Legalizing marijuana would be a bipartisan win for Indiana
While each of these issues is significant on its own, our state leadership has a unique opportunity to work across party lines to impact them all by working together to safely regulate marijuana for those 21 and older just like we do with alcohol and tobacco. We can create new revenue streams, improve health care opportunities and streamline processes and outcomes for public safety professionals in our state.
Hicks: Legalizing marijuana brings tax revenue, lower crime. Indiana is behind.
Last year, Safe and Regulated Indiana released a statewide survey that showed that 70% of Hoosiers think it's time to create a legalized market in Indiana. There are a few issues that people seem to agree on across the aisle, but this is one of them.
Gov. Mike Braun has responsibly opened the door to this conversation by endorsing medical marijuana and asking for further discussion on recreational use. Given that all of our neighboring states have legalized marijuana in some capacity, it is time for Indiana to have this conversation openly and transparently.
Indiana's decades of strong leadership have led it to become a strong fiscal example for the nation. Despite our strong fiscal position, we live in difficult times that have left us looking for ways to fund local units of government, public safety, health care, education, infrastructure and more. The good news is that if Indiana can set up a successful framework for a safe and regulated marijuana market, it will bring hundreds of millions of dollars in new revenue.
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Services Agency, if House Bill 1630 passes, Indiana will generate $200.6 million in new revenue. Legislators can use those dollars to invest in education, public safety, infrastructure and whatever investments the Indiana General Assembly deems most in need. Passage would mean a significant investment for Hoosiers while aiming to keep taxes low!
While this new source of money is important, we should never pass a law just for revenue. More importantly, this is about helping people, protecting personal freedom and ensuring Hoosiers access to better health care options.
For too long, people who have cancer, PTSD, anxiety and chronic pain have had to rely on expensive medicine or, even worse, break the law just to get relief. No one should have to choose between getting the treatment they need and becoming a criminal. Medical marijuana is a safe, effective option that helps patients feel better without the dangerous side effects of opioids and other strong drugs.
This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue — it's a health care issue. Across the country, states of all political backgrounds have made medical marijuana legal because it helps people. It's time for Indiana to give patients, veterans and families the freedom to choose a treatment that works for them — without fear of punishment.
In addition to the medical benefits, a safe and regulated marketplace would also improve public safety and create a better relationship between law enforcement and the communities they serve. Law enforcement and public safety leaders must be part of this discussion.
One of the biggest public safety impacts of legalization would be keeping people out of jail for low-level marijuana charges. Right now, too many Hoosiers — especially marginalized residents in Marion County — are arrested and jailed for simple possession. These arrests not only strain our legal system, but also disrupt lives, making it harder for people to find jobs, secure housing and contribute to their communities.
Legalization would free up law enforcement to focus on serious crime, rather than filling jails with nonviolent offenders. At the same time, regulation helps create safer roads. In Ohio, fatal car crashes linked to marijuana fell by 30% after legalization, showing that education and responsible policies can improve driving safety.
Additionally, states with legal marijuana have reported fewer opioid overdoses, an issue that has devastated communities across Indiana. If we take the right approach, legalization can make our communities safer and more prosperous.
Indiana has a great opportunity in front of it. A safe and regulated marijuana market would bring in additional revenue, improve health outcomes and ultimately improve the lives of law enforcement and public safety professionals across the state.
As a local leader, I encourage our state leadership to have the debate and act on this important topic. It will be another success in a long list of important accomplishments.
Michael-Paul Hart is the Republican minority leader on the City-County Council.
