Area lawmakers not high on on Missouri's Amendment 3 as marijuana vote nears

Missourians who have not already voted no-excuse absentee for the Tuesday, Nov. 8, election will have the chance next week to decide whether to approve controversial Amendment 3, concerning recreational marijuana.

Three Republican lawmakers who represent Southeast Missouri in the state House told the Southeast Missourian they will vote "no" — Jamie Burger of Benton; Barry Hovis of Whitewater, a former police officer; and Rick Francis of Perryville.

History

Missouri has legalized the sale of medical marijuana since voters approved Amendment 2 in 2018. Since voter OK, registered patients and their caregivers may buy up to 4 ounces of marijuana from dispensaries every month with a 4% tax — with some monies going to a fund aimed at covering veterans' health care costs. Amendment 2 also allowed Missourians to cultivate personally as many as six marijuana plants by those registered patients.

Amendment 3

Next week's ballot issue would amend the state Constitution, in the words of the official ballot language, to remove state prohibitions on buying, possessing, consuming, using, delivering, manufacturing and selling marijuana for personal use be adults over the age of 21.

Other provisions

• Requires a registration card for personal cultivation with prescribed limits.
• Allows people with certain marijuana-related non-violent offenses to petition for release from jail or assignment to parole and probation.
• Allows for the expungement — meaning destroying or sealing — of criminal records for marijuana offenses.
• Imposes a 6% tax on retail price of marijuana.

Recreational marijuana is currently legal in 19 states, Washington, D.C., and Guam.

Lawmaker input

Jamie Burger

Burger: "I'm a solid 'no' on 3. The cost to expunge records from local municipal courts will be tremendous and will strain court personnel. The state also will have to hire a chief equity officer to help disadvantaged people get into the marijuana business. While the 6% tax on sales will help, if the amendment passes, it will add 39 pages to our already 217-page state constitution. It should never have gotten to an initiative; this should have been handled through the legislature where changes can be made through deliberation."

Barry Hovis

Hovis: "I am a 'no' on 3 because I believe the legalization of recreational marijuana will be detrimental to our state and its citizens, especially our children. I encourage everybody to read the amendment before voting. Putting any amendment in the state Constitution creates issues when corrections need to be made. Passage will restrict the legislature from making changes. To cite one example Amendment 3 would bring, consider the following: if a person wants to use marijuana in a day care or in a church or in any public place a particular community may classify as off-limits, the penalty is civil only, not criminal. The smaller the penalty, the less likely people are to obey."

Rick Francis

Francis: "Amendment 3 is bad for Missouri. One of the hidden charges the amendment would require is court costs for expunging records for certain marijuana violations.

"Some estimates for this expungement process show a total price tag of more than $14 million statewide. I would argue that since an expungement process depends on legislative authorization of funding, the process doesn't actually exist. Also, adding 38 pages of recreational marijuana language to our (Missouri) Constitution that could only be changed by another vote of the people is a bad idea."

Of note

Groups have lined up on either side, pro and con, of Amendment 3.

Two examples of opposing views include the Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, which said the initiative represents a threat to public safety. Conversely, Missouri's American Civil Liberties Union affiliate endorsed the amendment. In a 2020 report, the not-for-profit organization said Black people were 2.6 times more likely than whites to be arrested in the Show Me State for marijuana possession — even though ACLU claims usage rates are similar.

Financial impact

The official ballot language estimates Amendment 3 tax revenue to local governments will be nearly 400 times higher than the cost to implement the initiative.