NEW BUFFALO, Mich. — Where might Hoosiers gather these days for good times? How about a Friday-night high school football game or a Saturday-afternoon matchup at Assembly Hall or Mackey Arena? Church on Sunday morning? A potluck at Grandma’s that afternoon? Bingo at the Moose Lodge? 

>> Related: Indiana marijuana legalization: Will 2025 be the year?

Or this, one of the dozens of cannabis dispensaries just miles (if not yards) away in Michigan, Illinois and, perhaps coming soon to Union City, Ohio.

Drive to Mile Marker 1 on Interstate 74 into Illinois and the first dispensary is just on the right. The parking lots are about 75% filled with Indiana-plated cars. Ditto for New Buffalo, where a half-dozen or so cannabis stores have already sprouted, with more under construction. On a recent weekend, these dispensaries were packed with Hoosiers waiting in lines for service. Driving up toward Michigan on I-69 in Steuben County is to be greeted with dozens of cannabis billboards heralding shops in Coldwater, California, Redding and Hillsdale.

In Niles, Hoosier consumers can drive into a parking lot and receive a paper menu and carhop services delivered right to their window. The Lunkquarium in Edwardsburg has been replaced by Dr. A’s Re-Leaf Center. There are the Dude Abides shops in Constantine and Sturgis. In Illinois, Windy City Cannabis is a short drive from Highland, Indiana, to Highwood, Illinois.

Indiana is a legal-cannabis island, with all surrounding states having legalized weed in some form. Even Kentucky will offer medicinal marijuana beginning in January. Marijuana has been easily attainable for decades on the Hoosier black market. Now Hoosiers are driving to neighboring states to purchase product under quality control that hasn’t been tainted by fentanyl.

In all, some 24 states, three U.S. territories and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational cannabis. Five states — Arkansas, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota — have cannabis referendums on the November ballot.

But outside of Indianapolis, where prosecutors say they will no longer charge defendants for personal possession, an average of 10,000 Hoosiers annually have faced marijuana trafficking, dealing and possession charges. Thus, there’s a pot prohibition industry of cops, prosecutors, trial lawyers, jailers, probationers and urine testers who all have a straw in the action. Indiana has become a cannabis island because no one organized politically to compete against the prohibitionists.

I’ve attempted for years to find the true cost of marijuana prohibition to taxpayers and the workforce but haven’t had much success. 

Last April, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced a proposal to reschedule cannabis (currently it is listed as a Schedule 1 drug, along with heroin and morphine). A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Dec. 2 in Washington.

In Ball State University’s 2023 Bowen Center Hoosier Survey, 54.2% of respondents selected, “It should be legal for personal use.” In comparison, 32.2% selected, “It should be legal for medicinal use.” Just 9.8% of respondents selected, “It should not be legal.” In an October 2022 Pew Research Center survey, 88% of U.S. adults said the drug should be legal, either for recreational and medical use (59%) or for medical use only (30%).

Earlier this month, Indiana crossed a political threshold when the Democratic nominee for governor, Jennifer McCormick, announced her “Commonsense Cannabis Legalization Plan.”

“Hoosiers have made it clear — they support adult-use cannabis and are frustrated by Indiana’s outdated prohibition laws,” McCormick said. “Our plan takes a commonsense approach by first introducing a well-regulated medical marijuana industry, allowing us to address potential regulatory challenges and ensure a smooth transition to well-regulated and legal adult-use cannabis.” 

McCormick would establish an Indiana Cannabis Commission “responsible for overseeing the legal cannabis industry, including regulation, licensing and ensuring compliance with safety standards.”

She would immediately establish a medical marijuana industry. “This step will allow Indiana to address potential challenges and learn from the experiences of other states before moving to full adult use,” McCormick said.

McCormick added that legalizing adult-use cannabis could generate an estimated $172 million annually in tax revenues for Indiana, dollars that currently are headed out of state or off the books on the black market. 

“Indiana is an island of prohibition surrounded by states with legal cannabis industries,” McCormick said. “By taking a responsible, phased approach, we can ensure that our state is prepared for full adult-use legalization while immediately providing relief through medical marijuana.”

Republican gubernatorial nominee Mike Braun appears to be open to dialogue on legalization. 

“It’s inevitable,” he told WSBT-TV in May. “Now it’s reaching our own state. It’s been precipitated now to do something more quickly with what the feds have just decided.”

He told Fox59: “The fact is we are surrounded by four states. It’s going to hit all of us. I’m going to listen to law enforcement. They have to put up with the brunt of it. Medical marijuana, I think, is where the case is best made that maybe something needs to change, but I’ll take my cue from law enforcement there as well.”

As with past controversial issues, the people are well ahead of the politicians. In the 1980s, Republican General Assembly leaders refused to pass lottery referendum legislation lifting a constitutional ban. After the House speaker reelection upset in 1986, the General Assembly approved a lottery referendum for the 1988 election.

It passed with a resounding 62% of the vote.

Brian A. Howey is senior writer and columnist for Howey Politics Indiana/State Affairs. Find Howey on Facebook and X @hwypol.