This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: House Bill 1630 gives Indiana a regulated marijuana market | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
2 minutes ago
- New York Post
Cuban-born biotech honcho enters NYC mayoral race seeking to upset Mamdani: ‘I hate socialism'
He's the anti-Mamdani. A Cuban-born biotech entrepreneur decided to make a longshot bid for NYC mayor because he loathes the radical left-wing ideas pushed by socialist frontrunner Zohran Mamdani — and saw just how dangerous they are in real life, he told The Post. 'I was raised in a socialist communist society, so I am the antithesis of Zohran Mamdani's ideology,' declared Joseph Hernandez. 'In fact, he's a motivator for me to fight in this race. I despise socialism. I am a believer in the American dream. I'm a believer in capitalism. It's not perfect, but it's lifted more people out of poverty than any other ideology,' he said. 3 Hernandez dismissed the notion his run for mayor would split votes between those seeking an alternative to the current frontrunner, socialist Zohran Mamdani Hernandez for NYC / Facebook Hernandez — a 52-year-old Upper East Side resident who immigrated to the U.S. at the age of seven with his family to escape Fidel Castro's communist rule — entered the race as an independent just over a month ago after collecting enough signatures to get on the November ballot. 'I doing this because I love the city and want to make it better,' Hernandez said. 'I don't have baggage like [many of the other candidates]. I'm a businessman; I'm logical; I know technology; and know how to structure budgets.' The registered Republican heads Manhattan-based healthcare and technology investment firm Blue Water Venture Partners If elected, he's vowed to hire 10,000 new cops along with other public safety improvements; convert unused office space into affordable housing and use artificial intelligence to improve city services. 3 Cuomo is a registered Democrat running for mayor of New York City as an independent. SARAH YENESEL/EPA/Shutterstock 3 Socialist Mamdani remains the candidate to beat in this year's race for City Hall. Stephen Yang for the New York Post The huge underdog joins a crowded field that besides Mamdani, the Democratic nominee, includes Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa, Mayor Eric Adams, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and defense lawyer Jim Walden. Adams and Cuomo are registered Dems running as independents; Walden is a registered Independent. Hernandez said he's raised roughly $300,000 since entering the campaign in late June and has already secured an endorsement from the Bodega and Small Business Group, which vehemently opposes Mamdani's proposal to create Soviet-style, city-run supermarkets. A Sienna poll this week showed Mamdani, the Democratic nominee, had 44% of the vote, following by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo with 25%, Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa with 12% and Mayor Eric Adams with 7%. The remaining 12% support another candidate or are undecided. Hernandez rejected the idea that he might be splitting votes even further among moderates and conservatives seeking an alternative to Mamdani– and thereby increasing the socialist's chances of winning. 'I'm doing this because I live in the city and I think it's so spinning out of control – and I think I'm the most qualified candidate,' he said. 'I'm a businessman, I'm logical, I know technology. And I know how to structure budgets.'
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Upset about DC's lack of voting rights? Look to the Democrats.
The deployment of the National Guard in Washington, D.C. has led to a media and political meltdown. In the New York Times, a column lamented that the military had not revolted against the civilian president. Even, so, commentators declared a ' coup ' because the federal government reasserted its constitutional power over the federal district. A Justice Department employee went so far as to scream profanities at federal officers on the street and assault one of them with a submarine sandwich. He was declared a 'freedom fighter' against 'the Gestapo.' The utter lunacy of the left was again triggered by Trump with an almost Pavlovian predictability. Trump rang the bell, and suddenly thousands of Democratic leaders began to salivate. In addition to denying a very real crime crisis in the district, Democrats immediately pivoted on the issue to renew unpopular demands for D.C. statehood. