By Steve Brawner, © 2022 by Steve Brawner Communications, Inc.

I plan to vote no on all four proposed constitutional amendments on the Arkansas ballot because one is terrible, and the costs and risks outweigh the benefits for the other three.

The terrible one is Issue 4, which would legalize recreational marijuana in Arkansas by creating a constitutionally closed market dominated by a privileged few. 

If it passes, licenses would be granted to the eight cultivators who already have medical marijuana licenses. (Guess who funded this campaign?) Another 12 much smaller growers could get licenses, but they really wouldn’t be competing against the big eight. Individuals couldn’t grow their own marijuana. Under the amendment, 120 dispensaries would be licensed, including those with current medical marijuana licenses. 

The amendment caps taxes on recreational marijuana at the sales tax rate plus another 10%, which is less than it’s taxed in other states. Any tax increase would require another constitutional amendment. Taxes on medical marijuana would be eliminated. Local governments could not tax the farms or the stores, or zone them.

Hmm. Could I get something into the Arkansas Constitution guaranteeing a closed market for current syndicated columnists? Donate to my campaign!

David Couch, who wrote the state’s medical marijuana law, is opposed to this measure. He said because of the way it’s written, it could put out of business the state’s hemp producers as well as all the stores selling CBD products derived from the marijuana plant. 

Summing it up, he said, “They don’t want to make a lot of money. They want to make all the money.” 

Also opposed is Melissa Fults, who along with Couch has been the state’s most visible marijuana legalization advocate. She is particularly concerned that the amendment doesn’t include a provision expunging past marijuana convictions. 

The two have allied themselves with the Family Council Action Committee, a conservative Christian organization opposed to any legalization. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

A Talk Business & Politics/Hendrix College poll in September showed 58.5% of Arkansans supporting the measure while 29% were opposed and 12.5% were undecided. 

But apparently some people have changed their minds. A new survey by those two entities found support had dropped to 50.5% while opposition had increased to 43% with 6.5% undecided. Among those numbers, 14% said they were “probably for” while 9.5% said they were “probably against.” 

Add those numbers with the undecideds, and at least 30% of the electorate could still be persuaded one way or the other as of Oct. 17-18.

Couch is preparing a proposal for 2024. Let’s have a real debate in two years about whether or not Arkansas should legalize marijuana, without creating a constitutionally protected gold mine for a handful of people.

I’m also planning to vote no on the other proposed amendments, although I appreciate the arguments for them. 

Issue 1 would allow state lawmakers to go into special session if called by the speaker of the House and Senate president pro tempore, or after a two-thirds vote by both chambers. Currently, lawmakers meet every odd-numbered year in regular session, every even-numbered year in a fiscal session, and when the governor calls them into special session. 

Supporters says lawmakers may need to come to Little Rock to oppose a governor for a legitimate reason. I’m still voting no. The Legislature meets enough and is creeping toward becoming a full-time body. This could be abused.

Issue 2 would increase the percentage needed to pass a constitutional amendment or a citizen-led initiative from the current simple majority to 60%. 

If it were just about constitutional amendments, I might vote yes. But an initiative is a law initiated and passed by voters that has as much effect as one passed by the Legislature. Why should the politicians get 50% while we have to reach 60%?

Issue 3 would create the Arkansas Religious Freedom Amendment, which says government cannot burden a person’s religion without a compelling interest. 

I’m sympathetic to the concerns it tries to address. However, whatever burdens that are occurring on Arkansans’ religious freedom are not happening at the state level. Arkansas’ Constitution already contains strong language protecting religious rights, and there’s a state law similar to the amendment, but with more flexibility.

This vague amendment could open the door to unintended consequences. People could take advantage of it to violate laws for illegitimate purposes. I’m voting no. 

To sum it up, I’m voting no on Issues 1-3, and I’m definitely against Issue 4. Did I mention it’s terrible?

Steve Brawner is a syndicated columnist published in 18 outlets in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com. Follow him on Twitter at @stevebrawner.