..“I felt for the last few months the industry was kind of dominating the legalization movement’s work in general, and MPP’s specifically.”
Maybe if you just look at Ohio's initiative and nothing else.
..he’s concerned that the substance at the center of this particular movement is an intoxicating drug. While that drug might not be as dangerous as say, alcohol or tobacco, there might be societal benefits to limiting access to the product, restricting potency and disincentivizing heavy use – approaches that are likely to clash with for-profit interests.
What a load of shit. You admit it's less dangerous than alcohol yet you want to restrict the potency of cannabis? We should probably put a ban on high proof liquor too then, since we can't trust people to make their own choices. Restricting access will only benefit the black market and the criminals that run it. These ideas don't just clash with for-profit interests, they clash with a common sense.
But that doesn’t mean that all of the movement’s core values will translate easily as its driving principles shift from civil liberties to business bottom lines. Will there be continued interest in helping nonviolent marijuana offenders erase harsh drug-war convictions from their records?
Yes. I don't see why the big scary businesses would push to exclude expunging past cannabis offenses in a legalization bill.
In allowing struggling war veterans and desperately sick kids to obtain not just legal but affordable access to the medical marijuana?
This doesn't even make sense legalization would apply to everybody. Regardless of who they are and what they intend to use cannabis for.
In protecting the interests of the small marijuana farmers in places like California’s Emerald Triangle whose decades of legally perilous efforts helped launch the marijuana movement in the first place?
Hah that is rich. Will somebody think of the farmers in the emerald triangle that actively oppose legalization to increase their profits?
In ensuring that those who don’t necessarily need unfettered access to cannabis – like youth and problem users – are protected from its adverse effects?
Sounds like this article was written by a prohibitionist. There hasn't been a legalization bill that allows anybody under 21 "unfettered" access. I don't see why we would do anything special for "problem users" considering we don't do that for tobacoo or alcohol, we allow people to make their own choices. It's up to them, their friends, their family, or their community to help them. It's not up to the government who is a "problem user" or not.