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, insisted that this was only happening because 'American citizens lack the protections of statehood.' Ankit Jain echoed that view. Jain occupies a farcical position as 'D.C. shadow senator,' an unpaid position in which he pretends to be a member of the U.S. Senate. Jain wrote that 'it's entirely possible that people will die as a result' of the deployment. He insisted that this would not occur in states where democracy governs: 'We may not have it in Washington, but if you live in any of the other 50 states, you do.' Over the years, I have testified five times in the House and Senate to argue for the restoration of full representation for residents in Washington, D.C. Residents could have a governor, two real U.S. senators, a voting representative in the House, a state legislature, and every other trapping of statehood. It needs only to go back whence it came. D.C. needs to return to Maryland through 'retrocession.' In academic writings, I have advocated for what I called ' modified retrocession ' where Maryland would take back the land given initially to create what was called 'the federal city.' The Framers did not want the capital under the control of any state, so they created the federal enclave to be under the control of Congress as a whole. Originally, the outlines of the federal city were laid out by none other than George Washington as the surveyor. It was a diamond shape, with territory ceded by both Virginia and Maryland. Within a few decades, Virginians in what is now Arlington County and Alexandria came to regret not having direct representatives and were allowed to retrocede back to their state. That left the triangle of territory from Maryland. However, Marylanders did not agree with their Virginian counterparts. They liked living in the federal enclave and decided to remain without direct representation. Congress previously allowed retrocession and could do so again. Under my prior proposal, the federal enclave would be reduced to the small sliver of land upon which our Capitol, Supreme Court, and the White House rest. It would finally give every Washington resident full representation. Also, in a city notoriously mismanaged for years, D.C. residents would be part of a state that excels in areas like education that could materially improve their positions. So if the lack of representation is so intolerable, why wouldn't Washington return to Maryland? It would give every Washington resident a voting representative in the U.S. House, two senators, a governor in a sovereign state, and a state legislature. The reason is politics at its most cynical and hypocritical. Democrats only want two senators representing D.C. if it boosts their numbers. It's not good enough to give them Maryland's senators. What's more, Maryland Democrats will not suffer a shift in the center of their state's political gravity from Baltimore to Washington. Finally, D.C. Democratic leaders are not eager to share power with Maryland Democrats, as they might gain all the trappings of a state. This is why, for decades, Democrats have settled to leave D.C. voters without direct representation in Congress. They decided it is better to lament the lack of representation on license plates than to give residents such representation through retrocession of the residential sections of D.C. to Maryland. Polling shows that most Americans still oppose statehood for this one city — a Vatican-like city-state. That is why Democrats are not keen on attempting a new constitutional amendment to change the status of the city. They would rather bewail the lack of direct representation while, ironically, trying to achieve effective statehood without a direct vote of citizens on a constitutional amendment. The fact is, Trump has every right to deploy the National Guard in Washington and to take over the D.C. police. Those are entirely lawful and constitutional orders. Yet the New York Times appears to have changed its position on the danger of insurrection. The Times recently ran a bizarre column by former Obama officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, ' We Used to Think the Military Would Stand Up to Trump. We Were Wrong.' They complain that 'it now seems clear to us that the military will not rescue Americans from Mr. Trump's misuse of the nation's military capabilities.' The 'rescue' would have meant military personnel disobeying a direct order from the commander-in-chief because they disagreed with the need for the deployment. In fairness to the New York Times, that is not exactly an insurrection — it is more of a mutiny. What is striking about this debate is how entirely untethered it is from anything that touches upon reality. Statehood remains easily attainable for Washington, if Democrats would only stop opposing retrocession. Meanwhile, the deployment is clearly constitutional, regardless of how many columns or submarine sandwiches you throw about in another furious fit. The only thing that is clear is that Washington residents are again being played. They remain political props left stateless because returning them to full representation is not politically advantageous. They are given make-believe 'shadow senators' and protest license plates rather than restoring their prior status. As with the debate over crime, few want to discuss how to solve this problem. Given the opposition of the Democrats, Trump should take the lead and order federal officials to develop a blueprint for retrocession. He should use his office to fully inform the American people, and particularly D.C. residents, of the benefits of returning to Maryland.
Epoch Times
16 minutes ago
- Epoch Times
LIVE NOW: Texas House Holds 2nd Call Session as Many Democrats Remain out of State
The Texas House of Representatives holds its second call session for the legislative session at 11 a.m. on Aug. 16, while many Democratic state lawmakers have still not returned to Texas.
