Legalization of marijuana isn't something I write a lot about, but I do generally favor it. I don't actually think it's good for people or anything, and I don't buy into the idea that it's a miracle cure for everything from toe jam to Ebola, but I don't want people telling me what I can and can't do so long as I'm not hurting anyone else.
Montana legalized it not all that long ago, but now a bill is being decried for how it seeks to provide some surveillance over marijuana users. The thing is, that bill feels really, really familiar, though I doubt many decrying it recognize it.
Let's start with a look at just what the bill would require:
Five years ago, 57% of Montana voters spoke loud and clear when they legalized cannabis for adults 21 and older. Shockingly, state Sen. Greg Hertz has proposed legislation — SB 255 — that would dramatically erode Montana’s voter-enacted cannabis legalization initiative, I-190, and recriminalize most cannabis consumers.
Under I-190, the state is not authorized to require or record personal information beyond verifying a consumer’s age. However, SB 225 would force adults over the age of 21 to pay a $200 annual registration fee to obtain a state-issued card from the Department of Revenue in order to legally purchase, possess, and consume cannabis. Further, only Montana residents could register.
This outrageous bill also mandates that adult-use consumers must carry this identification card “in their immediate possession at all times,” putting anyone in possession of cannabis without their card at risk of penalties, even if they are otherwise compliant with the law. Consequently, this proposal would re-criminalize most cannabis consumers who would not pay $200 to get on a government list of cannabis consumers and have their purchases tracked.
...
The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unwarranted government surveillance. This registration and tracking sets a dangerous precedent for government overreach and the nanny state.
Cool.
Now do guns.
Yeah, that's right. This isn't very different from the kind of requirements we see get dropped on gun owners all the time. The age restrictions, the fee for a particular license that has to be updated regularly at significant expense, requirements to carry said card everywhere you go if you have the restricted item on your person, the works.
All of that exists elsewhere with guns.
But for many, now that it's legalized marijuana that's getting that treatment, it's a problem.
Let's not forget that pot isn't explicitly protected in the United States Constitution. There is no amendment, for example, preserving the right to keep and bear drugs.
There is for guns, though, and yet here we are.
Where were the authors and their love for the Fourth Amendment when gun owners were first required to fill out paperwork just to buy a gun? Where is there concern over the ATF's desire to digitize mountains of records sent to them by defunct gun dealers, thus creating a de facto gun registry despite federal law prohibiting just that?
Did they express their concerns? Did others who oppose this measure in Montana?
Some might have, but many others didn't.
Kind of telling, if you ask me.