• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Massachusetts to [possibly] Regulate Cannabis!

Phantom

John Schnatter 2012
Joined
Sep 11, 2009
Messages
638
Reaction score
184
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Progressive
Evans' "Act to Regulate and Tax the Cannabis Industry" calls for the legal sale of marijuana by licensed vendors, who, along with growers and distributors, would be overseen by a state Cannabis Control Board. The board would have seven part-time paid members appointed by the governor.

Under the bill, cannabis could be sold in quantities of one ounce, in sealed containers that identify the grower and the grade and include a warning about driving under the influence. ( The bill would have no effect on existing laws about driving while impaired. ) Buyers would have to be at least 21 years old, and sales via vending machines would be prohibited. The pot could not contain additives, or be part of a beverage or snack food.

Small-scale "backyard" growers would not be taxed or regulated, in the same way home beer brewers are not regulated by state alcohol laws. Indeed, the bill bears a strong resemblance to the laws that regulate alcohol sales in the state.

Evans' bill would also impose a steep excise tax on marijuana sales, ranging from $150 to $250 per ounce, depending on its grade ( the amount of Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, it contains ).

That last provision is especially relevant given the current dismal state of Massachusetts' economy. Regulating and taxing marijuana could have significant fiscal benefits for the commonwealth, supporters contend. A much-cited 2003 study by Harvard University economist Jeffrey Miron concluded that legalizing pot would save Massachusetts $120.6 million a year, the cost of arresting and prosecuting people on marijuana charges. ( That figure was often pointed to by supporters of Question 2, the 2008 ballot question that decriminalized the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana. ) Miron's report also found that legalization could generate almost $17 million a year in tax revenue for the state.

Full article: NORML.ORG US MA: Legalize It?


A YouTube video is also available highlighting some of the testimonies given to the committee.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLOSpaNmUB8"]YouTube - Massachusetts Marijuana Legalization Hearing, State House, 10.14.2009[/ame]
 
Sounds like a good plan, the question on everyone's mind of course will the Feds jackboot their way all over it?

I'm hoping not.

The last thing we need in these economic times are for the DEA to use all our resources "invading" a state. I wouldn't doubt it if some federal elected Republicans throw their fiscal conservative values out the window to justify such a raid, but the citizens of Massachusetts and state elected officials would be pretty pissed at the Obama administartion if it happened.

Obama doesn't seem to be too hard on Marijuana enforcement though, but who knows.
 
Nice to see this bill is getting a committee meeting.

It seems they changed the tax rate from $250/oz to a sliding scale of $150 - $250/oz depending on THC content. The tax still seems excessive though.

I hope the legislation still includes the language that allows for evaluation and adjustments to the tax rate if the purported goal of substantially reducing the black market while milking maximum tax revenue is not attained. Otherwise I fear that greed will turn this into a very ineffective piece of legislation.

A key aspect to the tax and regulate scheme is taxing so that there is still no room for the black market to exist.

A $150/oz tax for low THC mj does not accomplish that if you can get an ounce on the street for as much if not less than the tax itself.

Also.. testing THC content is an expensive procedure, and not entirely accurate, it is very dependent on numerous variables including amount of THC laden trichomes (crystals) on the sample, maturity, exposure to rough handling, light, heat, ect. this is something that is very easily manipulated and a lab generated THC percentage may not necessarily be indicative of the THC percentage of the product as a whole.
 
Nice to see this bill is getting a committee meeting.

It seems they changed the tax rate from $250/oz to a sliding scale of $150 - $250/oz depending on THC content. The tax still seems excessive though.

I hope the legislation still includes the language that allows for evaluation and adjustments to the tax rate if the purported goal of substantially reducing the black market while milking maximum tax revenue is not attained. Otherwise I fear that greed will turn this into a very ineffective piece of legislation.

A key aspect to the tax and regulate scheme is taxing so that there is still no room for the black market to exist.

A $150/oz tax for low THC mj does not accomplish that if you can get an ounce on the street for as much if not less than the tax itself.

Also.. testing THC content is an expensive procedure, and not entirely accurate, it is very dependent on numerous variables including amount of THC laden trichomes (crystals) on the sample, maturity, exposure to rough handling, light, heat, ect. this is something that is very easily manipulated and a lab generated THC percentage may not necessarily be indicative of the THC percentage of the product as a whole.


Wow, $250 an ounce? How many joints are in one ounce? Standard size :2razz:
 
Raids are still happening on his watch, which simply can be stopped via an executive order.

This is mostly the DEA trying to milk as much wiggle room as possible within the framework of "so long as there is a violation of BOTH state and federal law"

Regardless of their orders and administration..the DEA is still made up of the same career personnel with the same beliefs and agenda as was present in the last administration, only now they feel they are hamstrung to a degree so they try to get as much play in what little slack they have.

They will do whatever they can to find reason to conduct these raids.. regardless of how shaky or shallow their presented violation of state law is, they have staked their careers out in doing just that.
 
