Recreational Marijuana: Opt Out, Wait, or Opt In?

[XLFD]

It's been over a month since proposal one allowing recreational marijuana passed with about 5/9 of the state's electors voting "yes" on their ballots.  It's been over a week since the law has actually went into effect.  Just after that, last Friday we learnt that our Ludington city leaders were planning to opt out of having marijuana businesses in the city limits, without much details as related in the local paper.  This sparked some debate among eight people coming to the December 10 council meeting.  As can be seen in the meeting minutes, none of the councilors bothered to say anything about the issue.

The people of Ludington weren't part of this proposed action to opt out of the part of the legislation allowing city governments to limit or ban such establishments, though it was passed with roughly the same proportionality as the state, winning in 5 of 6 wards. 

The topic came up at a November 19 Public Safety Committee Meeting held at 1:30PM and mostly unknown to the people of Ludington.  The notes of that meeting does not have the commissioners recommending that the police chief and city attorney draft an opt out ordinance, but they did anyway.  Nor does it have them recommending the opt-out issue to the council, rather they wanted more information.  None of the information they desired has been produced to them or the public since.  

Mayor Elect Steve Miller has since provided an explanation of Ludington’s marijuana opt out ordinance in an article in the Mason County Press.  I see it as little more than a thinly-disguised propaganda piece throwing facts around loosely to get more folks to agree with the City's position.  It will come before the city council this Monday for a second reading and a vote, with only Miller and Councilor-elect Angela Serna (both unseated) having a stance going into it.  It's rather distressing when your elected officials don't have enough backbone to make a statement until they actually do the voting on it.

According to the Michigan Municipal League:  If a municipality intends to allow recreational marihuana businesses, then it does not need to take any action. Under this new Act, every municipality is considered to be “in” unless it takes specific action to opt out. We have a few sample opt out ordinances (below) but opt in ordinances are not necessary or required. 

The material available to the public is just like it has been since last week; the same memo displayed in the previous packet, and even after some strong public comment, the same ordinance that could pose severe penalties if taken to the extreme for what is a 'nuisance'.  Here is that material (with relevant parts of the ordinance, which can be found in full here.  

I am personally very much conflicted with the recreational marijuana topic, as I wouldn't ever use it recreationally, but I am loathe to dictate that others must follow my example.  I know of the dangers of legalizing the substance, but I also see the dangers of not doing so.  I see the possible benefits of having marijuana businesses in the city, but I also see the detriments of being too permissive, and seeing the downtown area turn into a district mostly consisting of bars, dispensaries, and other affiliated businesses.  

So give me some feedback on this issue.  Make me better see why you feel one way or the other.  Change my mind or the minds of other readers of the Ludington Torch.  We won't limit you to two minutes like the council did and will do, to keep you from expressing your full viewpoint.  Use the technology to link to relevant material and show graphs if you must.  And, if you do good work with whatever opinion you defend, bring that to the Ludington City Council on Monday evening at 6:30 PM.

[Willy]

This is a difficult fence to straddle. I'm like you X, I believe in individual rights but then The consequences of any particular right must be weighed against the harm it may cause. I voted against legalizing marijuana not because I wanted to deny any individual their right to use it but because of the harm it will cause as the use of it spreads to younger and younger individuals. I don't agree with how the City has handled this situation but I can see their side of the situation. The City is not denying the peoples right to use the substance only the public selling of it. Establishing laws and guidelines for storefront weed shops can be very involved and complicated and I might add a very good reason to opt out. I agree that the City should not be involved with what I consider a misguided law passed by foolish voters. Grow your own weed people and I might add grow up.

Another excellent report X. Thanks

[XLFD]

Thanks, Willy, and I would suggest that I would not fault the city council for coming to any kind of reasonable conclusion after opening up the dialogue with the 5 of 9 voters that initiated this law.  The problem is, they eschewed the communications with the voters who gave recreational pot a mandate and put an opt-out ordinance before the conversation began.  That's just not politically smart, and I hope the voters in the 3rd, 4th and 6th Wards hold their councilors in check if they vote to opt out without listening to them being that proposal 1 passed with 56.4%, 65.3% and 63.8% of those ward's electors, respectively.   Just as I think Councilor Lenius would be out of line for voting NOT to opt out, as the proposal was defeated by a significant margin in his ward (56.5% voting against).  

