Voters in Michigan approved legal recreational marijuana, and voters in North Dakota defeated it. Aside from the subject of the bills under consideration, the similarities stop there. Voters care about what ballot measures actually say, not just what they are about.
If you want a winning measure, think it through.
In Michigan, Proposal 1, the ballot initiative legalizing recreational marijuana, is a well-thought-out bill that legalizes the sale and use of marijuana for individual use. Compared to other states, the bill is also generous. Individuals can possess up to 10 ounces at their residence and 2.5 outside of it, and it allows for the cultivation of up to 12 plants for consumption.
But the bill is not a free-for-all. Consuming marijuana in public is banned, cultivation of marijuana in public view is also prohibited. It specifies three distinct classes of growers and gives the state the ability to issues licenses for various aspects of the business. The bill also places restrictions on packaging of marijuana products and specifies how the revenues will be distributed.
In short, the bill is well-thought-out, contains appropriate regulations, and is a workable law that builds off the state’s successful legalization of medical marijuana.
The North Dakota ballot proposal, on the other hand, lacks the well-laid plans of the Michigan bill. Instead, it resembles a hastily constructed measure that lacks the seriousness of a real law.
There were no limits placed on possession and it fails to establish the regulation necessary for sales. The bill also lacks a framework to distribute revenues and lacks the details of every successful ballot proposal establishing recreational marijuana. Indeed, when it was first introduced, it lacked the support of key national advocacy organizations, including the Marijuana Policy Project and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. The bill would, however, have expunged the criminal records of individuals with prior marijuana convictions.
The admitted plan of the crafters of the North Dakota legislation was to leave most of the details up to the state legislators, a sort of vote-first-and-ask-questions-later approach. As an adviser to the campaign put it, “We leave our bill wide open so the legislature can do their job: regulations, taxes, zoning, whatever.”
Clearly, this “whatever” approach to legislation is not what voters want. Granted, the voters in Michigan may just be more pro-marijuana than the ones in North Dakota. But the Michigan approach is still more wise.
If you’re going to have a ballot proposal, think it through and actually give voters something substantial to bubble in their ballot for.