Last edited:
Wow, $250 an ounce? How many joints are in one ounce? Standard size :2razz:

I did not realize they had introduced international standards on joint sizes :2razz:

Even at $150/oz there is no room for profit, and no room to undercut the prices of the low grade marijuana on the black market.

What we will see with the current tax rate is a heavily taxed super high THC product for legal consumption, and a thriving black market that will continue to supply tons of low grade mexican on the streets untaxed at $100 - $150/oz
 
I too hope they amend this bill to lower the proposed tax on it. Right now the goal should be to get this stuff off the street and into a controlled market. They will have time to get their tax money later.

If they start the plan with a high tax, there will still be an underground market for it and people like Bill O'Reilly will say "See, legalization doesn't work!"

Starting with a tax of about $25-40 per ounce would be great. After some time, they could gradually increase it.
 
Last edited:
YAY! to Massachusetts for being a role model for the rest of the country.

But that tax is WAAAAAY too high.
 
I too hope they amend this bill to lower the proposed tax on it. Right now the goal should be to get this stuff off the street and into a controlled market. They will have time to get their tax money later.

If they start the plan with a high tax, there will still be an underground market for it and people like Bill O'Reilly will say "See, legalization doesn't work!"

Starting with a tax of about $25-40 per ounce would be great. After some time, they could gradually increase it.

Actually I think Ca had it about right with AB 380 and their proposal of $50 per ounce.

let me check my bookmarks here.. I have the proposed bill, I think it is unchanged since I bookmarked it since it has just been sitting idly by awaiting its committee discussions.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/186/ht02/ht02929.htm

on re-skimming the legislation it does have a sliding tax scale.. the outrageous $250 figure just happened to be what stuck in my mind.

Section 9. The authority shall impose and collect an excise upon sales at retail of cannabis. The rate of said excise is hereby established as follows:

Class C One hundred fifty dollar per ounce

Class B Two hundred dollars per ounce.

Class A Two hundred fifty dollars per ounce.

Subject to approval by the general court, such excise shall be adjusted by the authority from time to time as necessary to maximize the revenue derived therefrom, and to minimize the incentive for the sale of cannabis not in accordance with the provisions of this act.

Adjusting those tax rates downward prior to passage and leaving that clause in bold intact is crucial for the success of the legislation (they need to define "from time to time" and review regularly, especially at the onset of enactment). Minimizing incentive for illegal sale should be the #1 priority, not greed for maximizing revenue, but I fear greed will overrun.

edit for info on the difference between class A, B and C:


All cannabis sold by processors shall be analyzed and graded as follows:

(1) If said cannabis contains more than 1% THC and less than 5% THC, then said cannabis shall be labeled “C”.

(2) If the cannabis contains 5% or more than 5% and less than 10% THC, then said cannabis shall be labeled “B”.

(3) If the cannabis contains 10% THC or more, then said cannabis shall be labeled “A”.

Almost all the marijuana you will find on the street is going to be at least 5% THC, so the only 2 relevant tax rates are class A and class B. the $200/oz tax itself is higher than current black market price for comparable THC content
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a good plan, the question on everyone's mind of course will the Feds jackboot their way all over it?

If they do then it will just show the rest of America more of how the FED needs to be chained down or abolished.
 
Don't piss off the federal government on this one, they'll come in and ruin it for the States. Why it's any of the federal government's business I don't really know, but they got the biggest guns so I guess they get to set the rules.
 
Ikari, it's because the DEA is the over reaching arm of the pharmaceutical industry. It has umbrella powers that the States don't have.
 
Don't piss off the federal government on this one, they'll come in and ruin it for the States. Why it's any of the federal government's business I don't really know, but they got the biggest guns so I guess they get to set the rules.

Probably for the same reason that people use for an excuse to have the government run schools, health care etc etc....

The Congress shall have power To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States

Kinda funny the hypocrisy here really. We expect the federal government to stay out of our personal lives of smoking weed and drinking and what not and yet we demand them to provide health care reform so that everyone can have it. All based on the same thing that is used to prevent that which (apparently) lots of people want to smoke. Indeed the same reasoning is even used to prevent smoking cigarettes in restaurants and bars because people don't like smoking cigarettes. (non-smokers)
 
Last edited:
It should be $1,000 an ounce, but I say that's fine IF, and only IF the bill also contains provisions where - those who are under the influence cause bodily harm (i.e., via DUI) and then require substance abuse counciling, or detox, or whatever ... it comes out of that persons pocket. This can happen either through a lein on future pay or money that currently exists. This should be applied to all drugs if they are legalized, including alcohol and tobacco. Then anything can be legalized. Oh --- I'd also require the Castle Doctrine to be allowed in every state legalizing drugs, just in case the addicted have the notion to invade homes, steal things, turn it to cash for their habit.

Pardon me, my libertarian is showing.
 
I wouldn't doubt it if some federal elected Republicans throw their fiscal conservative values out the window to justify such a raid, but the citizens of Massachusetts and state elected officials would be pretty pissed at the Obama administartion if it happened.

Don't worry. They'll vote for him again.
 
Back
Top Bottom