Clay Wells
Submitted photo
By Clay Wells | Phoenix
Less than five years ago, Arizona voters passed Proposition 207 legalizing marijuana and THC products. I was a yes vote because the decades-long debate had filtered facts versus fiction and produced something reasonable people could agree was indeed “Smart and Safe.”
Fast forward to Feb. 25, 2023, when a driver with a THC level of 7.8 ng/mL in his blood 15 hours after his admitted last use of cannabis, plowed through a group of bicyclists, killing one of my best friends, another individual and injuring 19 others.
It was the worst bicycling accident in the history of Arizona and left me permanently disabled. The driver was someone who abused the law and the trust of those who voted to approve the highly regulated, legal sale of THC products.
A similar betrayal of trust is underway, but it is led by profit-seekers, not a careless driver. In a move that prioritizes profits over public safety, the Hemp Industry Trade Association is pushing to allow THC to be sold at convenience stores, grocery markets, gas stations and online across Arizona.
One of their arguments? Money. It isn’t often that a special interest group openly admits they are in it for the money. That is precisely what HITA did when describing why they should be allowed to sell their highly intoxicating THC-infused products, circumventing the will of Arizona voters.
HITA’s stance centers on a key legal distinction: the claim that THC-infused products made from hemp — rather than marijuana — should be free to bypass the stringent regulations Arizona voters approved in 2020.
This claim hinges on wordsmithing: "hemp" versus "marijuana." However, just as vodka made from potatoes is no different than vodka made from wheat when it comes to its intoxicating effects, THC is THC. The distinction, if anything, is a legal loophole, not a scientific one.
It’s stunning that industry leaders openly admit the pursuit is financially motivated in the same breath as they plead for broader market access. “We need this,” they argue, citing lost revenue, livelihoods and economic contributions. But imagine the defense in any other enterprise operating illegally: “We’re breaking the law but think of the jobs that would be lost if we stopped!” Would that defense be taken seriously in a courtroom?
The “Smart and Safe Act” of 2020 legalized marijuana under strict conditions. It set clear rules about where and how THC products could be sold, limiting them to licensed dispensaries with tightly regulated testing for public safety. Voters wanted a system that controlled access, safeguarded against underage use and minimized the risk of impaired driving.
These regulations weren’t arbitrary — they were designed with public health in mind. HITA’s push to flood convenience stores with THC, including infused beverages, edibles, vapes and joints, bypasses these safeguards and threatens public safety.
The products they want to sell are highly intoxicating — often equivalent to four shots of hard liquor in a 12-ounce can — and users can feel the effects within 15 to 20 minutes. Without the regulation that dispensaries are required to follow, these products lack the safety testing necessary to ensure they don’t pose undue risks.
What happens if someone with low tolerance drinks one and tries to drive? These products are prime candidates for underage consumption and for misuse. And unlike alcohol, there is no standardized field test to measure THC intoxication for drivers, leaving law enforcement with little recourse if someone is caught driving under the influence.
Arizona voters made it clear that marijuana/THC use should be regulated, not indiscriminately distributed. If the hemp industry wants to sell THC, they need to play by the rules — rules that protect the public, especially the most vulnerable. To allow these products to be sold without strict regulation is a recipe for disaster.
The hemp industry is undoubtedly valuable and there are legal options for the industry to pursue: textiles, construction materials and industrial products. Legalization of THC came with boundaries — boundaries that prioritize safety over profits. If HITA truly cares about the future of their industry, they should respect these laws and work to make sure they don’t endanger the very people they claim to serve.
Rather than find more ways to put unregulated THC products on the shelves, Arizona lawmakers should be focused on research and laws to define what levels of THC an individual has in their system to be considered under the influence or impaired.
Seventeen states have enacted laws which criminalize drivers for having either any THC or metabolites in their blood or for having a set amount. It’s time for Arizona legislators to do their homework to determine an appropriate level that protects Arizonans from those who endanger the public with irresponsible use and actions.
Editor’s note: Clay Wells is a retired business development executive and cycling enthusiast. He lives in Phoenix. Please send your comments to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.
