Just as Rhode Island legislators are introducing a bill that would legalize and regulate marijuana like alcohol, Congress will consider a bill that would allow states to do so.
Rep. Edith Ajello and Senator Donna Nesselbush will each introduce bills this week that would treat pot like alcohol; it would be taxed and sold at licensed stores. Ajello told the Associated Press a tax on marijuana could raise $10 million and that it would save $20 million in prosecution costs. That’s a net gain of $30 in state revenue.
Rhode Island has been making moves toward legalizing marijuana, and national advocates see RI as one of the four next states to end pot prohibition. Last session less than an ounce was “decriminalized” or made a ticketable offense. That bill and one similar to the one expected to be hotly debated this year were both championed by Ajello.
Meanwhile, in Washington D.C., two congressmen introduced a bill on Tuesday that would allow states to set their own policies with regard to marijuana. It would also add a federal 50 percent excise tax to the sale of marijuana, according to an AP story from the Denver Post.
That bill is sponsored by Democratic Reps. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jared Polis of Colorado. It’s based on a previous bill sponsored by Reps. Barney Frank and Ron Paul.
“You folks in Washington and my friends in Colorado really upset the apple cart,” Blumenauer said. “We’re still arresting two-thirds of a million people for use of a substance that a majority feel should be legal. … It’s past time for us to step in and try to sort this stuff out.”
I think the tax revenue figures should probably be revised downward. So should some of the prosecution savings. There is ample evidence the scenario will not play out the way legislators eager for tax revenue plan:
The report found that the states with the highest smuggling rates tend to have the highest cigarette taxes, leading some experts to suggest tax cuts could be one solution to the problem. Michael LaFaive, a director for the Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said lowering taxes and creating “more sophisticated” tax stamps could help to curb smuggling, but he said many states are hesitant about making changes.
“Lawmakers are often as addicted to the tobacco tax as users are to tobacco,” LaFaive told WPRI.com.
www.wpri.com/dpp/news/study-ri-no-5-in-us-for-cigarette-smuggling
Legislators will have to continue to keep home cultivation illegal in order to maximize revenues which will create monopolies for growers who will, in turn, have to spend a great deal on security. This will drive up costs to the point where smuggling marijuana will probably be more lucrative than it is for those smuggling cigarettes. The networks are already in place.
The state legislature is way out of touch. It has been for so long. I even question the wisdom of some of the hippest among them. I am afraid, as they so often do, our elected leaders will make a bad situation worse.
No one wants to hear that cailin rua. I’ve been this route before. I struggle to understand why we need another manner of intoxication but that said I don’t know whether it should be legal or not. The claims of it being some economic or tax panacea are overblown and outright phony.
DogDiesel, with all due respect, I believe marijuana prohibition was wrong from the beginning. I just don’t think the R I legislature is approaching this issue with any real understanding. I don’t consider marijuana a poison like alcohol, neither is it like cigarettes. Before prohibition in the thirties, there was no marijuana bureaucracy in place. Since prohibition there has been a huge bureaucracy in place that has cost hundreds of billions. The bureaucracy that was in place before marijuana prohibition was the one set up to maintain alcohol prohibition. Most of the reasons for marijuana prohibition were political – make work projects for those who were made redundant after the 21st amendment was repealed, racism against migrant workers from Mexico and protecting the profitability of Wm Randolph Hearst’s pulp plantations against the threat of much more environmentally friendly and inexpensive industrial hemp.
I think there are those in the general assembly who genuinely mean well but are too conditioned by over seventy-five years of anti-marijuana propaganda. One of the greatest impacts marijuana prohibition has had is the way prohibition has limited free speech on the subject. I don’t think that has been lost on policy makers.
One other thing I will say is that I think as obnoxious as Patrick Kennedy’s entry into the discussion around public policy relating to marijuana is he has a valid concern about political power to be gained by tobacco companies or other entities who will profit if marijuana production is monopolized by a certain limited number of players.
I’m fully aware of your position on prohibition. The suggestions that it will raise any substantial revenue for the state or alleviate the pressures on the criminal justice system are false. As far as the tobacco companies are concerned, the only obstacle for them to dominate this new industry is the federal government and it’s a big obstacle. We can’t even open compassion centers because of the feds, how do we expect to legalize it.
I read the post by Representative Ajello and Senator Nesselbush. It’s probably as reasonable as one could expect under the present circumstances. Unfortunately, a subculture has developed around marijuana use and excess which I think is a direct result of the war on drugs. Yes, the federal government is a big obstacle to players like tobacco companies. Who knows where all this will lead, though? I don’t think marijuana legalization is as polarizing an issue as some of the other cultural issues of the day. Even Pat Robertson is on board. I think Big Tobacco still wields quite a bit of power.
I’m encouraged by the fact there is a provision to allow home cultivation. I don’t know how tax collection would or could be enforced in that situation. I think that could present privacy rights conflicts in the home. Regardless, allowing home cultivation would have the effect of keeping supply monopolies from getting out of hand and could reduce the likelihood and need for smuggling. Security is a problem, though, unless the value of a marijuana plant were reduced to it’s actual value – not much more than a tomato vine or basil plant. Taxation, of course, would drive up the value and make security a state manufactured problem, which is the big problem we face with prohibition.
I can’t see how pressures on the criminal justice system would not be alleviated, except for what I mention above. There are lot of details that are sketchy, as of yet. I don’t understand where some of the newly formed coalitions are trying to take this. Kennedy’s focus on marijuana use as a pathology is very frightening. Do any of these proposals involve behavior modification imposed without the consent of competent individuals? I know of examples where behavior modification was imposed on the indigent at their own expense where there was no evidence of addiction or pathology. I think the age of consent is artificially high.