Massachusetts on Thursday begins a new era of legalized marijuana. But as the public will find out, the door opened by voter approval of Question 4 on Nov. 8 has not yet swung wide open, nor should it necessarily.
Massachusetts residents who are 21 or older now may legally smoke or otherwise consume marijuana in the privacy of their homes. They can also grow their own, up to six plants for individual use or 12 plants per household, and possess up to 10 ounces of marijuana.
While the state Legislature did not delay the legal possession of marijuana for recreational use, lawmakers are nevertheless studying the wording of the law and its implications for the public. Many legislators who opposed legalization, and even those like Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, who eventually voted for it, have said there are many aspects of the law that need to be adjusted before legalization is fully implemented in coming months.
For example, many lawmakers worry legalizing pot will lead to more drugged driving and that it will be hard to curb because there is yet no reliable way for police to test for marijuana impairment. Without a breath test for pot, there will be less deterrence than for drunken driving, they reason.
Lawmakers also worry about the potency and marketing of edibles that are infused with the marijuana’s active ingredients — especially as it affects children — and about the amount of money the state wants to take in through taxes.
State Rep. Peter Kocot, a Northampton Demoract, said this week he is particularly concerned about making sure that children in elementary and middle school do not have access to marijuana.
Also allowed is “trading” small amounts of marijuana among adults. This, too, needs closer examination by the state, according to Rosenberg, an Amherst Democrat, who views it as another gray area in the law. While the state prohibits unregulated sales, Rosenberg fears recreational marijuana could fuel the black market.
“If somebody happens to walk out their house with six joints in their pocket, and just happens to bump into somebody who they give the six joints to, and they happen to put $10 on the table, or whatever it is — that may not be easy to ferret out,” Rosenberg said during a radio interview earlier this week.
It may be, as Rosenberg suggested, that the state dials back the amount of marijuana one can grow for personal use.
“Twelve plants produces an awful lot of marijuana, and we have to make sure that it’s for personal use,” Rosenberg said. “We have to figure out how to enforce that, and also whether 12 plants is the right number. In some states it’s half as much.”
This potential change and others won’t please those behind the ballot initiative.
“We urge lawmakers to leave the homegrow limits as passed by voters,” said Jim Borghesani, communications director for the marijuana legalization ballot referendum. “The limits are similar to the average homegrow allowances in other legal states, and the concerns about the limits being excessive are based on nothing more than campaign rhetoric that has extended into the post-election narrative. We hope the Senate president and other leaders recognize that the homegrow provisions in other states are working well and have not hurt legal sales or added to illicit-market activity.”
While we can appreciate Borghesani’s stance, he doesn’t carry the same responsibility as lawmakers to protect the public’s best interests. It’s one of the reasons that Rosenberg brought up the idea of raising the legal age for smoking pot to 25, citing neurological studies about the impact of smoking marijuana on the still developing brains of young adults.
We feel our lawmakers should consider all these questions, and others that may arise, before 2018 when retail sales of pot are scheduled to become legal, to ensure the public gets what it voted for — yet won’t be harmed by unintended consequences that we can head off.