Oregon- Marijuana legalization effort needs Legislature's input: E

[loves420]

Marijuana legalization effort needs Legislature's input: Editorial Agenda 2013

 

October 28, 2013


Now that New Approach Oregon has filed its long-anticipated proposal to legalize marijuana, state lawmakers may be tempted to shrug off the issue as something best handled by direct democracy. Polling suggests legalization may be inevitable, the measure is by no means extreme and its supporters have very deep pockets. So what is there for the elected class to do but sit back and watch the fun?


Provide options, that's what.


Barring an offering from the Legislature, the November 2014 ballot will feature only measures supported by legalization activists. In addition to a New Approach Oregon measure, voters may weigh in on the work of Paul Stanford, the man behind last year's off-the-wall Measure 80. He's filed several proposals, some of which would change the state constitution.
The prospect of legal marijuana use among adults isn't a reason to lose sleep. In many respects, marijuana is no more harmful than alcohol, and it's already legal for the 58,000-plus Oregonians with medical marijuana cards.



What New Approach Oregon proposes, in fact, is less the creation of something new than an extension of something that already exists — something that lawmakers themselves have helped to create. This year, the Legislature legalized medical marijuana dispensaries, completing a grow-to-toke system accessible to anyone meeting the minimal standards for receiving a marijuana card.


We suspect a majority of voters next fall will support legalization, but they may prefer a regulatory structure that differs from those presented by activists. Take, for example, the New Approach Oregon proposal, which strikes us as fairly reasonable on the whole. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission would regulate the production and sale of marijuana, which would be taxed for the benefit of schools, police and addiction services. Adults, meanwhile, would be free to grow their own pot without the state's say-so, just as they may now brew their own beer.


But the alcohol/pot comparisons take you only so far. One significant area of difference involves driving. It's against the law to drive under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating drugs. "Being bombed on pot is really not that different from being bombed on something else," says Clatsop County District Attorney Josh Marquis. But determining a driver's level of impairment is, for various reasons, much more difficult when the offending substance is marijuana than when it's alcohol.



Both Washington and Colorado, which legalized marijuana last year, have adopted a legal impairment level for its active ingredient. The New Approach Oregon proposal contains no such limit. Instead, it instructs the OLCC to study the issue and return to the Legislature with any suggested changes to the law.


"The reason why we didn't initiate a DUII per se amount is based upon research that really shows that the science isn't really there," says New Approach Oregon's Anthony Johnson. Marquis, who doesn't support legalization, agrees that a straightforward blood test isn't a very reliable indicator of intoxication. For that reason, Washington's legalization measure alarmed many users of medical marijuana.


But in the absence of a strict, if imperfect, standard, demonstrating intoxication is a relatively burdensome task requiring the involvement of drug recognition experts. Given the obvious public-safety implications, many Oregonians – and perhaps most – would prefer a legalization structure similar to New Approach Oregon's, but weighted for DUII purposes in favor of law enforcement rather than marijuana users. That's a matter on which Johnson says his group is reluctant to bend, however.

Driving-related intoxication is one issue lawmakers might want to handle differently, but it's certainly not the only one. Others include the level of taxation, the distribution of revenue and even the amount of marijuana Oregonians may possess legally. All of these and more are worth debating, and lawmakers should remember that they'll have to live with the results of the November 2014 election, for better or for worse. So why not refer a measure of their own to the November 2014 ballot? Voters may opt for a different legalization measure anyway, but they should have the option of choosing something developed by people who don't consider legalization an end in itself.


http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/in...l#incart_river