TWF 313: LI Communities To Opt-Out Of Cannabis Sales, But Strangely Refuse To Close Bars

 Greetings, friends; and, no, this is not an April Fools article, despite the headline.

You see, New York finally voted on a substantial bill to end Cannabis prohibitions, albeit with some stupidly long delays in actually allowing sales, which was signed by Governor Cuomo.  This isn't exactly a new issue, and to be absolutely clear, prohibition of a drug known to be less harmful than alcohol is outright stupid.  That's not me saying, "It's a great idea to smoke an ounce of weed right now!" by the way, it's just a harm-for-harm comparison that's been made a bajillion times.

However, this new law does allow local municipalities to "Opt-Out" of recreational sale in their jurisdiction.  This fact, combined with numerous bad-faith arguments against legalization, has me positively disgusted.

Today, rather than just look at a Freeport-specific thing, I'm expanding my gaze to all of Nassau County, and putting the attention on politicians of every level of our government.  In particular, I'm going to address one argument that I keep seeing politicians make that really rubs me the wrong way.

The Bad-Faith Argument Of "Impaired Driving."

First, foremost, and before you say anything else - Drinking alcohol and using cannabis are both intoxicating experiences, and you should never drive under the influence.  That said, everyone from my "Democratic" State Senator Anna Kaplan to numerous Long Island mayors (Including Freeport's, I must note) have cited road safety issues as a determining factor for their decision-making.  This opt-out movement is also prevalent in "Democratic" Nassau County Executive Laura Curran and many leaders at the Legislator and Town level, as well.

And, in fairness, let's not kid ourselves, cannabis poses one unique safety risk that other intoxicants do not:  There is no reliable short-term test for cannabis intoxication, versus breathalyzers for alcohol.

With all of that said, however, I believe this to be a bad-faith argument.  I believe it is saying, "Well, there is no clear-cut technology to test for this yet, so we can't legalize it yet!" in such a way that it creates a permanent excuse justifying why you can't legalize it.  "Oh, if only there were a reliable test!"  "Oh, if only we could know for certain it wouldn't lead to any increase whatsoever of intoxicated driving!  Alas!"

Why do I think this is a bad-faith argument, you ask, perhaps concerned about it, yourself?  Because the trade-off to a potential but un-proven danger happens to be the continued incarceration of people, mostly People Of Color.  It's saying that the very real, very proven harms of the drug war are better than the potential that a problem that might exist could be a little worse, but also might very well not be any worse.

If concerns about impaired driving is your only justification for entire "no" vote, then you've chosen to support a prison-industrial complex over supporting increased funding for - I dunno - anti-drug and anti-DUI programs.

And, to me, that's an unacceptable choice.

The Real World Knocks.

Blunt honesty, pun intended:  If you're so concerned about intoxicated driving (and, let's be real, car accidents seem to be a weekly occurrence at best, these days...):  SHUT DOWN THE NATUICAL MILE YESTERDAY!!  THERE ARE INTOXICATED DRIVERS LEAVING EVERY BAR IN TOWN!  PANIC!  PANIC IN THE STREETS!!  WAIT - THAT LEADS TO MORE ACCIDENTS!  PANIC AT HOME!!  AGAGHAHHAH!!!

...Okay, it's April Fools Day, but, seriously, now:  We've been through this song and dance, before.  It was called the Prohibition Era, and it's when the U.S. Constitution was amended to prohibit the sale of alcohol.  Chaos erupted.  People who were skilled enough built stills in their houses (just like cannabis partakers are legally going to be allowed to grow their own plants), only, people who weren't skilled enough did, too, leading to numerous deaths by accidental poisoning.  Instead of the government regulating sales, crime families did - look up Al Capone and the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, sometime.  People who need an escape turn to more dangerous products, like illicit moonshine, when they'd much rather just have something safer - something like cannabis.  Freeport in particular ought to know about this:  We have a history with Rum-Runners.  We sided with the Rum-Runners.  "Free" is in our town's name.  Ultimately, the Constitution was re-amended to repeal Prohibition.

And the reality is that nobody is talking about closing the Nautical Mile down, or making Nassau into a Dry County, or anything like that.  Alcohol sales aren't going anywhere, nor should they.  But since we, A, don't prohibit alcohol sales and, B, already have no way of knowing how many people are driving intoxicated on cannabis while it's illegal versus any other intoxicant, I'm going to call out people's bad-faith arguments where I see them.  Sorry, but at best you simply have not thought through this issue in any way, shape, or form.

Obviously, I urge you all to make your feelings clear in a polite and professional manner to your local electeds.  Tell them that you want them to vote a certain way; make clear that you will not vote for them if they do not.  That's just how democracy works, and in the worst case scenario for a situation like this, well, there's a regularly-scheduled election coming right up at a predictable date, and you can vote for someone you like in a primary as well as in a general election.  You can even run for office, yourself.

I, for one, know I've told Senator Kaplan how I feel, and I plan to make my plea to others who will listen, as well.

I hope you will do the same for your elected officials, on all levels.

Jesse Pohlman is an author who grew up in Freeport and is now hailing from Mineola, Long Island, New York.  He mostly writes Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels, which you can check out at his website!