Issue 4, the recreational weed amendment, would allow current medical marijuana licensees to expand into quasi-monopoly bonanzas and pay a 10 percent tax on top of other taxes to raise quite a bit of money for the state.
A small amount of personal possession would be permitted. You couldn't grow your own, which is a bit like saying you may not grow your own tomatoes and may only get tomatoes from an anointed few supermarkets. But you could argue that a mood-altering substance is somewhat different from a BLT or pasta sauce.
The amendment would remove the THC-content ceiling contained in the medical marijuana amendment. That's because of commercial flexibility concerns.
The prevailing recreational marijuana content tends to be higher, particularly for candies, which, people tell me, usually offer greater potency. The amendment would leave that and other regulation to the state Alcoholic Beverage Control division, which regulates booze. Either you respect and trust the ABC or you don't.
Opponents say this kind of thing shouldn't be in a state constitution, but a statute, because constitutions are forever unless amended by the people, which is not easy. And that's true.
The U.S. Constitution is a beautifully appropriate document of general concepts. But our state Constitution is already a mess of detail and minutiae including specific property-tax rates, a minimum wage, the location of casinos and the amount of a highway sales tax.
This Legislature is not going to approve recreational marijuana or even decriminalize it in any way, even as the Biden administration encourages states to do so. If you want it done in Arkansas, you're going to have to decide whether this proposal written by and for the emerging pot monopoly is so objectionable as to cause you to vote "no" in hopes of a better proposal years later.
Opponents say self-serving amendments granting vastly enriching quasi-monopolies should never be passed. Proponents say the amendment permits some new players in the business, from newly qualifying applicants chosen at lottery, and that, if you are worried about the competence and credibility of growers and dispensaries, as many opponents claim, then you ought to consider the smooth experience so far of the state's system of medical marijuana product delivery. Those folks seem to know what they're doing.
The proposal would allow political subdivisions to choose not to allow dispensaries.
Opponents say this amendment would make it easy for kids to get their mouths around potent munchies. But you might ask your teenager whether it's easier now to get pot on the street or booze from the liquor store.
Booze, being legalized and regulated, tends to be harder for kids to get. But, yes, kids who might wind up with a bottle of vodka taken from some parent's liquor cabinet might also wind up with something substantially mood-altering from another parent's candy drawer. That wouldn't be the amendment's fault, or the ABC's, but the lax parent's or the clever kid's.
Opponents say bad guys could infiltrate these new businesses and lace the candies with fentanyl and spread that deadly addiction. But that addiction spreads anyway otherwise, and, for that matter, candies at the supermarket could be tampered with now if drug lords were evil enough and the regulation incompetent enough.
Opponents say Colorado is largely a wasteland of stoned people lying around in the streets. It is true that medical testing in Colorado--whether of accident victims or pregnant women or for wellness checks--turns up marijuana in systems at higher levels than before it was legalized, which would stand to reason.
Opponents decry that the proposal does not expunge criminal records for simple possession of what would become legal. It should. I suspect the decision not to include that was political, the point being not to invite ancillary opposition but stick to the basic point--which is to parlay wide public sentiment for legalization, regulation and taxation into market-cornering enrichment.
Democrats, including gubernatorial nominee Chris Jones, seem to favor the amendment, weighing the general issue over all these specific concerns, none of which they find fatal.
Republicans are generally against the proposal in service to the crime-worried base and the church-going base.
There are many more Republicans than Democrats in the state, although the last poll on the basic issue of legalizing recreational marijuana, conducted a few weeks ago by Hendrix College and Talk Business and Politics, showed 58.5 percent in favor.
I am not as afraid of this proposal as some are, but I am not as dismissive of some of the concerns as others are.
I am distressed over the special-interest self-service of the proposal. But I deem the objections that are based in fear of a state awash in THC and fentanyl-infected children to be way overwrought.
The best service I can provide is to lay it out and invite you to ponder responsibly with me.
John Brummett, whose column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, is a member of the Arkansas Writers' Hall of Fame. Email him at jbrummett@arkansasonline.com. Read his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.