The Suburban Times

A community bulletin board for Western Pierce County.

The case for marijuana shops in Lakewood

By

Submitted by Cynthia Macklin

“Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it,” Jonathan Swift once wrote over three centuries ago.

His opinion has been substantiated by a MIT study that was recently published in Science magazine.

Among the study’s finding was “that false news was more novel than true news, which suggests that people were more likely to share novel information.”

When it comes to a rational discussion about the opening of two retail marijuana stores in Lakewood, readers of this publication have been subjected to some rather novel opinions based on scare tactics and/or half-truths.

One of the scare tactic goes like this: If we legalize marijuana, then why not legalize murder or rape?

This is illogical on its face and ridiculous in fact. The former is the use of a legal product for personal pleasure; the latter involves two or more individuals to harm another.

Another scare tactic some pundits promote is that marijuana is a “gateway drug,” that it will lead to the use of “harder” drugs.

This is true – to a point.

For some smokers, marijuana will lead to other drug use. The same is true for some beer drinkers and Saturday night poker players who will become alcoholics and addictive gambling, respectively.

But for the vast majority of those who enjoy an occasional drink, a game of poker or a joint, their decisions to partake do not lead to addiction.

A recent study conducted by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (www.drugabuse.gov) research showed that “the majority of people who use marijuana do not go on to use other, “harder” substances.” The study also pointed out that there was no more or less affect from the use of alcohol.

To be intellectual honest at this point of the discussion – something that some opinion writers have not been – the study did point out that there is a direct correlation between “gateway” substances and prohibition.

In this case, prohibition requires those who wish to purchase marijuana to do so through the black market. Drug dealers – or pushers – sell a lot more than just marijuana to their consumers. In this case, the primary driving force is the drug dealer, not the marijuana per se.

In another example of fear mongering that highlights Swift’s statement, some opine that that all-cash business that the retail marijuana shops engage in will invite skimming and crime.

This is like saying driving a car invites speeding.

Sure, skimming and crime go hand-in-hand in the black market. But this kind of criminal activity will be very difficult to conduct in the highly regulated legal marijuana market.

The two proposed retail marijuana shops in Lakewood would be highly regulated by the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (LCB).

What does that regulation look like? Every leaf of marijuana that enters a store has already been logged, tagged and documented since it was a seedling, to include any pesticides and fertilizer used in its growth to insure its safety.

What’s more, the LCB maintains records from the point of purchase, to the amount purchased, to the price paid for the purchase.

And while the LCB is at work making sure that all regulations are met, the state’s Department of Revenue oversees every penny of income made and then ensures that all taxes (37 percent tax rate) are paid.

Does this kind of regulation and taxation occur in the black market? Does this sound like it will result in an all cash business will be involved in “skimming and crime?”

While on the subject of the “black market,” let’s take a look at history.

During Prohibition (1920-1933) in this country, the federal and states’ governments attempts to end the manufacture and sale of alcohol only drove the “black market of alcohol” underground.

Despite the efforts of prohibitionists and the government, people who wanted to drink alcohol did so.

Likewise, there are people in Lakewood who will consume marijuana.

To argue that the disallowing of two retail marijuana shops to open in Lakewood will somehow stop the consuming of marijuana in Lakewood makes zero sense because those who want to consume marijuana simply will travel next door to Tacoma where they can purchase it before returning home to Lakewood.

Put another way, a portion of the sales revenues from the sale of marijuana in Tacoma that goes to Tacoma will go to Lakewood if Lakewood allows for the opening of two marijuana shops.

What’s wrong with more money in the City’s budget that funds many of the services you enjoy now?

While sensational falsehoods and half-truths fly fast and furious about retail marijuana shops in Lakewood, the truth is that these legal and highly regulated businesses will allow those who want to use marijuana to do so while at the same time adding revenue to the city’s budget.

Comments

  1. Thank you for countering some of the ridiculous arguments I’ve seen here lately with actual facts! I know there’s a long way to go in the area of research when it comes to legalized marijuana, but the early studies seem to lead to the same conclusion: legal marijuana in an area has lots of positive impacts on economy and does not lead to “hard” drugs or increased crime like many argue. It’s refreshing to see a reasonable perspective on it in the Sub Times.

  2. The author of this article is presumably the same person as the Cynthia Macklin who, according to packet presented the Lakewood City Council this past February 20, was noted in that material as “holding a state issued marijuana business license” in Lakewood.

    Macklin stated to the Council that “there is no evidence that marijuana is a gateway drug and that since legalization by Washington State, opiate use within the state has decreased” (p.60).

    But is that two-part statement accurate?

    This publication, December 20, 2017, carried the announcement that, “at the request of Prosecutor Mark Lindquist, the Pierce County Council authorized the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office to file a lawsuit against Purdue Pharma and other major pharmaceutical companies.

