Trending
Pennsylvania, once again, is considering whether the recreational use of marijuana should be legalized.
One of the newest wrinkles to surface in the debate is whether the state should establish state-owned and -run stores to sell the product, akin to our state's system of liquor stores.
As we have editorialized in the past, while we have reservations about the perennial push to legalize recreational marijuana, we remain open-minded about the underlying issue and how it ultimately should be resolved.
Our position on the way our state has unfortunately pursued this conversation, however, remains firm: Pennsylvania should decide about marijuana based on the advantages and disadvantages of that underlying issue. The state should not allow itself to be rushed into legalization as a proverbial "get-rich-quick" scheme to solve Pennsylvania's budgetary woes.
We believe the debate and nuances of whether state-operated stores should distribute marijuana, or how privately-owned stores could be licensed to sell the drug only further illustrates this.
We understand the aversion to creating a market controlled by the state rather than private enterprise. We understand many will not want marijuana sold on every corner. We understand concerns that a rigid licensing system to limit its availability and presence will lead to suspicions about well-connected entrepreneurs squeezing out would-be competitors -- the sort of cronyism that only breeds cynicism and distrust of government.
It's a tough question, on a topic that comes with many tough questions -- questions that should be addressed and debated without an unnecessary deadline tied to a state budget proposal that, as we've also editorialized before, simply spends too much and with unnecessary pressures to reach a pro-legalization conclusion because some within our government need the revenue to explain how that can simply spend too much.
We once again urge the state instead to have debate without any deadlines, in which our final decision about recreational marijuana is determined by the merits and deficiencies of changing our state's laws. We believe our lawmakers' constituents, regardless of which position they take, deserve that kind of discussion.