Pot drives

Diverse initiatives share same goal: Legalization

Posted
The race to legalize recreational marijuana in Michigan is on.

Two groups attempting to put the question before voters in 2016 share the same goal of ending pot prohibition, but their regulatory models and political experience contrast significantly upon closer review.

The Michigan Cannabis Coalition — whose leadership includes experienced conservative political operatives and some from the business community — is launching a proposal the group says will be more palatable to voters and that sets up a regulatory framework mirroring the alcohol and gaming industries.

The Michigan Comprehensive Cannabis Law Reform Committee, or MI Legalize, is led by longtime cannabis reform advocates and progressives who are pitching a more detailed plan that depends more on local than state government control.

Organizers of both groups need slightly more than 250,000 valid signatures within the next six months to put legalization questions before voters during next year’s presidential general election.

A third group — the Michigan Responsibility Council, whose leadership also has close ties to Republican politics — is still exploring whether to launch its own ballot initiative.

If voters approve two or more proposals, then the one with more votes wins.

“We’re seeking the end of prohibition on an agriculture product,” said Matt Marsden, Michigan Cannabis Coalition spokesman and former press secretary for Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville. “When properly regulated and reasonably taxed, we have the opportunity to create a new industry in Michigan.”

Marsden projects their model could generate between $200 million and $800 million in taxable revenue, depending on what the state sets the tax rate at, which would be directed to public safety, public health and education.

Jamie Lowell, a board member of MI Legalize, projects similar revenue numbers and adds that around $300 million could be saved from not enforcing prohibition and another 25,000 jobs could be created.

Differences, similarities

Aside from leadership, some key details differentiate the groups. MI Legalize’s proposal would allow for people 21 or older to grow up to 12 plants at home, while MCC allows for only two flowering plants (or four if a municipality allows it).

Generally, the MCC emphasizes growing cannabis at statelicensed commercial operations — rather than in homes — that would later be sold at retail outlets. Local units of government would be given the authority to decide whether to allow homegrows at all under the MCC plan.

“What we’re trying to do is create a new retail market, a new industry,” Marsden said. “Two flowering plants could generate a lot (of usable cannabis) per household. I don’t know that it’s politically feasible to win a ballot proposal if the little old lady next door is afraid she’s going to have 12 flowering plants growing next door to her.”

Unlike MI Legalize’s petition language, the Cannabis Coalition intentionally leaves out some specifics — such as tax rates and protection from prosecution — that would later be set by a paid, five-member Cannabis Control Board.

“All the little nuances that the other group is fixated upon in their language makes the ballot proposal a little harder to stomach for voters at the general election,” Marsden said. Lowell said MI Legalize wants to avoid the tiered system that regulates alcohol, as MCC is pursuing. Local units of government would decide rules about where facilities could locate and how many plants could be grown there instead of a state board, Lowell said.

“Those of us paying attention to this issue know the Legislature has not been reasonable or functional when it comes to cannabis,” Lowell said. “Several lobbyists would be pulling in different directions to create an advantageous policy for their clients.”

The MI Legalize proposal sets a maximum 10 percent excise tax rate for non-medical pot sold. That revenue would be directed to education, transportation and local units of government.

But the groups appear aligned on certain provisions, such as holding the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act harmless and keeping medical cannabis tax-free. Both groups say they cherrypicked aspects from other states that have legalized recreational marijuana like Colorado, Washington and Oregon.

Both plans also would not allow for homegrown products to be sold, only traded among those over 21. Local units of government would also get to decide whether to allow manufacturing and retail facilities.

Will the Legislature act?

Meanwhile, state Rep. Jeff Irwin, an Ann Arbor Democrat, is seeking support from colleagues before he plans to introduce a legalization bill this session that he says largely mirrors the MI Legalize plan.

While he’s adding another path toward legalization, “I’m skeptical the environment in Lansing is ripe for passing this sort of bill despite the fact that people in Michigan are behind it,” he said.

Irwin is also helping collect signatures for the MI Legalize campaign. So far, he said the details of the opposing plans don’t come up much — about one in five people ask — when he asks voters whether they support legalization.

“Most folks know how they feel about the issue in general,” Irwin said. “They don’t want to read the bed sheet of the petition. If they are curious, they’ll ask.”

While the details may not matter much in the signature-gathering phase, it’s uncertain whether the competing policies would sow confusion and hurt each other in November 2016 if they both make it on the ballot.

“I don’t see it that way, but I could see how it might come to pass if both end up on the ballot together that there may be some drag on the yes side due to confusion or competition,” Irwin said.

According to Lowell and Marsden, the two sides have met on multiple occasions but failed to reach an agreement on combining the efforts.

“My job is to get something passed. I’m a political guy, not a marijuana guy,” Marsden said. “I need to draft language I think it can get passed in 2016. The things they want I don’t think are palatable to voters. If they win, I’m sure we’ll throw our support behind them. If we win, I hope they’ll support us too.”

Either way, Lowell says the competing means would reach the same end.

“The good news is we’re not talking about if we’re going to legalize,” he said. “We’re talking about how it’s going to be done and who’s going to make the money.”

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here




Connect with us