    “The proposed lawsuit is based on company conduct that contributed to the opiate epidemic in Pierce County and Washington State.”

    “Between 1997 and 2011, prescriptions and sales of opioids in Washington rose more than 500 percent. In 2015, the number of overdose deaths in Washington exceeded the number of deaths from car accidents and firearms. Homelessness and crime are also associated with opiate addiction.”

    If Deputy Prosecutors in the Pierce County Office of the Prosecuting Attorney and members of the Keller Rohrbach law firm cannot show that Lakewood, among many others, is feeling the impact of what they say is “the worst man-made epidemic in modern medical history,” because opioid use is up, not down as Macklin claims, then Lakewood would be foolish to embark on a fool’s errand.

    If more than 300,000 Americans have not lost their lives to an opioid overdose, as the lawsuit claims, “more than five times as many American lives as were lost in the entire Vietnam War”; if on any given day, 145 people will not in fact die from opioid overdoses in the United States as the lawsuit states; if opioid overdose is not “the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 25 and 60,” then pursuing such litigation is completely absurd, hopelessly pointless and a useless and fruitless mission.

    Then there is the matter of Macklin’s claim as to the gateway characteristic of marijuana.

    Macklin says it is not.

    Robert L. DuPont says it is.

    DuPont is president of the Institute for Behavior and Health and the first director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

    In an opinion piece for The New York Times, entitled “Marijuana Has Proven to Be a Gateway Drug,” DuPont wrote in his opening statement, “It should come as no surprise that the vast majority of heroin users have used marijuana (and many other drugs) not only long before they used heroin but while they are using heroin.”

    What makes DuPont’s statement pertinent to this discussion is what the “Big Pharma” lawyers told the Lakewood City Council in seeking the latter’s participation in this class-action lawsuit: “Obscured from the marketing was the fact that prescription opioids are not much different than heroin — indeed on a molecular level, they are virtually indistinguishable” (p.081).

    “Like nearly all people with substance abuse problems, most heroin users initiated their drug use early in their teens, usually beginning with alcohol and marijuana,” writes DuPont.

    “There is ample evidence that early initiation of drug use primes the brain for enhanced later responses to other drugs. These facts underscore the need for effective prevention to reduce adolescent use of alcohol, tobacco and marijuana in order to turn back the heroin and opioid epidemic and to reduce burdens addiction in this country.”

    Helping everyone connect the dots here, given heroin and opioids are virtually indistinguishable on a molecular level; and, according to DuPont, the vast majority of heroin users consumed marijuana long before ingesting harder drugs, then what should concern readers, let alone decision makers, is to ask who is downplaying the significant risks of addiction?

    Add to all of the evidence above the fact that “Since pot legalization, driving under influence has steadily risen,” according to Washington State officials.

    In a January 16, 2018 Q13 article by Tatevik Aprikyan, “statistics show you are twice as likely to kill yourself or someone else while under influence of marijuana,” said WSP Trooper Brooke Bova.

  3. To assume that marijuana is a cause or an equivalent to murder or rape is the dumbest thing someone can say. It’s a proven fact that more rapes happen while a person is under the influence of alcohol and murder goes with hard chemical drugs, which is all over Lakewood with no thought to remove. Atleast marijuana shops can contribute taxes to enforce law on the actual bad things in this city. Come on Lakewood, use your heads..

  4. “Like nearly all people with substance abuse problems, most heroin users initiated their drug use early in their teens, usually beginning with alcohol and marijuana,” writes DuPont.

    If this is the case, alcohol is as much a problem as marijuana. I don’t read Mr. Anderson as favoring the closure of the many places which sell alcohol in Lakewood. Why not?

    As usual, Mr. Anderson brings out the ‘worst cast possible’ argument in stead of a reasoned discussion of the pros and cons of the subject.

  5. Lakewood is missing lots of tax revenue because of this.

    We go to another town to shop and try different cannabis products almost weekly, and when we’re there we almost always go shopping and eat somewhere. If we could just get it here we may spend more ‘fun money’ locally on the weekends.

  6. People tend to draw a line for themselves on what they will accept (or tolerate) and what they won’t. Most people don’t want to tolerate legalized marijuana shops in Lakewood. It doesn’t have to be for a scientific reason or because of a scare tactic. Moving the line that much farther just means people will push it that much farther. If the speed limit is 35, people go 40. If it’s 50, people go 55. If pot is legal to smoke at home, people will smoke it in public. Just walk around Tacoma and see. No one is afraid of a ticket for doing it. Then the people who don’t like it or are allergic to are forced to be exposed to it, decreasing their quality of life. It’s bad enough when you can’t sit on your back deck with friends anymore because the neighbors smoke the legal weed. If the government represents us, let the people in Lakewood decide if they want to tolerate and endorse the selling of marijuana, even though it is still illegal under federal law.

