When I read that provision, I was surprised that we would allow it for a 12-year-old. However, again, I don't think we have to fall into the dichotomy of either leaving it there, letting the messages be misinterpreted online and in other places, and giving young people the message that this is all fine and dandy, or of cracking down, expelling them from school, not giving them health services, and treating them in an enforcement way. I would hope that it could be rewritten in a way that we want to help....
There is no reason that a 12-year-old, or a 17-year-old, should be smoking marijuana. The issue is that we want to be able to help them. We want to get them mental health services. If a 12-year-old is smoking marijuana regularly, I'm guessing that they're probably using alcohol regularly. If you look at it, they're complements for young people. What help do they need? I don't think they should be expelled from school. We don't want to lay the hammer on them, but I think there are health interventions.
I do worry about the message it might send, even if it's caveated with “we don't want you to use”, if it's written like that in the law without saying that, “Under a certain amount, we're not just going to allow you to possess it. That's not the point. The point is that we're not going to give you a criminal record, but we are going to connect you to health and social services in school and in your community.”
That would be a positive step. I think that would be very good. Again, though, that takes investment. All of these things—Can we enforce the seed to sale? Can we make sure with regard to the driving issue and the testing? Can we make sure that people don't use in public?—need to come with an investment. I think there are still so many unanswered questions about that.