INDIANAPOLIS — We’re probably less than a month away from the 2024 version of the “October surprise.”

It’s a phrase coined by William Casey, manager of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign, who fretted over a breakthrough deal to bring American hostages home from Iran. The term refers to a major event or disclosure the month before a November election, often with the potential to influence voter perceptions of a candidate. 

In 2016, the October surprise was FBI Director James Comey providing the headlines by announcing a probe of Hillary Clinton (it was actually Donald Trump who was the subject of an unknown investigation). It followed Trump’s “Access Hollywood” tape that temporarily threw his campaign for a loop a few weeks earlier. In 2000, the October surprise was so-called breaking news of a decades-old DUI arrest involving George W. Bush. In 1968, the surprise was Richard Nixon trying to head off a Vietnam War peace deal.

Of those, only Comey’s notification of a potential Clinton probe altered an election, giving Trump a shocking victory even he didn’t expect.

The October surprise in this head-spinning election cycle will likely come with a violent attack involving the southern border. Or, perhaps, red-line saber-rattling in Russia’s war with Ukraine.

So it was fascinating that Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb showed up in Kyiv earlier this month to lend support for the embattled regime of President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The two were photographed together with Holcomb towering over the comedian-turned-war leader.

“I will say that the cost of peace pales in comparison to the cost of a wider war in Europe that would require NATO direct intervention, that would require men and women that wear the uniform outside of Ukraine to enter,” Holcomb said during a news conference with a regional Ukrainian governor. 

“We have friends in the world that are sovereign, that believe in freedom, that believe in the rule of law, that are independent, and I stand by my friends,” Holcomb said. “What I can do as a governor from a state in the Midwest is encourage other like-minded individuals that want to help, that want to be that friend indeed. That’s why I’m here.”

While a terror incursion into Texas could damage any momentum Democratic nominee Kamala Harris might have next month, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has the most to gain from a new crisis.

“I don’t trust Putin for one nanosecond,” Holcomb said. “He’s made his designs very public, that he rues the day that the Soviet empire dissolved and is seeking more imperial pursuits out of pure greed, in my opinion, and by all means necessary.”

That is where Holcomb’s diplomatic foray becomes interesting. In the weeks following Russia’s February 2022 invasion, America was unified. U.S. Rep. Victoria Spartz appeared ready to defend her homeland by girding U.S. support. American and NATO aid flowed. Zelenskyy was greeted as a hero as he addressed Congress late that year, drawing comparisons to Winston Churchill.

In the Indiana context, Holcomb and U.S. Sen. Todd Young have been fulsome in their continued support for Ukraine. The rest of the GOP establishment, not so much. U.S. Rep. Jim Banks has helped lead a conspicuous effort to cut off funding for Kyiv. So has U.S. Sen. Mike Braun and most of the Republican congressional delegation.

Even Churchill has come under attack from pro-Putin media sources such as Tucker Carlson, who attempted to shift blame for World War II from Adolph Hitler to the British prime minister.

As for Spartz, the last statement she issued on her homeland came March 5 when she said, “I do not believe that Ukraine can win this war with President Biden in charge and his administration’s strategy ‘not to lose.’ You can never win with this strategy, but actually might lose. We also should resolve conflicts not with ‘as long as it takes’ but with ‘as fast as we can’ strategies. No one knows what President Trump would do in Ukraine, but we know what he has done, and what Presidents Obama and Biden did not do.”

What followed was the House Republican delay in passing more military aid that lasted until late April. According to the Institute for the Study of War, Ukraine has taken steps to address its manpower shortages, “but delays and insufficiencies in Western military aid to Ukraine continue to limit its ability to generate effective combat units that can defend critical areas and contest the theater-wide initiative.”

Zelenskyy stated in an interview with CNN on Sept. 13 that Ukraine “needs 14 brigades to be ready” for an unspecified requirement and that the country has not been able to equip “even four” of these brigades with slowly arriving Western aid.

The Institute for the Study of War added, “Russia continues to build out its long-term military capacity by gradually increasing the size of its armed forces. Russian President Putin signed a decree on Sept. 16 establishing the staffing level of the Russian Armed Forces at 1.5 million combat personnel. This marks a 180,000-person increase from the last decree increasing the staffing level of the Russian Armed Forces, which Putin signed in December 2023.

“Russian efforts to increase the size of the armed forces are part of a longer-term Russian objective that extends beyond the war in Ukraine and aims to increase the size and overall capacity of the Russian military via long-term, large-scale force reforms.” 

What would a second Trump presidency bring Kyiv?

In his debate with Harris on Sept. 10, Trump was asked if he wanted Ukraine to win. He dodged the question on the first attempt, prompting moderator David Muir to ask again. 

“I think it’s in the U.S.’s best interest to get this war finished and just get it done,” Trump responded. “All right, negotiate a deal, because we have to stop all of these human lives from being destroyed.”

Given Trump’s bromance with Putin, you can bet the Russian autocrat’s chances of prevailing in Ukraine would be much greater during a second Trump term.

Thus, Putin has an incentive to create his own October surprise to augment the millions of dollars he has already spent seeking to influence “conservative” U.S. media.