    • The fact you used the term ‘most people’ negates any argument. You have no clue what most people want. Only what you and the people you communicate with want. Yes 100% put it to vote, then when it passes, people like this will be quiet.

    • You can’t sit on your back deck because your neighbors smoke weed outside? Wow, being a little over reactive?

      I don’t like the smell from my neighbors pellet stove but I don’t let it turn me into a shut-in.

  7. As I started to read this article, I was immediately aware that Ms. Cynthia Macklin is an attorney and lucky lotto winner for one of the two Washington State licenses to own a marijuana shop in The City of Lakewood. I know this because I observed her pro-dope presentation at a Lakewood United meeting.

    Most readers would not know this about Ms. Macklin.

    In my opinion, it was inappropriate for Ms. Macklin to state her opinion without properly disclosing her personal and vested interest in the outcome of this debate.

    No matter who is right or wrong, Ms. Macklin plans to make a bundle selling dope in Lakewood if she can.

    Joseph Boyle

    • Is this the same Attorney Cynthia Macklin who “has represented thousands of clients faced with DUI or DWI,” per Macklin’s website?

      Interesting, if so, given “the fact that ‘Since pot legalization, driving under influence has steadily risen,’ according to Washington State officials, with “a January 16, 2018 Q13 article by Tatevik Aprikyan, quoting WSP Trooper Brook Bova: ‘statistics show you are twice as likely to kill yourself or someone else while under influence of marijuana.’

      • Yes, it is my understanding Ms. Macklin specializes her law practice defending impaired drivers. Her clients come from a segment of the driving public who are responsible for killing and destroying families.

        The more doped and boozed drivers we have on the road, the more business opportunities for defense lawyers.

        Weed + driving + car crashes + death of innocent citizens adds up to big bucks for lawyers.

        Recently a long time defense lawyer acquaintance and I had a conversation as I left a restaurant having enjoyed two cocktails and a wonderful lunch.

        He complained that because I had chosen to drink and not drive, but rather drink and Uber to and from my destination, I was cutting into his law practice.

        After local laws were relaxed on weed, I immediately began to observe people smoking weed and driving. Based on observed behavior a lot of people who smoke dope make dopy decisions and then complain when we call them dopes.

        Joseph Boyle

    • Thank you Joseph for exposing Ms Macklin, another attorney, that I wonder is talking to our Lakewood Mayor.

      I’ve never met a heroin or meth user who didn’t start out with pot. Believe me, I’ve met my share through my travels.

      The Lakewood Mayor should put this to a vote here in this city. We border Federal land, meaning most of our troops don’t smoke it and when one does, could get caught and diminish his goals for a time. I know many soldiers and civilians who say not only no but Hell No!

      They are building a place at Steilacoom Park for concerts. If I ever see a person light up a marijuana joint, and need an attorney for what I did to them, I’ll make sure I don’t call Ms Macklin.

      • If I ever see you do something to someone for smoking a joint in public, you’ll have way bigger problems, son. You don’t own that park and you’re not going to keep your ‘old ways’ around with violence.
        I guess when you don’t have a logical footing to stand on in the first place and are relying on the classic dinosaur argument of ‘gateway drugs’ then I guess you don’t have any more viable options, though.

        • Hey Stoner Steve: It’s against the law to smoke pot in a public park but I guess that’s just another law you can ignore just like you’ve been doing for years while pot was illegal in Washington. That’s the way it’s been with the pro-pot crowd. Chip away at sensible laws until there are no restrictions on their favorite addiction.

      • So Jerry you advocate violence for ticketable offenses? You’re one of those road rage lunatics aren’t you?

        • Yes it’s John no Jerry…..please put the joint down. Did I advocate violence Stoner? No…..just that what you seem OK with, again violating the law for your convenience, is still against the law. Sounds from all your driving around to try out neat pot stuff elsewhere implies that you may be driving under the influence or with levels of THC in your blood which is also against the law. But that doesn’t seem to matter to stoners who are the ultimate decision makers on what’s law when it comes to their favorite addiction.

        • Better than John’s favorite ‘legal’ addictions like drinking some night train and stumbling down to the massage parlor. He’s ascended last us cannabis plebs.

  8. I thought the readers of this series of comments might find this article from the New York Times, no less, quite interesting:

    Actually, Prohibition Was a Success

    By MARK H. MOORE

    The New York Times Archives

    History has valuable lessons to teach policy makers but it reveals its lessons only grudgingly.

