On the first day that it’s legal to possess and grow marijuana in Massachusetts there are some happy faces outside the State House.
But inside the State House, seems it’s a different story.
For example, State Treasurer (and, notably, Question 4 opponent) Deborah Goldberg is troubled because, as she told Politico yesterday, the new law requires her to set up a Cannabis Control Commission to regulate the sale of marijuana — and to do it quickly, but she has no idea where the start-up money is going to come from. Eventually, the costs will be paid for by marijuana sales tax revenues, but those are a year or more away. “Tough times moving forward,” she said.
(If you’re wondering why this funding issue wasn’t addressed in Question 4 itself, that’s because ballot questions are not allowed to include any appropriations of money.)
Goldberg is doubtful that that funds will be forthcoming from the state, citing the Governor’s recent mid-year budget cuts as evidence of our currently precarious fiscal situation. She’s also opposed to requesting that money come from the state’s Rainy Day Fund (even though that’s where the start up costs — $15 million worth — to regulate the nascent gambling industry came from a few years back).
OK, let’s look elsewhere. How about that $1 billion (that’s billion with a “b”) economic development bill? Its passage last summer led to much enthusiastic gushing about the many ways it would connect residents to economic opportunities, develop the jobs of tomorrow, unlock economic development priorities, create opportunities for businesses in diverse industries, etc., etc. Surely a little of that money could get this newest industry up and running. The funds could even be in the form of a loan to be paid back once the sales tax revenues start flowing.
It’s as though the opposition of some of our state leaders to legalizing marijuana in the first place may be giving way to a contrived fatalism that the problem of start-up costs makes implementing the law impossible at present. What happened to that can-do attitude we saw when $150 million appeared, rather magically, to seal the deal to bring General Electric to Boston? (Oh, and by the way on that subject, the House today today advanced a bill to study the feasibility of a helipad near the new GE headquarters.)
There are lots of possible solutions to this relatively minor problem. Finding one just requires some political will.
fund, regulate, and tax the damn thing then let’s move on.
Jesum Crow, folks. How many times do we have to beat the dead horse ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Speak for yourself:)
These laws are never settled, and as a Burkean I favor the prerogative of the legislature to amend or even repeal any law enacted by the people if circumstances in their judgement warrant it.
I don’t have a problem with the lege amending or repealing, putting their own seats on the line in a transparent way.
I do have a problem with opposition-by-ignoring. Do it or don’t do it, but don’t pretend like you’re not complying with the law because you can’t find the $15M for an initiative that will be revenue positive. That’s just silly.
At some point we have to start focusing on the big economic ‘kitchen table’ domestic issues that impact everyone’s quality of life.
And for the record, Christopher — when I wrote that ‘our side won’ I wasn’t speaking for myself. I was referring to the majority of Bay Staters who voted to legalize marijuana. Whatever happened to government of, by and for the people ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Therefore, I’ve never been a fan of direct democracy.
n/t
…and are expected to have a better idea than the rest of us what makes for best policy.
the law charges the electorate with a parallel responsibility. In fact, they are so charged specifically in circumstances in which the legislators are inactive.
Plus, the only thing on which our particular legislature has any particular expertise is using taxpayer money to give their buddies jobs at the Probation Department.
So, I suppose I would defer to the legislature, but only on questions of how to be corrupt without actually breaking any laws.
Oops, never mind, they aren’t experts at that either.
even when they disagree with you, Christopher.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
…but that’s not the point. The masses almost by definition are not equipped to enact legislation for a complex modern society and to be clear I absolutely include myself in that. I vote on the questions and do my best to reasonably educate myself since those are the rules and I believe if you don’t vote you can’t complain, but often my reaction is I elected someone to figure this out – what are you asking me for?
…that the lack of opportunity to make questions better rather than a simple take it or leave it makes it especially difficult for the people at large to weigh in intelligently.
Legislators are your betters. How can you understand your betters well enough to “vote” on whether they should remain in office?
Obviously, you upstart, the only people qualified to judge how well a legislator is doing his/her job is another legislator. They’re the only ones who have the time to research each other, not some well-meaning constituent who only votes every two years. On a take it or leave it basis, to boot. Legislators should elect each other–that way we can get rid of this “representative” democracy along with “direct” democracy.
Because it’s really the democracy part which you really hate, isn’t it?
It can put an alternative measure on the ballot together with the original initiative and let the voters choose (in order to become law, an initiative has to get both a majority of the voters voting on it and yes votes on least 30% of the ballots cast).
Or even simpler — it can enact a version of a proposed initiative that satisfies the initiative backers and convinces them not to pursue theirs any further, which happened with the minimum wage increase in 2014.
I’m not a huge fan of direct democracy either, but what parts of the marijuana law do you think the Legislature would have done a better job with? And when?
that he thought that they did better when they declined to change the status quo.
Your suspicion is practically self-evident.
I voted against. Were I dictator, we’d still be at decriminalization and medical use for more time. But look, the initiative won, and decisively.
If the lege wants another year, fine. Vote it. If the lege wants to make cities and towns default to “no stores” and require each city and town to vote affirmatively to have one? Fine, pass that bill. If the lege wants to pass additional laws guaranteeing employers the right to screen for marijuana use in the past 30 days, to make driving while high easier to convict or more time in the can, to put together more substance abuse programs, fine. But the legislature should be taking specific, transparent, clear actions on the matter, not putting their fingers in their ears.
I do not recall Mass Taxpayers et al. wringing their hands over the costs of implementing Prop 2-1/2. (Which included creating and staffing an entirely new division at DOR.)
The new so called law is Illegal and it will be overturned once it gets to Federal Court or the Trump Administration enforces Federal Law as the law of the land.
Article 6 Section 2 of our Constitution clearly states that Federal Law is the law of the land and states are bound by it. It was challenged during the Bush Administration and the US Supreme Court upheld Article 6 . So don’t get to excited folks it’s about to end.
…but I would also advise the next AG to not make this a priority. I also believe the federal government SHOULD reschedule marijuana to allow states legitimately more flexibility.
or do you pick and choose.