Ditch the secrecy on pot licenses
The people in the know clearly know the crucial fact about the new medical marijuana dispensary enterprise: It’s going to be big business — very big.
That, as well as the fact that only eight licenses will be awarded, has turned those permits into valuable commodities.
And it’s turned the process of selecting the licensees into a matter of public interest — one that should be done with as much transparency as possible.
Unfortunately, the state Department of Health, which is administering the fledgling program, has decided that the best course to fairness is to sequester the people making the decision: its review panel. In this way, DOH officials have said, the panelists would not be open to influence.
In practice, it seems unlikely that this approach would dispel the appearance of possible corruption or influence. Neither does it fill outsiders to the process with confi-dence: They have no way to know the credentials or the possible conflicts of the people reviewing the applications.
The list of applicants includes some very well-connected people in the islands, and it’s hard to fathom how the identity of at least some of the panelists would remain under wraps until the selections are expected in mid-April.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with top news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
In the absence of fact, people will speculate that the word will have gotten out, and that the fix was in.
It would be impossible to overcome all suspicion about a contentious decision such as this, but the way to increase public trust is to do as much as possible in public view.
That is the reasoning behind Hawaii’s open records law, and behind a letter sent to the Health Department by attorney Jeffrey Portnoy, on behalf of the Honolulu Star-Advertiser.
Portnoy wrote in the letter that the decision to hide the names is “in blatant disregard” of that law, the Uniform Information Practices Act. Such government records are deemed public access unless restricted by law, he wrote; the newspaper is seeking either release of the names or relief through the courts.
Portnoy cited an opinion issued by the state Office of Information Practices that the open records law creates a “presumption that those records are public unless a statutory exception to disclosure is applicable.”
“Nowhere does UIPA allow a government agency to keep government employees’ identities secret just because the agency is afraid of some unspecified ‘external influence and disruption,’” Portnoy wrote.
In addition, even if the panel’s key discussions occur in private under legitimate exceptions, it would benefit the public to allow a comment period, as occurs in many government administrative reviews. The public could supply further information about applicants that should be taken under advisement.
The department issued a statement on Wednesday, indicating that it would release the names of the panelists after the licenses are awarded. But that is too late to convey any faith in the process.
State Sen. Josh Green acknowledged the intent of concealing names was to shield panelists from lobbying by interested parties.
“But we all know in certain circles that information will get out and they will get lobbied,” Green said, “so it’s better that it’s totally transparent and everything is done above board.”
That is the only rational way to assess the reality of business and politics in this state, where the powers that be circulate in close proximity. Information has a way of getting around within “certain circles,” information the broader public has a right to know.
17 responses to “Ditch the secrecy on pot licenses”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Secrecy in the selection process is unacceptable. The DOH does not need to protect us from ourselves. I hope the Governor steps in and corrects the flawed thinking of his Director and DOH staff.
I agree. Tired of the government protecting us from ourselves. Just legalize it already and let private business run it.
It bothers me that research reveals that using MJ use harms brain development up to the age of 25.
How would you propose to deal with this?
Research also reveals that marijuana is LESS harmful than alcohol. I suggest we “deal with this” the same way we deal with alcohol.
Re: btaim
Perhaps you could give details for the research that reveals that mj use is less harmful than alcohol. There are several factors to be considered, such as casual versus excessive use. The research I am remembering was for casual mj use. It was found to have destructive effects in brain circuit development in young people. I recall that casual alcohol use has actually been found to have some benefits.
Dealing with use through age restrictions, as you seem to suggest, avoiding the effects on brain development would require a mj consumption prohibition of mj under the age of 25.
I suspect that research is suspect. I suppose the same could be said about alcohol? There are a lot of supposed studies that have said pot smoking will cause cancer etc. Other studies have shown that pot fights cancer. Fact is people should decide on their own and not let big daddy run our lives.
The people in the know clearly know the crucial fact about the new medical marijuana dispensary enterprise: It’s going to be big business — very big.
Likely wrong premise. We live in a state where anyone could grown her own in the backyard or a window sill. The dispensary ruse is simply a giant step towards legalization. Unless the licensees farm the pakalolo in quantities sufficient to compete with other market sources, they will ultimately fail as business entities. Just because we pay more for local bananas than for imported ones doesn’t mean we’ll do the same for pot.
The State should just follow the example of Washington and Colorado and just legalize it and let private industry develop the distribution system. It is a shame that Hawaii has gotten so conservative. We used to lead the nation but now we are in the middle of the pack.
It’s the dems that are using this as a cash generating machine. No one involved in this sham is saying a thing about the sick people this is supposed to be for.
And the Republicans are mum? Republicans also have deep pockets.
It is a shame that republicans haven’t come out in favor of marijuana legalization. They are suppose to stand for the individual running their lives, not big government. A pity today’s republicans have abandoned traditional republican values.
The same people now calling for publication of the names of the selection committee will later say that releasing the names opened the door to improper influence.
WHY DO WE HAVE AUTOMOBILE SPEED LIMITS AND POSTED SIGNS POSTED NEAR OUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS AND FREEWAYS? HUMAN BEINGS NEED TO BE REMINDED OF RELATIVE SAFETY SPEED LIMITS. NOT ALL DRIVERS ARE AS AWARE AND ALERT AS THEY SHOULD BE. THEY ALSO DRIVE UNDER THE INFLUENCE (DUI).
Your comment is influencing us.
Government will legalize anything as long as taxes are paid on it .
They are doing this all WRONG! The review panel should only check each applicant and create a list of those applicants that are fully qualified to get a license. The names of the applicants should then be “put into a hat”, so to say, and the 8 winners names picked out of the “hat” by some impartial “beauty queen” to make the drawing interesting. This would be a fair process and would eliminate claims of favoritism.
Isn’t it true that being open, honest and straight up about things is always best? The road to good intentions is you know what.