    Close analyses of the facts and their relevance is required lest policy makers fall victim to the persuasive power of false analogies and are misled into imprudent judgments. Just such a danger is posed by those who casually invoke the ”lessons of Prohibition” to argue for the legalization of drugs.

    What everyone ”knows” about Prohibition is that it was a failure. It did not eliminate drinking; it did create a black market. That in turn spawned criminal syndicates and random violence. Corruption and widespread disrespect for law were incubated and, most tellingly, Prohibition was repealed only 14 years after it was enshrined in the Constitution.

    The lesson drawn by commentators is that it is fruitless to allow moralists to use criminal law to control intoxicating substances. Many now say it is equally unwise to rely on the law to solve the nation’s drug problem.

    But the conventional view of Prohibition is not supported by the facts.

    First, the regime created in 1919 by the 18th Amendment and the Volstead Act, which charged the Treasury Department with enforcement of the new restrictions, was far from all-embracing. The amendment prohibited the commercial manufacture and distribution of alcoholic beverages; it did not prohibit use, nor production for one’s own consumption. Moreover, the provisions did not take effect until a year after passage -plenty of time for people to stockpile supplies.

    Second, alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition. Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.

    Continue reading the main story
    Arrests for public drunkennness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 percent to 50 percent.

    Third, violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition. Homicide rates rose dramatically from 1900 to 1910 but remained roughly constant during Prohibition’s 14 year rule. Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after.

    Fourth, following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased. Today, alcohol is estimated to be the cause of more than 23,000 motor vehicle deaths and is implicated in more than half of the nation’s 20,000 homicides. In contrast, drugs have not yet been persuasively linked to highway fatalities and are believed to account for 10 percent to 20 percent of homicides.

    Prohibition did not end alcohol use. What is remarkable, however, is that a relatively narrow political movement, relying on a relatively weak set of statutes, succeeded in reducing, by one-third, the consumption of a drug that had wide historical and popular sanction.

    This is not to say that society was wrong to repeal Prohibition. A democratic society may decide that recreational drinking is worth the price in traffic fatalities and other consequences. But the common claim that laws backed by morally motivated political movements cannot reduce drug use is wrong.

    Not only are the facts of Prohibition misunderstood, but the lessons are misapplied to the current situation.

    The U.S. is in the early to middle stages of a potentially widespread cocaine epidemic. If the line is held now, we can prevent new users and increasing casualties. So this is exactly not the time to be considering a liberalization of our laws on cocaine. We need a firm stand by society against cocaine use to extend and reinforce the messages that are being learned through painful personal experience and testimony.

    The real lesson of Prohibition is that the society can, indeed, make a dent in the consumption of drugs through laws. There is a price to be paid for such restrictions, of course. But for drugs such as heroin and cocaine, which are dangerous but currently largely unpopular, that price is small relative to the benefits.

    Mark H. Moore is professor of criminal justice at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

    • An outstanding retribution of those who decry “holier than thou, moralistic and paternalistic judgement of everyone’s behavior” should there be those with the audacity to actually do their homework; the temerity to point out the fallacy of the party line; the termitary to suggest the Kool-Aid has been swallowed; the impertinence to observe that the emperor has no clothes.

      • Corrected version:

        An outstanding retribution of those who decry “holier than thou, moralistic and paternalistic judgement of everyone’s behavior” should there be those with the audacity to actually do their homework; the temerity to point out the fallacy of the party line; the impudence to suggest the Kool-Aid has been swallowed; the impertinence to observe that the emperor has no clothes.

  9. The bottom line is that marijuana consumption is now legal in this state, and many others, with more states legalizing it’s use all the time. People smoke marijuana. Since it is now legal to purchase, and consume marijuana, then Lakewood would be throwing away quite a lot of money if the city refuses to allow any stores into the area. It is simply ignorant to say that it will have any other effect than to cost the city valued tax revenues if marijuana shops continue to be banned. When times change, you either change with them, or you get left behind. In this case, getting left behind will cost the city, and residents, millions upon millions of dollars, and will do absolutely nothing else, other than to allow those against the idea to strut around claiming that they have somehow helped the city avoid some trumped up problem. Let’s stop throwing away money and get this local revenue stream flowing into Lakewood, instead of to other cities.

    • Please cite how much money Lakewood would lose: it was stated during the Lakewood United debate as $195,000, which is nothing to a city budget of over 80,000,000 annually. Basing law on the extent to which it fills government coffers is neither moral or ethical.

  10. I see what Mr. Read is saying.

    Then this from the East that supports Mr. Read’s idea that Lakeweed should do anything required to capture the money.

    “A way to deal with marijuana sales in a community-building way. Lakeweed can create a fund for all the tax revenues from the sale of weed. The fund would be earmarked for road improvement projects. To make the legislation “.

    Joseph Boyle