According to Foreign Affairs magazine reporter Peter Schroeder, “Two and a half years after Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States’ strategy for ending the war remains the same: impose enough costs on Russia that its president, Vladimir Putin, will decide that he has no choice but to halt the conflict.” 

Schroeder continued, “The evidence suggests that on Ukraine, Putin simply is not persuadable; he is all in. For him, preventing Ukraine from becoming a bastion that the West can use to threaten Russia is a strategic necessity. He has taken personal responsibility for achieving that outcome and likely judges it as worth nearly any cost. Trying to coerce him into giving up is a fruitless exercise that just wastes lives and resources.”

The one viable option is this: waiting Putin out.

“Under this approach,” Schroeder added, “the United States would hold the line in Ukraine and maintain sanctions against Russia while minimizing the level of fighting and amount of resources expended until Putin dies or otherwise leaves office. Only then will there be a chance for a lasting peace in Ukraine.”

Or, as former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul posted on X earlier this month: “Putin will not stop his invasion of Ukraine voluntarily. The armed forces of Ukraine must stop him. That’s why the West needs to give Ukraine all the necessary military means, without limitations, to defeat Putin’s army.”

In the 2024 Netflix series “Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War,” McFaul makes the chilling prediction that the West will never outlast Putin. Ukraine means more to him than it does for Washington. 

Brian A. Howey is senior writer and columnist for Howey Politics Indiana/State Affairs. Find Howey on Facebook and X @hwypol. State Affairs Indiana Managing Editor Tom Davies contributed to this column.

SOUTH BEND, Ind. — State Democratic Chair Mike Schmuhl said the Indiana GOP “has its most extreme ticket in a century in Braun, Beckwith, Banks and Rokita.”

But even if the Republican candidates are that “extreme,” will it matter? It’s been 24 years since a Democrat was elected governor. No Democrat has been elected to anything statewide since 2012.

And how many voters have yet focused on state races? How many know what Mike Braun, Micah Beckwith, Jim Banks and Todd Rokita are running for or stand for? How many know the names of their Democratic opponents?

Schmuhl, trying to get the political pendulum swinging back toward two-party competition, such as when Democrats elected governors and Barack Obama carried the state in 2008, knows the difficulties for a party that has lacked funding and enthusiasm. While it is impossible to match funding of the long-dominant Indiana GOP, Schmuhl sees no enthusiasm gap.

“I think there’s a lot more energy and excitement on our side than there was just a couple months ago,” Schmuhl said.

He cited Kamala Harris becoming the Democratic presidential nominee, enthusiasm at the Democratic National Convention and a flood of campaign volunteers.

The statewide races are:

• Governor. Democrat Jennifer McCormick vs. Republican Sen. Mike Braun. Their running mates for lieutenant governor are Democrat Terry Goodin and Republican Micah Beckwith.
• U.S. senator. Democrat Valerie McCray vs. Congressman Jim Banks.
• Attorney general. Democrat Destiny Wells vs. Republican incumbent Todd Rokita.

Beckwith, a Noblesville pastor who said God told him that the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol “was my hand at work,” could be the easiest Republican to define as extreme. But voters usually pay little attention to lieutenant governor running mates.

Still, Beckwith constantly provides Democrats with useful campaign material. They even put out a regular feature titled “We Listened So You Don’t Have To: The Micah Beckwith Weird Weekly Roundup.”

Braun didn’t want Beckwith as his running mate and tried to defeat his nomination at the party’s state convention. Delegates, farther to the right than traditional Hoosier Republicans, still stuck Braun with the running mate he didn’t want. Beckwith would become governor if the Braun ticket won and Braun became incapacitated.

McCormick, a former state school superintendent elected as a Republican, left the GOP over school policies to which she objected. She is seeking to portray Braun as not very effective or popular as a senator. 

Rokita, often in the news with his anti-abortion efforts, is being targeted on that issue and other controversies. Wells is regarded as a candidate who would have a good chance to win if she could focus on the race and become better known than she was in a prior statewide loss.

Banks also is criticized by Democrats as too far right. McCray, his Democratic opponent, began her candidacy as a virtual unknown statewide and is seeking name recognition.

The Democratic candidates are counting on the abortion issue to help them close the gap with the Republicans.

Democrats cite that they have women running for governor, senator and attorney general “who are pro-choice,” while the entire Republican statewide ticket is composed of men who are “anti-choice, even extremely so.”

If the Republican candidates really are that “extreme,” does that endanger the solid Republican grip on state government? Or are those candidates, all supporting Donald Trump and in some cases staked out politically to his right, offering what the majority of Hoosier voters will want?

How Indiana voters now view Trump will be an important factor in determining if any Democrat this time will win statewide. Twice Trump carried Indiana so big that it could be called Trumpiana. If he wins with close to his past margins, chances will diminish for any statewide Democratic candidate.

Trump still is expected to carry Indiana, but if his margin is narrow and he provides no coattails for the state Republican ticket, an upset could be possible.

Jack Colwell has covered Indiana politics for over five decades for the South Bend Tribune. Email him at [email protected].