The commercial marijuana production and distribution championed in Question 1 will not be a wave of prosperity for Maine farmers, small communities or the rural economy.
It is clear that this referendum, intentionally or unintentionally, targets areas of Maine where law enforcement capabilities are widely dispersed, requiring oversight from the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry whose expertise in food crops, public recreation, land management and forest production has little connection to the far reaching legal and law enforcement demands of this major departure from any of Maine’s traditional resource-based industries.
There are many legal loopholes in Question 1. For example, the referendum proposes to let municipalities regulate the number, location and operation of retail marijuana social clubs and establishments, including cultivation facilities and stores. Yet, nearly half of Maine, including the majority of Maine’s islands, has no municipal government. The Land Use Planning Commission that is within our Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry serves the townships and plantations across the state, conducting many of the functions of municipal government. Although local residents in these rural areas have a voice in local land use activities, Question 1 does not provide the commission or local residents authority to regulate marijuana. Residents in half of Maine will have no say over whether marijuana developments can locate near them.
Passage of Question 1 will divert our department’s attention from supporting Maine’s nationally leading growth and diversity of young farmers. The referendum necessitates the remake of the department based on the gold rush illusion of a get-rich-quick scheme, but it comes at the expense of human and natural resources.
At a time when the department is in step with collective enthusiasm for local food, outdoor recreation and intense forest management, all growing with broad public support, this referendum would redirect our agency to a mission focused on lessening the danger to the public from a mind-altering drug that may originate as a plant but would be legally permitted to cultivate to a high level of potency for which the human impact is not well understood.
In fact, implementation and enforcement of the very complex 30-page referendum would consume many of the resources used by the department to assist hundreds of Maine family businesses that are the mainstay of our state’s multibillion-dollar forest, recreation, farm and food processing economy.
If passed, the requirements of this referendum would necessitate the retooling of laboratories that currently have wide-ranging applications from supporting artisanal cheesemakers to identifying invasive species. Although the referendum requires testing to protect the public from solvents, toxins, unlicensed pesticides, molds, mildews, microbes and other potential poisons that have been identified in marijuana products marketed in other states, there are no established human tolerances for these natural and manmade chemicals and other harmful substances. To date, federal law largely has prevented research, accreditation of laboratories and the development of testing protocols. Passing a law before there is a way to protect the public from poisons that can be present in marijuana crop production and manufacturing is dangerous.
Question 1 has the potential to dramatically alter Maine’s natural resources landscape, but when we look carefully, like most other get-rich-quick schemes, there are many negative impacts. I urge voters to think carefully before voting on Question 1.
Walt Whitcomb is the commissioner of the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry.