GREENFIELD — More than 100 local residents filled the Cohn Family Dining Commons at Greenfield Community College Thursday night to participate in an often-heated discussion about whether to legalize recreational marijuana use in Massachusetts.
An impassioned debate arose during a public forum sponsored by The Recorder, other local media and Greenfield Community College, which was held from 7 to 9 p.m. The forum was intended to help area voters make an informed decision about ballot Question 4, which, if passed, would allow the use, cultivation, possession and distribution of recreational marijuana for individuals at least 21 years old.
“The goal is to cover as many angles and as many perspectives on the issue as possible,” said moderator Chris Collins.
The panel featured Northwestern District Attorney David Sullivan, regional Opioid Task Force Director Paul McNeil, who oppose the Nov. 8 ballot question, and attorney Richard Evans and Will Luzier, the campaign manager for Yes on 4, who advocate for a yes vote on the question.
Panelists argued about the addictive nature of marijuana, its effects on teenagers, the tax benefits of legalization and the results of commercializing distribution.
Sullivan argued that throughout the United States, “all medical societies have opposed legalization.” He explained that the market for marijuana is primarily for people ages 12 to 25, while a human’s brain is still developing.
“Marijuana is really not a good thing when people’s brains are still developing,” he said.
Sullivan also expressed his concerns about dangerous levels of tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana, in today’s marijuana. Sullivan said the THC content used to be as low as 1 or 2 percent, but is now as much as 90 percent. He also cited a 48 percent increase in accidental deaths resulting from marijuana use in states where marijuana has been legalized.
“It’s really a decision that requires people to think about the health costs, the social costs and where we want to go,” Sullivan said.
"It really is the lack of a limit on the potency that is concerning," McNeil said.
On the flip side of the argument, Luzier said that regulating marijuana would in fact make using it safer.
"There won’t be any pesticides, there won’t be any heavy metals," Luzier said. "You’ll know what you’re getting."
“Commercialization means that people will be asked for ID,” Evans said, going on to mention the dangers of buying marijuana on the black market. “Would you rather have the market controlled by criminals or by regulators?”
In response, Sullivan and McNeil claimed that the black market has increased in Colorado, where recreational marijuana use is legal, because dealers can purchase as much as they want and sell it cheaper.
“I have no idea why that wouldn’t happen here,” McNeil said.
Sullivan and McNeil also said that increasing access has elevated use in the states where marijuana is legal, as Washington and Colorado have the two highest usage rates in the country. Sullivan expressed his concerns for teenagers.
“It’s going to derail so many teenagers,” Sullivan said. “I would say its in the millions of dollars to help these teens with recovery.”
The panelists debated whether the resulting tax revenue would outweigh the costs of treating addicts. McNeil said in the case of alcohol and tobacco addiction, treatment costs outweigh the revenue brought in from sales.
Luzier added that in Colorado, $135 million is gained in taxes each year, and it costs only $25 million to regulate the industry.
“It’s important to remember the revenue is not the only reason we’re advocating for this,” Luzier said. “We’re trying to get rid of the black market (and) we’re trying to make marijuana safer.”
Evans also argued that law enforcement measures will never eradicate marijuana use.
“We’re trying to help people grow up and know the difference between use and abuse,” Evans said of legalization.
Should marijuana use be legalized following the Nov. 8 vote, towns and cities could still pass laws prohibiting, limiting or regulating its use, and the state law would not supersede federal laws. A 3.75 percent state tax would be applied to the sales, in addition to the current sales tax and the possibility of a 2 percent local tax. Business owners could still require drug tests and laws concerning operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of drugs would not change.