New York Has a New Governor. Will the State’s Drug Policy Change Too?
New York’s new governor, Kathy Hochul, who succeeded Andrew Cuomo at the end of August, is a western New Yorker with centrist Democratic roots. She’s also well acquainted with the state’s drug policy, having been dispatched by the former governor on a “listening tour” to better understand the opioid epidemic and the challenges of addiction. In the lead up her swearing-in, Hochul promised to pay more attention to the epidemic and the state’s surge in overdose deaths than Cuomo did during his decade in Albany.
Hochul comes to office with a unique advantage: a funding windfall from opioid litigation settlements—$1.1 billion alone from drug distributors—and such other resources as the expected doubling of the federal block grant to around $200 million. Exactly how should that money be allocated?
The priority must be an all-out effort to confront the opioid epidemic by significantly expanding the full range of treatment options, with a particular focus on long-term residential programs. This initiative should also include harm-reduction strategies, medication-assisted treatment, and addiction programs in prisons and jails where overdoses are soaring and treatment options are sorely lacking. Concerning marijuana, Hochul should look at revising some provisions of the state’s legalization law, adding caps and labeling requirements for the psychoactive component THC, and extending the rushed, year-end deadline for municipalities to opt out of allowing cannabis businesses.
Marijuana Legalization Is Very Popular—Until It Isn’t
Cannabis-reform advocates routinely point to polls showing broad popular support for marijuana legalization—and they’re right, as a majority of Americans do want legal access to the drug. This support has helped propel the legalization of both medical and recreational marijuana. Yet, a funny thing often ends up happening: Given a chance to opt-out of allowing cannabis businesses to operate locally under legalization laws, municipal officials subsequently say “no.”
The pattern has become common for a majority of localities, even in such pro-pot states as California and Oregon. Now, some 70 percent of towns in newly legal New Jersey have rejected an array of cannabis businesses including shops, cultivation facilities, and distribution warehouses.
Towns that say no can later reverse that decision. But it’s never an easy decision, as opting out means forfeiting potential tax revenues from cannabis sales. These communities are also wary of the realities of a cannabis market, with many officials saying such businesses will adversely affect young people. In Bergen County, for example, 10 contiguous towns agreed to ban cannabis stores, in part because they would be located near residential neighborhoods and public places frequented by children. Larger cities including Newark and Atlantic City will allow cannabis businesses, but other locations that voted overwhelmingly in favor of legalization have reversed course and are opting out.
The right strategy is to decriminalize low-level possession—no individual should be arrested for using marijuana—and impose heavy regulations to protect public health. But with legalization moving ahead rapidly in states, and Democrats in Congress urging an end to federal prohibition, politicians should be well aware of such intense misgivings on the local level. They must craft laws, rules, and guidelines that take into account the legitimate risks and dangers associated with marijuana legalization.