Tonight's vote will tell you how accountable each councilor is to his constituents, and if they buck the mandate, they will claim the vote was for recreational pot, not dispensaries, to try and save their butts.  But that is more insulting of a point, since they are saying that some who voted 'yes' never weighed in the fact that dispensaries opening up nearby was part of the potential consequences of the law.

[snide]

To Willy, the same folks you tell to "grow up" might suggest that you pull your head out of the sand........Not trying to be insulting , but your stance only reinforces the criminal element that you want to avoid. 

[Willy]

Snide. That is another wrench in the gears. I don't agree with putting people in jail for using weed. Not only does it clog up the system but it makes criminals out of otherwise peaceful people. My beef is with the spread of it's use to young people and like anything made legal, young people will think nothing about using it because the law says it's OK. So what is the law supposed to do with kids under 18 who smoke weed? Throw them in jail? As far as I'm concerned this is a no win situation. The people who I know that use weed are still living in their teen years and have never "grown up". As far as marijuana shops opening their doors around town, I am totally against it. It will not benefit Ludington in any way to allow the public sale of this substance. Let other municipalities get entangled in the marijuana for sale quagmire. Traffic accidents are another reason not to have weed flowing freely in our society. Schools will be swamped with "legal marijuana" from grade school to high school.

What if opium, heroin and other hard drugs are legalized? Old dinosaurs have learned a thing or two in the process of aging. Let Oceana, Lake and the other communities deal with the sale of weed and don't fool yourself into thinking that "head shops" will somehow revive Ludington's economy.

[snide]

I'm sorry and again I don't want to be insulting but ... Wow..! Did you stay up all night watching TV and switching between FAUXNEWS and "Reefer Madness"..??..There are so many stigmas in your post , I don't know where to begin.

[Willy]

Why would what you're saying be insulting? You obviously have differing perspectives than myself on the topic. Try starting at the beginning. List your stigmas and let's discuss them.

[XLFD]

None of us want to see either of your stigmas, just keep going with your civil arguments.

I think Willy's fears are not unfounded, and should be addressed rather than have them labelled, and by inference, have him labelled.  

It seems odd to me that the objectives of the DDA and the City over the last dozen years has been to attract artists and their businesses to the area.  Artists often seek their muse, get their inspiration from, marijuana and other substances which influence their perceptions of reality.  If it is not easily available, they are not likely to settle here, and if they are here, they may move to someplace else in Michigan.  

[stump]

I can see it now, Friday night live in the summer time down town ludington. Instead of the usual restaurant vendors we'll have pot vendors, but then maybe they'll get the munchies  and everything will be OK .  Maybe instead of the city having all these beer tent parties and pub crawls the city can have pot get togethers to support the local agendas. LOL

[Willy]

I predict that among Michigan's many celebrations there will be added "Pot Festivals". It's only a matter of time. Someday the Christmas program "toys for tots" will be "pot for tots" joining with them.

[stump]

     I hear the the 4 of July  big concert get together in Rothbury is a big pot party along with other drugs. Nothing new in the neighbor hood , just now it's legal.

[stump]

I myself have never smoked cigarets or marijuana and voted against it being legalized . That being said , now that it has been voted in by the popular vote I won't be like most Democrats and scream bloody mercy that it can't be so. If a person or multiple want to open a legit business down town or any business approved location in the city it is OK with me.  If bars are OK why would another similar business be not approved ?

[XLFD]

That's how America and other real democracies throughout time is supposed to work.  Of course, democracies tend to devolve into ochlocracy (mob rule) over time, much to the detriment of the prosperity it gives when healthy.  The ballot box has consequences, the losers either accede to the mandate or lead to the downfall of civilization.  I'm glad the majority of Americans still believe that.