Marijuana policy reform, tobacco harm reduction and racial justice are all at the center of the fight for (or against) three Minnesota bills: HF 904, SB 1271, and HF 600.
As former director for the Drug Policy Alliance in Colorado and years as a police accountability advocate, I assure you the effort to legalize marijuana while also prohibiting flavored tobacco is at odds with solution-based logic.
Racial justice
Gov. Tim Walz has expressed that he favors ending the marijuana prohibition, and last month he called on lawmakers to pursue the legalization as a means to boost the economy and “promote racial justice.”
So, although the governor cites a boost to the economy and racial justice, he and many others miss the overall goal of legalization — to address marijuana policy from a criminal justice and public health perspective, as well as the racial justice impact. However, by doing so, he presents another question: How can you end the prohibition on marijuana to promote racial justice yet look to repeat the mistake with a ban on menthol cigarettes?
According to the Minnesota House, Black and white Minnesotans consume cannabis at similar rates, yet Blacks make up 30% of cannabis arrests while representing 5% of the population. This reveals Blacks are targeted for their marijuana use, and whites use the drug with little to no concern of the police.
Similarly, studies show that due to either higher taxes or a possible statewide ban, the resulting illegal sales of menthols are more likely to be concentrated in communities of color. This results in public safety issues, greater police presence, citations, fines, and arrests for selling a product that for 50 years has been legal. There are unintended consequences to being Black and in possession of tobacco or selling loosies, and we do not need another George Floyd nor Eric Garner.
Marijuana policy reform
As mentioned above, legalizing marijuana simply allows the Legislature to bring the product above ground, add much-needed regulations, and thus further tighten the safeguards and roadblocks around youth access.
[image_caption]Art Way[/image_caption]
Prohibition is a close-your-eyes and bury-your-head-in-the-sand approach to drug policy. Those who support blanket prohibitions of popular substances are wishing on a star that somehow the substance will magically disappear. Did alcohol and marijuana magically disappear during their prohibitions? The advocates of HF 600 know this, yet the advocates of the flavored tobacco bans are choosing to ignore this clear causality. I agree with legislators who say that support for both bills is “incredibly inconsistent.”
Tobacco harm reduction
The cannabis bill includes many safeguards against underage use. Minnesota currently has a 21+ mandate for tobacco sales, and many jurisdictions only allow certain products to be sold in adult establishments. These safeguards are solutions to youth access that are driving down access to tobacco products.
Before passing a blanket ban, legislators in Minnesota should bolster its state laws and allow these tighter regulations to take root. Besides, federal regulations such as the PACT Act prohibit online sales of vape products from coinciding with the ban on online cigarette sales. Decision-makers are finally placing tight regulations on an industry that previously took full advantage of a lax regulatory environment. The marijuana industry has never received a lax climate and was tightly regulated from its inception.
A compromise is prudent, one that relies on further advertising and online restrictions, additional restrictions on statewide adult-use establishments, and most important, targeted behavioral health and prevention dollars to address the issue head-on. I agree with proponents about the public health impact of tobacco but disagree on how to manage it.
I urge the Minnesota Legislature to do the hard work of developing a nuanced policy that addresses each of these areas, from a public health and public safety standpoint, rather than a blanket prohibition which leads to more racial injustice issues while also increasing the state’s current illicit market ranking.
Art Way is a national drug policy advocate and former director of the Colorado Drug Policy Alliance.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)
Some fair points. Is there really going to be a black market for menthol cigarettes?
Probably. Bootlegging cigarettes just isn’t that hard. We funded college keg parties in Maryland by selling cigarettes we bootlegged from Virginia and sold in the college coffee shop.
Huh. Good to know. Thanks.
So yeah, it does seem kind of ridiculous to legalize weed and ban Newports.
Menthol in cigarettes is a health concern, not a “drug” concern. Menthol attacks sensitive membranes. As a young smoker many years ago, I tried mentholating my own by vaporizing a few crystals in a canister partially filled with tobacco. It worked very well, but I overdid it and soon began bleeding onto the pillows at night.
Isn’t the combination of smoke and menthol considered to have bad effects on respiratory tissues?
A well reasoned case. Thank you.
A couple perspectives. Are blacks arrested more for pot use or distribution? Cigarette usage kills ~ 480K people a year, pot “0”, the incarceration of folk caught in possession is what creates the greatest havoc destruction. A pack a day cigarette habit will cost ~ $3650+ a year, quite a financial burden for folks that are already financially handicapped. Better to get them to quit smoking, Smokers tend to die ~ 10 years earlier than non-smokers. However, to the point, we agree, we should not be trading 1 household wrecker set of decisions for another.
With pot, its the fact that its illegal that does the wrecking. The purpose of legalization is (among other things) harm reduction.
Does Menthol tobacco still contain nicotine?