Andy Gipson doesn’t want to have anything to do with Mississippi’s probable legalization of medical marijuana.
The state’s agriculture commissioner has gone so far as to threaten to sue if the Legislature tries to force the regulatory responsibility upon him.
Granted, Gipson has a couple of legitimate beefs with the proposal that state lawmakers have hashed out in advance of an anticipated special session. The main one is that the proposed bill is not clear on how the regulatory responsibilities — split between the state departments of agriculture, health and revenue — would be funded. The proposal calls for taxing the marijuana, but it doesn’t earmark any of that revenue for regulation.
“The Mississippi Legislature is notorious for passing massive government programs and expanding bureaucracy without providing any way to pay for it,” said Gipson, himself a former lawmaker.
That problem can be fixed, though, with some revisions of the draft legislation.
What should not be negotiable, though, is letting any state agency head try to dictate what the agency will or won’t do, as long as what that agency is being asked to do by a higher governmental authority is legal.
Admittedly, there is technically some gray area there with medical marijuana. Under federal law, marijuana remains illegal, but the federal government has demonstrated for years no interest in enforcing that law. Medical marijuana is being grown and sold in 36 states now, and half of those also have legalized the sale of marijuana for recreational purposes. Federal law enforcement agencies have steered clear, as administrations from both parties have been content to let the states determine how to deal with marijuana.
Gipson’s objections, we suspect, are rooted largely in his other occupation, as a Baptist minister. Many conservative Christians such as Gipson are not comfortable with marijuana and consider it a vice. From that perspective, it is understandable why Gipson would not want to be personally involved in anything that promotes marijuana usage.
Nevertheless, he did not run for a religious position when he put his name on the ballot in 2019 to continue in the job to which he was previously appointed. It’s a secular post with secular duties. It makes sense for the Department of Agriculture to be involved in regulating the growth of a crop, even a previously illegal one, just as it does for the Department of Health to be involved in regulating its medical distribution.
In fact, one of the improvements the Legislature has made to Initiative 65, the voter-approved plan for medical marijuana that was thrown out on a technicality, is to not put the regulatory burden solely on the Health Department.
The Health Department, by the way, doesn’t want the responsibility for medical marijuana either, given that it’s already stretched thin in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. But someone has to have it, and it’s the Legislature’s job to determine which agency or agencies it should be.
If those who head these agencies don’t want to follow those marching orders, whether for practical reasons or moral ones, they have a readily available option. They can resign and let whoever replaces them deal with it.
- The Greenwood Commonwealth
