fragile society. They paint a pretty scary picture.
But since conventional knowledge tells us that marijuana isn’t as bad as its made out to be, then there must be more to the story than what the ARDP is telling us. Let’s take a look at a few of their “facts” and see how the hold up.
The ARDP website says that 30 percent of regular marijuana users suffer from “use disorder,” which affects users’ ability to “fulfill major role obligations at work, school or home as a result of marijuana use” according to a study by the National Institutes of Health.
While this may be true, and the dangers of such a disorder shouldn’t be underestimated, what the ARDP conveniently omitted is that the same study found that marijuana use disorder has decreased from 35.6 to 30.6 percent between 2001-2002 and 2012-2013.
Ironically, marijuana use has nearly doubled in that time.
On a tangential note, according to a National Survey on Drug Use and Health study, underage drinking has decreased in that same time period, though there is no causal link.
One of the ARDP’s favorite points is that teen marijuana use in Colorado is now highest in the nation. However, this was true even before it became the first state to legalize recreational marijuana.
In fact, since legalization teen use has either stagnated or declined based on a handful of studies.
Several of the points made by the ARDP are common sense knowledge packaged in a frightening context.
For example, despite a declining opinion of marijuana as a dangerous drug, the ARDP is right that marijuana is still an addictive drug. However, a study published in the British Medical Journal found that marijuana is less addictive than tobacco and alcohol.
Among users who begin use in their teen years, 32 percent developed a tobacco addiction, 15 percent developed an addiction to alcohol and only 9 percent became addicted to marijuana.
Statistics and data are often used to manipulate perspectives. However, the point that the ARDP misses isn’t that marijuana can’t be harmful, but that that’s not a reason for it to remain illegal.
The truth in the ARDP’s statements lie in the potential dangers of heavy marijuana use. Of course being constantly stoned is as dangerous as being constantly drunk. This is reflected in the groups use of statistics pertaining to workplace accidents and driving under the influence.
Never mind the fact that instances of accident are higher under the influence of alcohol in the workplace and driving, but the trick with these studies is that it is much more difficult to detect when someone is high than when someone is drunk.
Since THC has a higher longevity in the body than alcohol, statistics containing language like “accidents related to marijuana” can often be misleading since the THC detected may be attributed to use that took place several days prior.
Though we typically don’t like to equate marijuana and alcohol, it is useful to compare alcohol’s societal effects with the potential effects of marijuana.
That makes the ARDP’s mission a bit trickier since proponents of marijuana legalization don’t necessarily have to prove that marijuana isn’t dangerous, just that it isn’t as dangerous as alcohol and other controlled substances.
Just as alcoholics make up the vast minority of alcohol users, those who pose the dangers raised by the ARDP are the vast minority of marijuana users.
However, the beauty of living in a free country is that if someone aspires to a dysfunctional life characterized by substance abuse, that’s their prerogative. We don’t let the minority of abusers of alcohol, cars and religion ruin it for the rest of us, so why should marijuana be any different?
If they were to take their mission as protectors of societal purity to its philosophical conclusion, then they’d be campaigning against alcohol and tobacco use as much as they do against marijuana.
However, since they are advocating a “responsible” drug policy, perhaps their efforts would be better spent towards helping create a system of responsible use rather than prohibition.
This article appears in Aug 25-31, 2016.
It’s fascinating how the fear of “Marihuana” first instilled in the public mind in the 1930’s through blatantly deceitful and racist propaganda has endured to this day. The folks at ARDP and their ilk are still drinking that antique, polluted kool-aid. Fortunately, their numbers are rapidly declining along with their delusions of doom.
Vote yes on Prop 205! It’s not perfect, but much better than prohibition. Laws in Colorado are evolving to be more reasonable as the benefits of legalization accrue and fears subside. Same will happen here.
I was in favor of the other initiative which did not make the ballot. I am still not sure if I will vote for this one.
A very good story on several points addiction & societal resulting in positions taken. The position ADRP will still be enforced Montgomery & Polk will be in a position to negotiate each of their counties. This is a no loss to the political contributions aspects to both.
If 205 passes every county attorney will be in a position to negotiate how marijuana will be enforced. What is now bundled together with Marijuana smoke shops, home growing. Just how does Polk lose, Montgomery can now negotiate on every aspect of what happens in the county.
