Ballot Question 4 reminds us a lot of Obamacare, Just like the Affordable Care Act, it’s replete with unintended consequences.
In essence, this state ballot measure would legalize the possession, use, distribution and cultivation of marijuana by those 21 and older. It would also create a commission to regulate this pot industry, and impose a tax on marijuana sales through approved retail outlets.
This referendum’s backers would rather use a slick campaign to win over voters — and deal with all the unresolved issues later.
We haven’t even evaluated the effectiveness of the medical-marijuana rollout, which is still in its shakedown stage. But we all remember its rocky start, primarily due to its weak vetting of dispensary operators. So why are rushing to approve total legalization while that jury is still out?
The devil is certainly in this ballot question’s details.
In general, like a cannabis Book-of-the-Month Club, this law is a totally opt-in process, which means using pot would be legal in every city and town unless communities take steps to outlaw it.
The public’s safety also takes a back seat.
For instance, there’s no reliable way to determine drugged driving. Proponents suggest that such metrics would be available in the future. But there’s no doubt the number of impaired drivers — and the likelihood of serious accidents — will increase significantly if Question 4 passes.
Recreational pot backers also like to compare using marijuana to consuming beer, wine or hard liquor. But as we all know, though individuals under 21 can’t legally purchase or consume liquor, that hasn’t prevented them from obtaining and abusing it. Why should we expect marijuana to render different results?
Plus, studies on the adolescent brain confirm that marijuana use impairs development into the early 20s.
The variety of pot-laced products, including edibles packaged in a way to mimic candied treats, belies their potential harmful effects, and serves as another under-age enticement.
And of course this push to legalize a drug the federal government classifies as a Schedule 1 substance — the same classification as opium derivatives and hallucinogenic drugs — comes as this state tries to turn the tide on a deadly opioid-opiate epidemic that continues to escalate despite our best efforts.
That’s why virtually every top legislator and state constitutional officer, including Gov. Charlie Baker Baker and Attorney General Maura Healey, oppose Question 4, as well as public-safety and physician organizations.
We won’t even discuss Question 4’s alleged revenue benefits. We can’t conceive of a price that would counter this question’s detrimental effects.
So for these reasons — and plenty of others that space precludes us from mentioning — we urge voters to resoundingly reject Question 4.
