Over the past year, state officials from both parties tried in vain to scare voters away from legalizing marijuana. In spite of — or perhaps even because of — this fear-mongering, 54% of Massachusetts residents voted yes on question 4 to tax and regulate marijuana for adults over 21. But rather than accept the will of voters, some of these officials have already called for gutting this new law before it even takes effect. This is tremendously disrespectful to the people of Massachusetts and cannot be tolerated. Instead, officials should listen to their constituents and focus on implementing this new law responsibly. Below, I’ve listed three of the most important issues being discussed right now:
- Timeline:
One of the most common concerns is the timeline set up by the initiative, with Treasurer Deb Goldberg even calling for an extension. But while our law will remove penalties for personal possession on December 15, 2016, retail sales would not begin until early 2018. This gives the state plenty of time to set up the Cannabis Control Commission and enact sensible regulations. In fact, it’s almost exactly the same amount of time that Colorado took to set up their industry, and they were starting from scratch. With the experience of four other states to guide us, we should have no trouble sticking to the same timetable as those trailblazers. - Home growing:
Some officials and pundits are also calling to remove the right of people to grow marijuana in their homes, with Goldberg lamenting that it would be untaxed. Yet this is part of the point — marijuana is expensive and not covered by health insurance, and because our medical marijuana law does not allow all patients to grow their own, providing this protection to all adults will finally let patients provide for themselves. And beyond that vulnerable population, it’s unlikely that this right will be exercised by many beyond the most enthusiastic hobbyists. Home brewing is legal, but my neighbors making their own beer isn’t putting the Boston Brewing Company out of business any time soon. - Taxes:
Speaking of taxes, the final proposal being floating by many politicians is drastically increasing the tax rate approved by voters. This argument sounds sensible at first: Massachusetts’ effective tax rate of 12% is much lower than that in Colorado and Washington. But it’s lower for a reason. Drafters of the initiative saw those states having trouble extinguishing their black market, since the high tax rates make it cheaper to buy off the street than in a store. And critics fail to mention that Maine also legalized marijuana this year, with an even lower tax rate of 10%. If we raise ours too high, that creates an incentive for people to buy in Maine and bring it back to Massachusetts, just like they already drive to New Hampshire for cheaper alcohol — but this time, they’d be breaking both New Hampshire and federal law.
Now, that doesn’t mean there’s no room for improvement. The initiative was smart to create a Cannabis Control Commission to regulate the industry, filling in all of the gaps that couldn’t be addressed in a ballot measure. Its members will be able to regulate everything from packaging, to warning labels, to the types of products that can be sold. For example, regulators in Colorado have banned marijuana gummy bears and other items shaped like animals, and Massachusetts regulators could, and probably will, do the same. Since the Commission will be appointed by the Treasurer, it’s almost certain they’ll be quite cautious about the new industry. This regulatory process is where Goldberg should focus her efforts, not on lobbying for a bill to gut the law.
The main role for the legislature in the post-legalization world is to decide where the new money raised through marijuana taxes goes, and I hope they steer a large portion of it to evidence-based drug prevention programs and public education. With tax revenues projected around $100,000,000 per year once the new industry is up and running, there’s even more reason to move quickly on implementation.
The political establishment already failed at scaring voters away from legal marijuana. Rather than continue their campaign of resistance, they should listen to the people and regulate marijuana responsibly.
A friend of mine who once worked on the Hill told me the timeline would have to be revised if the law passed. She said it was unrealistic.
I don’t really understand why it becomes legal immediately, then gets regulated in 2018.
…a transition to legalization through a period of decriminalization. What I read above is that it can’t be sold commercially until 2018, not that it won’t be regulated. Issues like this are exactly why I’m no fan of direct democracy.
Representative democracy? How’s that been working out?
My theory of representation also tends to be quite Burkean. I believe the will of the people should be filtered through elected representatives who have the resources and commitment to study an issue, mark up legislation, and make it effective. Direct democracy is a take it or leave it proposition with no opportunity to make it better and often without all the information or capacity to process it. I include myself in that even though I will vote on the questions since I believe if you don’t vote you can’t complain. In this case, the people voted for something which immediately has to be tweaked anyway, leading people to whine about not being listened to. If you feel strongly about something you are always welcome to contact your legislators about it.
.
I believe that if we are going to call the President and VP elected officials they ought to actually be elected by the people. (Federal judges aren’t elected either, which is fine, but we don’t pretend that they are.) I especially don’t like when the Electoral College distribution has the effect of overriding the express will of the people. It’s simple: We should elect people to study and determine what will be law and policy, but they should in fact be elected.
I recall you defending it in the past. Forgive me if I am mistaken. I do remember we were alone in defending the filibuster. I know I used to defend the EC, back when I made textualist arguments here just to be contrarian and because my debating society was rather center-right so my arguments from that era tended to be as well.
I favor abolishing it, but via direct amendment and not the uncertainty of the interstate compact. Though at this point, it’s probably the only viable route. We will need some Republicans to lose the EC while winning the popular vote, but that’s mathematically less likely based on how the system is composed
…but like you I favor abolishing it via constitutional amendment rather than the NPV workaround. If I ever thought the EC, and especially the winner take all allocation most states use, was a good idea, that was ages ago.
I was just asking for clarification. My own thinking on the EC has changed from my college days. And I also agree a direct amendment is a better idea than an NPV, mainly since the NPV isn’t binding and would likely be unenforceable. Both are unlikely until some Republicans start losing the EV sad to say.
Not the voters. The legislature had nearly two years to anticipate this result and head it off. The Rogers-Jehlen proposal had stricter controls and higher taxation levels. It would’ve been easier to implement without the kind of shock we are seeing now. Goldberg and others also had ample time to prepare the Cannabis Commission.
The idea that they were caught flat footed is absurd as polls showed this issue was at least going to come down to the wire, or be narrowly passed. They ended up underestimating the levels of support. Compare their preparation to the Gaming Commission, which they wanted, and which was ready to fleece the taxpayers on day 1.
It takes a while to set up regulations and approve businesses to open, which is why stores couldn’t just open immediately after passage, and I think that’s reasonable. But it doesn’t take any time to simply stop arresting/ticketing people for possession, so that can be implemented almost immediately.
One of the main reasons for its passage was that people don’t think adults should get in legal trouble for marijuana possession or home growing, so continuing to arrest/ticket people for those offenses for another year (or more) would run counter to that.
but I suspect how much of this will proceed will depend on whether Sen. Jeff Sessions is confirmed as the head of the federal DOJ and what his priorities concerning marijuana will be. If he decides to take a hard line on recreational marijuana sales, which is plausible and perhaps likely, then that will surely influence both the state’s timelines and prospects of tax revenues.
Sessions may try to to interfere with the states that are legalizing recreational use but I think it unlikely to be successful. I suspect his first stab will be at money laundering charges against lawyers and banks, which will limit somewhat the commercial market and consequently increase the underground and sorta-legalized market, people who grow more than is permitted under the new law and sell to friends and others on the black market. There will be no limits on the quality or safety of those products, and of course no revenue for the state.
Outright arrests by the FBI will likely be limited to large commercial growers. Charlie Baker will face a question on those cases about whether he authorizes the use of state resources (e.g. State Police and National Guard) to assist them, as he did on the Vineyard this year http://www.mvtimes.com/2016/07/27/feds-snatch-islanders-medical-marijuana-plants/