Pot props should go up in smoke

Recent proposals to ban marijuana businesses in Palmer and Houston fly directly in the face of votes cast by those towns’ residents only a few short months ago. These proposals not only send a message that those votes shouldn’t matter, but they’re shortsighted because the state has not even yet determined the shape of weed legalization in Alaska.

The resolutions being brought before voters in October would outlaw any type of farms, testing facilities, retail stores or other types of businesses inside city limits. They’re carbon copies of each other, with each using language supplied by a group opposed to marijuana in Alaska. Mat-Su Borough Mayor Larry DeVilbiss is a strong supporter of the measures in the cities – each of which, it’s worth noting, have their own governments separate from the borough.

When Alaskans voted to legalize marijuana last year, voters in Houston passed the initiative by 14 percent, while Palmer voters passed it by four percent. However, supporters of the municipal bans seem to believe those votes were an anomaly, with one organizer saying he was shocked the statewide measure passed.

The fact that these proposals have come forward reeks of sour grapes on the part of people who can’t handle the idea that voters want to see the state take a different approach to marijuana laws. They lost the election fair and square, yet essentially want a “do-over” by trying to enact sweeping commercial bans within the cities.

In addition, these proposed commercial bans are highly premature. The state has yet to draft any rules or regulations governing the commercial sale, manufacture or use of marijuana. Wouldn’t it be more prudent to wait for the statewide laws to go into effect before deciding how to move forward with municipal regulations?

Bans in certain municipalities would create a confusing situation where residents in neighboring locales were subjected to wide variations of legality. This is the current situation with fireworks, and banning the sale of marijuana in one city but not another would likely create a similar system in which city limits signs doubled as hot spots for pot businesses.

There’s also the financial impact these anti-marijuana proposals could have. For a community that was built by farmers, it’s unnerving to think that a new cash crop for the Valley might be plowed under before it even sprouts. If voters pass these strict new regulations, it could simply mean that new businesses choose to set up shop elsewhere – a prospect that flies in the face of the idea that small business is the core of a local economy. To eliminate a potentially lucrative source of revenue for Palmer and Houston would be a mistake.

Area residents should just say no to these half-baked commercial marijuana bans.