After work today, I was a guest speaker at one of the local Rotary Clubs in Missoula. The members were gracious and generally agreed with my statements that the best way forward with cannabis policy is a regulated market for adults. I was prepared for a vigorous debate but didn’t get it. Everyone was nodding. The more people I talk to, my belief in public support for regulated marijuana gets stronger and stronger.

Afterwards, I headed to the Badlander for a candidate forum put on by Forward Montana. It was called “candidating“, and was modelled on speed dating, in which you just have a few minutes with your partner, and then everyone switches. Cool idea, and a great way to meet a bunch of candidates and ask the questions you need answered. What follows is my brief recollections of those conversations.

Tyler Gernant, candidate for the U.S. House: He agreed that marijuana has no business being a schedule I drug federally, and that a system of responsible regulation is the wisest policy.  Results: Thumbs Up.

Tom Facey, candidate for Senate District 48:  I never really got out of him his position on the prospect of tax & regulate, as he kept coming back to medical marijuana.  Results: Inconclusive.

Ellie Hill, candidate for House District 94: She supports our efforts. Results: Thumbs Up.

Bryce Bennet, candidate for House District 92: He supports our efforts. Results: Thumbs Up.

Brad Giffin, candidate for Missoula County Sheriff: Right out of the gate, he said he thought it was inevitable that marijuana would become legal in the not-too-distant future, and he was fine with that.  He reminded me of William Macy.  Regarding Initiative #2, he would not change policy; i.e., his deputies would continue citing people for marijuana when it was encountered. He was concerned about the lack of an empirical test for impaired driving.  Results: Inconclusive.

Bob Parcell, candidate for Missoula County Sheriff. Now this guy seems like a SHERIFF. A smokejumper and 30-year Marine reservist with experience in the battle of Fallujah, he’s a no-nonsense military tough guy. I sat with him for 10 minutes or so, and he’s thoughtful and reasonable and willing to hear facts that counter his preconceived notions, such as marijuana causing cancer (which it does not). I talked to him about LEAP, and he was nodding in understanding that veteran narcotics cops may well end up believing that the Drug War was a tremendous waste of time and money and lives.  He said repeatedly that alcohol is about the worst thing out there.  (UPDATE: When I replied that well, maybe we should prohibit alcohol?” he said “no way, we know how that turned out”. ) He also said that no new policy would be issued by him related to Initiative #2, but pointed out that a guy smoking cannabis in his house is already the lowest possible priority. When I asked him how he would vote if an initiative that provided for responsible regulation of marijuana for adults was on the ballot, he paused, and said he’d abstain from voting, because he has to answer the question from “the other side” too. (I read that as cautiously supportive.)  He also was concerned about the lack of an empirical test for impaired driving. He said repeatedly that as a “lawman”, he’d enforce the law, as long as he didn’t believe it was unconstitutional or immoral. Results: Inconclusive.

On balance, because I chair the Initiative #2 committee, I think Brad Giffin might be easier to work with, but I didn’t spend too much time with him.

In a few weeks, we’ll have a chance to vote on the folks who might be headed to Helena to create the law of the land. The above is a subset of what you’ll find in our upcoming voters guide.

Not sure whether you’re registered to vote, or need to figure out who you’ll be voting for? The state provides the tool you need here.

If you can get to candidate forums and ask questions about where the hopefuls stand on regulating marijuana, please contact us with your findings!

-JM