Alan Zagier, the principal at Tightline Public Affairs, and communications director for Legal Missouri 2022, contacted the Political Eye regarding last week’s column and the ballot initiative Missourians will be voting on about recreational use of marijuana in this state.
Here are his concerns as received in an email, and the EYE’s response to his stated concerns.
Zagier felt it was in error to say, “signatures collected for a constitutional amendment as submitted by an organization called “legal Missouri.” The campaign’s actual name is Legal Missouri 2022.”
The EYE: Several news outlets have referred to by that name, including KCUR.org article published August 15, 2022.
Zagier writes it was incorrect to write, “After competing with two other ballot initiative signature collecting drives all summer.” The only other active “ballot initiative signature collecting drive” that was happening simultaneously to ours was the Better Elections campaign for ranked-choice voting. Entirely different, not “competing.”
The EYE: There was no attempt to be “disingenuous,” as stated by Zagier. If one, two or three entities are working toward a goal, one hopes to prevail. Thus, the use of the word competition.
Zagier questioned scrutiny of the signature count. “We actually submitted more than 400,000 voter signatures, of which approximately 215,000 were deemed valid.
The EYE: Here is a link in the web article to the SOS website which certifies the specific numbers that were deemed valid by the state.
Zagier wrote, “There aren’t any license caps in this amendment, nor under the medical cannabis law. Rather, there is a minimum number of licenses the state is required to issue – nothing prevents it from adding more, based on population growth/market/consumer demand, as DHSS has already done so.”
The EYE: The reference to license caps is in both legislative testimony linked in the story and in court filings, where the state has already declared that it will not be issuing more licenses. Rebecca Rivas of the Missouri Independent also wrote about this issue back in March.
Zagier wrote there is no “predetermined limit of marijuana licenses,” and the 192-figure cited refers to the initial dispensary count, which now exceeds 200. If you include cultivation and manufacturing licensees, as well as certified transportation and testing facilities, the number of state-approved Missouri marijuana businesses approaches 400. Compare that number to neighboring Illinois, which has double the population and less than half the number of retail outlets, or Florida, where patient access is truly limited by actual monopolies.
The EYE: Again, this reference was in legislative testimony, and can be found at the aforementioned links.
Zagier states, the EYE errored in stating that Amendment 3 expungements are only automatic for certain misdemeanor possessions – not for A, B, C, and D felonies…He said all non-violent marijuana offenses will be automatically expunged. Misdemeanors are first, followed by E, D, and C felonies involving up to three pounds next, and all the others are expunged upon completion of the sentence. Plenty of A and B marijuana felons will have their offenses expunged within months of Amendment 3 approval because their sentences are completed.”
The EYE: Per state charging data available on MSHP’s website, the “non-violent marijuana offenses” are a small amount of the offenses charged, and more serious crimes (A, B, C felonies) typically have multiple charges attached to them, so this really doesn’t help anyone. The petition states that you must complete your sentence and/or probation or parole before being eligible for an expungement. Folks currently incarcerated will not be automatically released for marijuana-related crimes. And judges still have the discretion to grant expungements for these offenses so it’s not really automatic when there is still a gatekeeper with final authority.
Zagier took issue with the statement, “Public consumption of cannabis is still barred under Amendment 3.” False. The proposed amendment DOES add employment protections.
The EYE: The bill literally adds several iterations of public consumption crimes into the state constitution; Page 21, Paragraph 3 lists all the ways cities and counties can continue to criminalize marijuana within their respective jurisdictions (including public consumption); also, worth noting that this bill also loops edibles into the same category as smoking under “consumption.”
Lastly, Zagier thinks it is incorrect to state “Still no employment protections for persons who medically or recreationally use cannabis outside of work and on their own time.” He said the proposed amendment does add employment protections.
The EYE: Would like to know where this statement can be verified. There are no additions beyond certain protections in the MMJ petition from 2018.