The rules not even written kind of like we have to vote for it to see what comes. Some look at this as an opportunity others as the wolf in the hen house. Given the past history and how marijuana has been prosecuted. The industries that built and used to support and complement the enforcement, prosecution, probation, abuse counseling, incarnation. All of these industries will continue to flourish and feed off of marijuana prohibition. There will be no change just a new component to the feed chain of Marijuana.
The simple target is to limit the criminal and civil penalties to marijuana use. Prop 205 addresses the right to market and support it. With the criminal simple possession prosecution harshest in all 50 states where’s the win for the user.
The AZ Marijuana user has complemented the existing industry to obtaining 90,000 plus MMJ licenses. Everyone know’s that this is the distribution for the illegal market in AZ today.
It would not be unreasonable to ask this Market forced entity for relief. Relief from the Jack boot on the back of the neck of the consumer. Relief from frivolous prosecution relief of unreasonable search and enforcement. Repealing the criminal code 13-3405.
However repealing 13-3405 felony for simple possession to be negotiated at every turn. The market representatives know this only bolsters their market control and price. As you can see really nothing for the consumer but limited availability and the harshest persecution of you stray. Every user goes under the bus with this.
Arizona needs to decriminalize before it builds a market. Prop 205 does not do any of this and the representatives don’t give a damn. This whole concept was drawn with the idea it could sell the concept of conservative voter base Sun city, Green Valley, Snowbird Capital. They missed the target there too the political profiling is not accurate or comprehensive.
All this does is build another new business feeding of the addiction of marijuana. With a new prohibition effort written by the collective rep of counties attorney’s. It gives new laws on so many ancillary businesses that the county attorney’s never had. New laws that the counties could not get representative in the legislatures to propose. What is bundled here is a pandora’s box.
Just looking at this carrot/caveat depending on conception of understanding of 6 plants. what does that mean? Is that really definitive?
Anyone who has grown more than 2 harvests inside knows it’s a joke the yield is so small per plant it would hardly be a market force. Would hardly be a addicted user supply chain Dispensaries and agents know this too.
Rules to be written will do what several state tried and Maine votes rejected. The Point of sell for clones only certain clone will be sold through to be nego, (tbd) outlets.
When a person obtains a clone from a licensed taxing agent. It will be given a tag good for so long. A person will have to apply for and sign a agreement to forgo all rights property & search rights to allow compliance of the agreement.
Basically a Retired police/compliance officer come to the door and says we are here to look at your grow. Retired police that are still in good standing with the DPS license to be a police officer in the state. They are still police carry weapons and can do all the police functions up to Swat Team’s.
It also seems inconceivable 6 plants as a definitive amount. I know several older people in rural that would allow family member to obtain and grow 12 plants on their rural property. Outside the harvest could go on for 2 months or better culling the buds much bigger harvest. Then you have the guy trying to save a buck by buying a tent and some lights. hardly equivalent of each other . A stalk of corn grown in a closet or one grown in the field what’s going to yield more? Can you just imagine the cost to police that, it will be added onto the price at point of sale.
Yea the only person that would vote for this abortion of personal righs is he one going to the dispensary getting that oil based suppository and need instruction on the application.
User we have gone done the right thing getting MMJ. Some meeting with a legitimate doctor and to so regularly discussing the use I do. We have a force of 90,000+ we need to be heard not represented by the market forces. In Oct we will be present.
VOTE NO PROP 205 KEEPING PERSONAL RIGHTS
AZFMR >>is not gone>> They had a change in management more organizational structure. The grassroots 200+ so far volunteers are being assembled , The grassroots org. that separated from MPP over legal structure and governing policy. They have reorganized either way the outcome of the Nov.
AZFMR is now CRLM
Campaign to Regulate Legalize Marijuana
This was necessary as they are now a licensed PAC with the Sec of ST. This is mostly a group that did a fantastic looking out for the interests of the user and the market collectively. This is your neighbor you family members your community not another harvest.
either way this is the Proposal they will start gather signature in OCT first allowable time. If you care read for yourself see if fits with your values. It has been a long road in sales venicular do you want to take the first pencil from the car dealer?
http://legalizemarijuanainarizona.org/our-…
I’m not surprised that teen marijuana use in Colorado has stagnated or declined since legalization took place. For many teenagers, doing something that is wholeheartedly approved of by the law and/or your parents can be boring as hell.