A question hung over the Arkansas Legislature this year as its members assembled: How much would lawmakers meddle with the will of the people when it came to this state's newly passed medical marijuana amendment?
You may recall that Issue 6, the ballot question approved by voters last year, actually built in the opportunity for some legislative meddling.
The lengthy amendment, chock-full of details on how it should be implemented, also carried an unusual element. It allowed almost anything in the amendment to be altered by a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.
The only provisions the amendment would not allow lawmakers to change are sections actually legalizing the medical use of marijuana and setting the number of allowable dispensaries and cultivation facilities.
Voters approved the proposal with just more than 53 percent of the vote. They presumably understood that they had left a lot of room for lawmakers to influence how the amendment would be implemented.
Clearly, lawmakers tried to do so, filing 51 bills related to medical marijuana in the recently recessed regular session of the Legislature.
The number comes from an Arkansas Democrat-Gazette analysis reporting that 17 of those bills are now law and another eight are on the governor's desk.
Understand that the bills came from lawmakers on both sides of the medical marijuana issue. Some were legitimately trying to iron out details, for example, in such matters as who may own marijuana-related facilities. Others were looking for ways to make access to the drug more difficult.
From the opponents' perspective, they were trying to protect the public from misuse of the drug. Nevertheless, many of their efforts were stymied, apparently because other lawmakers recognized that the people had spoken on the issue.
Even lawmakers who personally voted against the amendment weren't willing to counter the public's will.
Key among them was state Rep. Douglas House, R-North Little Rock. He was tasked with organizing marijuana-related legislation during the session.
An attorney and a retired U.S. Army officer, House got the assignment from House Speaker, Jeremy Gillam, R-Judsonia.
House, like most others in the Legislature, had opposed the amendment. He told the Democrat-Gazette after the session that it remains "a terrible amendment."
He also said he's a soldier used to carrying out orders he doesn't like, as he explained his role in preparing for the amendment's implementation.
His first obligation, House said, was to make sure medical marijuana gets into the hands of those people who believe they need it. He also wanted to keep it out of the hands of kids and out of automobiles and to "keep crime out of it."
House believes the Legislature accomplished much of that by empowering the Alcoholic Beverage Control Division and other regulators. House himself introduced several bills and got them enacted into law.
How did he and the rest of the lawmakers do?
Well enough, apparently.
That's according to David Couch, the attorney responsible for getting the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment on the 2016 ballot.
He told a reporter that he'd give the Legislature an A for not infringing on the people's decision.
Others weren't quite so complimentary. Jerry Cox, president of the Family Council and perhaps the amendment's most visible foe, said he'd give lawmakers a D. He wanted the state to take more control than the Legislature provided.
These conflicting views are just one measure of how well implementation of the amendment is going.
Regulators and others, notably the new state Medical Marijuana Commission and the state Health Department, are still making decisions critical to implementation.
It will be a while yet before the first legitimate medical marijuana can be grown or dispensed in Arkansas.
Expect still more challenges to arise in the process and you can pretty much count on lawmakers returning to the issue again in 2019, if not sooner.
Commentary on 04/12/2017