Opinion Devoid of Evidence

It’s good that Civil Beat labeled as opinion Denby Fawcett’s 2/13 inaccuracy-ladened diatribe against cannabis legalization for responsible adult use. As it relates to the issue itself, I can count on one hand, with fingers to spare, the number of factually accurate statements that can be found in her piece, “3 Good Reasons Not to Legalize Marijuana.”

Rather than conducting a fact-based investigation of her own, she chose to rely on the talking points of self-admitted prohibitionists, however well-respected they may be.

For starters, she, like many confounded opponents, asks, “why now?” Why the big push this year? I might ask, “why not?” Yes, it cannot be denied that our state faces a myriad of serious and complex issues. Is there a time in recent memory when it didn’t?

Just at a glance, I found numerous bills that became laws last year that did nothing to address “housing, crime, drugs, or homelessness.” As is the case every session. As legislators serving in a part-time legislature, multi-tasking is a necessary skill. Really, the “we’ve got bigger fish” trope is stale and disingenuous.

ACTS From 2023

• ACT63 – Excessive Noise Detection Cameras Pilot Program ($2.5m)
• ACT66 – Authorizes curbside delivery of liquor
• ACT72 – Exempts parking lot operations and concessions at state parks from the bidding requirements for concessions operating on public property.
• ACT116 – Prohibits voters from voting more than once.
• ACT117 – Requires candidates to use their legal name on the ballot.
• ACT140 – Relating to Crimes Against Sports Officials.

From this session, just on one hearing notice are these society-shifting gems:

• HB2772 Relating to the State Seal
• HB2736 Relating to State Gesture
• HB1861 Relating to Number Plates
• HB1899 Relating to State Snails
• HB1950 Relating to Kimchi Day

With bills like these, it’s no wonder opponents believe there is no oxygen left at the Capitol for cannabis legalization.

When our jails and prisons across the state are bursting at the seams with non-violent offenders and people simply awaiting trial, each to the tune of approximately $250 a day ($90,000 a year), why NOT look at vehicles like cannabis legalization as both a revenue source and as a way to reduce our unnecessary carceral spending?

I could go on and on. But let me move on to Denby’s “reasons,” which are both more brief and less meaningful than her rants of general dismay.

“Increased Danger to Young People”

In the very first line in the very first paragraph, her duplicity shines. Earlier in the piece she says cannabis is “already easily obtainable and no boy’d hauled off to jail.” Similar sentiments were echoed on the House Floor recently. Is Denby suggesting here that young people already have easy and readily available access to cannabis whenever they want? Statements like that make me think it’s already on every street corner. So will legalization really increase the potential risk for a substance already so “easily obtainable?”

While the legalization experience in states across the country remains relatively young, there is a growing supply of evidence that legalization does not, in fact, lead to increased use among young people. In July 2021, The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that “no significant associations” between legalization for adult use and frequency of use among high school students. Other studies have produced similar results.

Check. No real increased danger to young people.

Next.

“Black Market Sales Will Continue”

This is the objection from Denby (and other opponents) I find the most baffling.

It’s true. So far, in states that have legalized, the black market remains strong. And in some places, it grew initially in the shadows of regulated and taxed legal sales.

But I remain unable to understand this talking point as a reason against legalization. The legal market would be safer for users because products would be tested and regulated. And the State would earn its share. Sure, shares would be bigger for everyone if the black market vanished, but why not work to compete with, and eventually, shrivel the black market? Is that not a reasonable long-term goal? But because we can’t immediately wither it out of existence, we shouldn’t legalize it at all?

That’s an odd absolutist position to take.

Elsewhere in her piece, Denby parrots Prosecutor Alm’s blather about how much stronger cannabis is today when compared to the cannabis of the 60s. You want to know just how much THC is in your joint or your vape or edible? It’s unlikely your black-market dealer will know. Or care much. But if it’s tested and labeled before being legally sold and taxed, the THC content is right there on the label. And I bet regulated retailers could have a range of THC content offerings.

I’ll know just what’s in, or not in, my cannabis products in a regulated market. I can’t imagine your black-market dealer’s product comes with an “ingredients” label.

It just doesn’t compute; silly argument.

Next.

“Hard to Prove Impairment”

It’s true there is currently no test, like the breathalyzer for alcohol, to measure THC intoxication and/or impairment. This doesn’t stand as a legitimate reason not to legalize cannabis for adult use.

For starters, returning to the “easily obtainable” trope, we don’t hear about the countless vehicular accidents occurring now, today, that result from cannabis use. Maybe that’s because it isn’t really newsworthy? Or, just maybe, it’s because it’s not a thing.

One could, I imagine, easily assume someone willing to buy cannabis on the black market might not be that concerned about driving impaired.

Denby refers here to the Attorney General’s report on SB3555 that “expects marijuana-impaired drivers will likely cause more vehicle collisions and deaths on the road as well as contribute to an increase in traffic fatalities.” But when I look at the AG’s report and the data included therein (also reviewing the data sources) it looks like it is relying on correlation rather than causation.

From the AG’s Report:

“In Washington, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety published a study entitled “Cannabis Use Among Drivers in Fatal Crashes in Washington State Before and After Legalization” that analyzed fatal crashes from 2008 to 2017 to determine the impact of the legalization of recreational cannabis. The study found that, prior to cannabis legalization, an average of 8.8% of all drivers in fatal crashes statewide each year were THC-positive. After legalization became effective, this increased to an average of 18.0%. The highest level was reached in 2017, the last year studied, with 21.4% of drivers involved in a fatal crash testing positive for THC.”

This referral to more people in accidents testing positive for THC could be a result of more people using cannabis post-legalization. That more people are using cannabis doesn’t prove more of them are impaired when driving. Or causing accidents because of impairment. THC can stay in a person’s system for days or even weeks after use. That doesn’t mean they’re impaired.

On the other hand, the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) notes:

“Reassuringly, data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System shows four of the eight states that legalized cannabis from 2012 through 2016 saw decreased rates of fatal car crashes following passage of legalization laws. These reduced crash rates were greater than the reduction seen on the national level within the same time period.”

Additionally, a scientific study conducted in 2023 found:

“Cannabis alone was not associated with higher odds of motor vehicle collision, while acute alcohol use alone, and combined use of alcohol and cannabis were both independently associated with higher odds of MVC. Stratifying by level of self-reported or measured cannabis use, higher levels were not associated with higher odds for MVC, with or without co-use of alcohol; in fact, high self-reported acute cannabis use was associated with lower odds of MVC. … In the case-crossover analysis, alcohol use alone or in combination with cannabis was associated with higher odds of MVC, while cannabis use alone was again associated with decreased odds of MVC.”

This is just another example of opponents using out dated talking points devoid of evidence but rife with fear-mongering.

It’s More Harmful to Stay the Course

Derby Fawcett agrees with former Governor Linda Lingle, who came out or retirement to do her own fear-mongering; “The bottom line is this is a risk we just can’t take. We have big issues here to solve and this would make those big issues impossible to solve.”

Impossible? Really?

Are their risks to legalization? Sure.

Is legalization a panacea for Hawaii’s social or economic ills? Of course not. But it seems to me all the “risks” decried by to prohibitionists already exist or have the potential to exist under the existing regime. Without any of the proven benefits that come with legalization.

And anyone willing to take a sober (pun intended) and unbiased look at ALL the data will see the scale of risk vs. reward weighs heavy toward the benefits of legalization.