Democrats, Republicans and “Greens” in Lansing
By Tim Beck: Chairman of the Safer Michigan Coalition
As an old timer on the Michigan cannabis reform scene, I retired for the most part from front line activism when my goal of marijuana legalization was attained in 2018 after 14 years of struggle. However, I could not resist taking an active look as to what’s up with the recent legislative effort
( HB 5300, 5301 and 5302 ) to, among other things, get rid of medical marijuana caregivers
in Michigan as we have known them since 2008. The measure is being promoted by the Michigan Cannabis Manufacturers Association (MCMA). So in that spirit, I attended the biennial “Michigan Republican Leadership Conference” on Mackinaw Island in late September, to gauge the sentiments of top GOP elected officials on this situation.
The event usually attracts around 1,500 participants who are serious Republican leaders and activists. I have been to this gathering many times over the years and the trip was a combination of business and pleasure. It meant great food, lots of free beverages-- and a paradise for political junkies. One can talk politics 24/7 on the Island if you have the energy.
When I left for the place, I had no preconceptions and was open minded to anything GOP players had to say. I was not attending as an MM Report columnist, or looking to preach some special cannabis Gospel. The idea was to have honest,informal dialogue and do more listening than talking.
It was all well worth the time.
To this end, I was able to have serious conversations with eight Republican legislators, a couple of whom were way up in the hierarchy. I would love to name names but that would
be unethical, as I did not identify myself as a journalist when we spoke. Secondly, I moderate a statewide cannabis news listserv where all elements of the community are welcome. In that respect,there are a few MCMA members in the group, so I do not want to assist them in their endeavors.
The most startling thing that emerged from this informal survey, is there is no GOP unanimity
on the caregiver bills at this time. In fact, a
couple legislators who identified as heavy Trump supporters were outright hostile to the move. Others had mixed feelings and a couple more, I suspect, will vote “yes” if the measure makes it to the House floor for a vote.
“Yeah, I know all about it. These people are trying to get rid of the little guy. I’m a little guy too. I’m an entrepreneur” said one representative who is a strong Trump backer. “This is going to get some push back from me. It’s just a big government money grab.”
Another state senator made it very clear she hated weed and wished it had not become legal. She then went on to express her resignation to reality, saying “the voters have spoken”. Even though she would like to get more weed off the street(like the MCMA proposal would theoretically do) she was uncomfortable with a government crackdown on small business operators.
A Trump state representative, who only took off his MAGA cap at mealtimes and had a serious dislike for Democrats said “I don’t like thisbit.” He went on to warn however,”if these people have enough money they can just buy off all the Democrats.”
Another state representative who was not deeply focused on Trump, expressed serious doubt the bills will ever get the 3/4 super majority vote
it needs to become law “unless caregivers get behind it” Otherwise,”what’s the use of spending time on something that’s going nowhere.”
Cutting to the chase, there was one theme that resonated with every elected official I spoke with on Mackinac.That is, the 3/4 super majority vote to enact the measure is an insurmountable hill to climb, unless Democrats can be won over and caregiver interests are at the table.
Sometime after I got back from Mackinaw, I ran into a Democrat State Senator at a social event. I told him a bit about my Macinaw experience. Among other things, I asked him if legislative Democrats could so easily be bought off by bigmoney on this one. His answer was erudite and brutal in its simplicity.
He said “Tim, there are three parties in the Legislature: Democrats, Republicans and Greens”.
He was not talking about the Green Party when he used the word “Greens”.
The man went on to explain there are legislators in both parties who will simply take money and vote the way the donor wants. This is especially true if the lawmaker has no strong feelings about the issue, and/or their constituents will not notice or care about his or her vote. He went on to warn all concerned not to go to sleep thinking a 3/4 super majority is impossible to attain. Certain legislators need to be closely watched and our message must resonate into the general mix.
While I picked up a few GOP business cards on Mackinac, I did not call these legislators back looking for permission to quote them by name. If I do call them, it will be for something serious.
However, I decided to call the one Democrat, when I began writing this column to get permission to quote him by name. His incisive vignette about “Democrats, Republicans and Greens” struck me as a timeless masterpiece in the realpolitik world.
Alas, this gentleman was way too modest and had no interest in having his brilliant quote attributed to him in MM Report, and he quickly terminated the phone call.
In summary, the main problem I have with these bills is commonly referred to as “moral hazard”.
This term was bandied about during the banking crisis in the United States in 2008 and 2009. Back then, the US Government, in order to prevent an economic meltdown, bailed out the big banks who caused the crisis in the first place by their dangerous and irresponsible speculation. Some bailout opponents believed these institutions and their leaders should take the hit for their reckless and immoral behaviour-- hence the more opaque term “moral hazard” was coined.
As far as MCMA’s clients are concerned, they knew how the law was written way before they opened their doors in Michigan. Now that they are not making the kind of money they think they are entitled to, they want the government to step in to eliminate their competition.
I do not know about any of you, but it seems these companies need to buck up and accept the consequences for the moral hazard of their choices.
