Too many marijuana shops in communities of color

The State of Connecticut passed a 303-page bill over the summer to, in part, legalize recreational marijuana for ages 21-25. The marijuana industry, also known as the New Big Tobacco (NBT), and the Connecticut taxing authorities, deftly hustled this legislation through the General Assembly and onto the governor’s desk, all the while strategically avoiding the science, data and facts that recreational marijuana is harmful to people 25 and under.

The adolescent brain does not stop fully developing until age 25. And our nation’s pediatricians, the doctors for our children and adolescents, have clearly stated that marijuana “use in pediatric populations remains an ongoing concern, and marijuana use by adolescents has known medical, psychological, and cognitive side effects. Marijuana alters brain development, with detrimental effects on brain structure and function, in ways that are incompletely understood. Furthermore, marijuana smoke contains tar and other harmful chemicals, so it cannot be recommended by physicians.” (”The Impact of Marijuana Policies on Youth: Clinical Research, and Legal Update,” pediatrics.aappublications.org, March 2015.

The NBT and the taxing authorities pushed this legislation through on sentencing and criminal justice reform, which are meritorious, but the detrimental health effects on our young were intentionally avoided. You will not find a statement by the Connecticut Department of Health stating that recreational marijuana use by children and adolescents through age 25 is beneficial to their health, because it is not. Instead, CDH avoided serving the health interests of our vulnerable children and adolescents.

The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection has been similarly AWOL on protecting young potential consumers ages 21-25. As I once wrote, “prison and sentencing reform and recreational marijuana are two separate issues with the former able to be addressed without” getting our children and grandchildren to smoke and consume high potency marijuana. The NBT and the Connecticut state taxing authorities pushed to get as many potential legal users as possible to maximize their profits and taxes collected.

Gov. Ned Lamont and Lt. Gov. Susan Bysiewicz have been AWOL on protecting our children and adolescents, which is surprising considering they probably don’t want their children and grandchildren smoking recreational marijuana any more than you do.

It gets worse. This 303-page bill seeks to place half of the recreational marijuana stores in disproportionately impacted areas where the bulk of arrests and convictions occurred in the last 40 years. These neighborhoods represent about 20 percent of our state’s population. These are primarily where communities of color live. That leaves the other half of the marijuana stores to service the other 80 percent of the population of the state. This is a ratio of about four times more recreational marijuana stores per capita for communities of color than the rest of the state. We live among opiate addiction and a mental health crisis. One cannot express surprise 15 years hence when the rate of recreational marijuana use and brain damage, anxiety, paranoia and suicide ideation is higher in Connecticut communities of color than the rest of the state, when four times as many marijuana stores are set up in communities of color, per capita. The NBT and the Connecticut taxing authorities have targeted just these communities with the 303-page bill. Already towns and neighborhoods across Connecticut are passing legislation to prevent recreational marijuana stores in their towns and neighborhoods. Who shall wave these marijuana stores into their own communities and sprinkle them around our children?

The Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection is supposed to protect consumers and not producers. It behooves the DCP to protect our children and adolescents from this known harm. And what is the CDH worth if they stand idly by with their hands in their pockets as the NBT and the state taxing authorities target our youth ages 21-25 with recreational marijuana?

The questions remain:

A) Will DCP and CDH work to repeal the legalization of recreational marijuana for those between 21-25?

B) Will DCP and CDH hold hearings and take testimony and written submissions as to the harm recreational marijuana poses to people 25 and under?

C) Will DCP and CDH prevent the sale of strains with names such as “Girl Scout Cookie” that may encourage consumption by minors?

D) What sort of containers would edibles such as brownies and gummies be sold in to prevent ingestion by infants, children and adolescents?

E) When will the DCP militate to protect the consumer, the DCP’s original mission, and not the NBT, producers and vendors of recreational marijuana?

We do not want our children or grandchildren smoking marijuana. It behooves the DCP, the CDH, Lamont and Bysiewicz to examine the health effects of recreational marijuana on youths aged 21-25 and the disproportionate impact on drug use, addiction and substance abuse by locating half of the marijuana stores in communities of color before issuing these recreational licenses.