It’s been nearly six months since the voters approved Question 4 to legalize and tax recreational marijuana. But we’re still at the starting line, because in December the Legislature pushed back by six months all the timelines that the ballot question had established. The regulatory commission that was supposed to be appointed by March won’t be appointed until September, the review of license applications that was supposed to begin in October won’t start until next April, and so on.
And now it’s possible that the finish line may be moved. There’s a brand new legislative committee that will review the 44 bills that were filed at the start of the new 2017-2018 session responding to the passage of the new law. With only a few exceptions, the bills are far more wary than enthusiastic. They propose stricter local control over retail marijuana establishments, a reduction in the amount of marijuana that can be grown at home, restrictions on potency (the law, as approved by the voters, provided that such restrictions would be imposed by the regulatory commission), restrictions on advertising, etc., etc.
Which is at least a little odd considering that the Department of Revenue has estimated that marijuana sales could bring in $64 million in new revenue in the first year of the law’s operation, and once again this year the state is digging through the sofa cushions for loose change to fix the perennial hole in the budget.
But before we conclude that our lawmakers are skittish about any new enterprise that may strike some members of the citizenry as morally problematic even as it brings in new revenue, let’s review the launch of the casino law.
At a comparable time (six months after the law was passed), the members of the new Massachusetts Gaming Commission had been appointed and staked to a $15 million line of credit. The buzz was all about the new jobs that were shortly to arrive and the new revenues that were shortly to replenish our recession-depleted treasury. (The marijuana law has gotten only a measly $300,000 to cover costs to date.)
The Gaming Commission got the licensing process underway with an award to Penn National Gaming to operate a slots parlor in Plainville. They did so with the rosy understanding that it would bring in as much as $300 million in revenue annually. But whoops. After the first year of operation, the revenue number was $160 million, barely half of the original estimate. What happened?
According to the Commission’s account, which the Globe reported credulously, the initial revenue projections were “extravagant” guesses offered by casino industry consultants. Well, okay, but what about the Commission’s due diligence in investigating that guesstimate? “We thought there was a flaw in their methodology but we couldn’t find it,” Crosby said.
Indeed. The Commission could not find the flaw, even when aided by the research of their own consultants, who also predicted that Plainville’s annual revenues would yield far more than $160 million — and who were rewarded by the state for such prognostications to the tune of a million bucks.
Water under the bridge, apparently. Anyway, now all is well. The Commission “could not be more pleased” with the Plainridge revenues, which are half of the original estimates and which is totally okay, because we now know the estimates were unrealistic to begin with. Construction has begun on two other casinos, with who knows how many more to follow, as Massachusetts duels Connecticut for supremacy in the gambling wars. Gambling is clearly the Legislature’s favored child, (as compared to marijuana), and even more cossetting may be on the way — the House of Representatives is proposing to let casinos continue to serve alcohol for hours after bars and restaurants must close. Meanwhile, marijuana legalization is in danger of being strangled in its crib.
Did the Legislature ever take note of the discrepancy between revenue expectations and revenue reality in Plainville? No evidence that they did, and if it’s brought to their attention, many seem prepared to laugh it off like Commissioner Crosby did: “we all seemed to be smoking something.”
Especially since failing to implement a regulatory regime will just allow the grey market to expand and thrive. We have already made selling the product commercially legal, what we have not done, is make it easy to do this in an above board way where public health officials can ensure safety and public revenue can be collected. The contrast is a great indictment of the short sighted priorities of the legislature and how easily they are captured by outside lobbying.
I am the target demographic the gambling industry looks to capture. In the last year I’ve been to a dozen different casinos in half a dozen states (and aboard ship). I went to Plainville once out of curiosity. I’ll go to Springfield when it’s up, again out of curiosity.
The main reason I won’t hang Mass gambling parlors? In Conn you get free beer while you’re playing. (you tip a dollar) I am going to lose but if I get free beer and comped a meal once in a while I’ll go back. I’ll go to Springfield only once because after losing and paying for my beer then I’ll have to pay a toll on the Pike which will really tic me off.
Gambling is about trying to get something for nothing. In that sense, looking for free drinks and not paying for the infrastructure needed to get you home seems par for the course.
.
You order from the charming waitress, and she takes a long time to bring it to you, and you sit at the table … continuing to play. Maybe you would anyway, but maybe you wouldn’t.
It’s entertainment to me. I know people in GA and they can’t go in casinos. There are a lot of tricks casinos use. They have no clocks showing, subtle lighting tricks, “free” drinks, did you know they pump oxygen into the air systems to keep you awake? I win 30% of the time, but it’s entertaining. And as our lottery commission says, you can’t win if you don’t play.
Never split 8’s if the dealer has a ten showing.
The state has its both ways with gambling … we claim to be horrified, but we have a massive lottery, soon three casinos.
I’d almost rather we took a free market approach to it, but that would bring its own problems.
I went to the opening of the first casino. I watched the growth, going every summer for years. I saw the decline as crime increased. The urban setting led to a deterioration of the surrounding area to the point cops will tell you not to go a block off the boardwalk. I don’t go there anymore, too dangerous.
Foxwoods, Mohegan work because they’re away from cities. I’m afraid Springfield was a poor site to pick. I see older people (often women) losing their Soc Sec checks and know they shouldn’t be spending their money that way. I hope not but Springfield will only be good for 7-8 years.
If people want to gamble, I’m OK with that. I just think there are plenty of options, including online options.
Foxwoods a few year ago. Can’t describe how depressing I found it to be. Where were all those smiling happy healthy people that I saw on the television ads? I saw old men pushing old women in wheelchairs. I saw people in ripped sweatpants queuing up for the budget buffet. No one smiled. I was there with a group but after 30 minutes, called my wife and begged her to come and drive me home. She could not so I sat in the entrance and watched all the sad people come and go until our group finally agreed to leave.
I spent $20 at a poker table, next to an old man on a oxygen tube to my right and an older woman to my left who kept losing, and playing. I eventually lost the $20, bought two beers at the bar and that was that….headed to the lobby and waited for the misery to end.
So, when I heard all the politicians in Massachusetts telling me how great it was going to be…..well…
I continue to reject any notion that the two should be considered using the same set of principles.
I will simply refer my honourable friends to the plethora of arguments and comments I have previously made regarding this so-called “comparison”.
is that both gambling and purchasing (or growing) marijuana are legal activities that have as one of their purposes the raising of revenue. One of these activities enjoys the Legislature’s full support and one of them appears not to.
Is the one that has been objectively proven to raise more money with far fewer social costs. We are the fourth state in New England and the seventh in the Northeast to legalize gambling, but the first east of Colorado to legalize pot.
There is already a casino glut-part of the reason for the Plainville revenue projection failure and the scale back for the Everett and Springfield locations. Yet we would enjoy a legal marijuana monopoly for a few years and gain the kind of first mover revenue from marijuana tourism CO did.
…because they are different things it is reasonable that the legislature collectively or individual legislators might support one and not the other. I for one have never strongly pushed whatever revenue-raising arguments might apply to either; in fact I don’t find that a strong argument in either case.
It was reasonable to hold a debate and view the issues seperately prior to the vote. Legalizing one, both, or neither vice were options legislators could consider. Now that the people have decided to legalize both, the only options legislators can consider is how best to regulate them.
I think Hester makes a compelling case that indeed the legislature was ready day 1 to have legal casinos and is dropping the ball with countless delays and amendments on marijuana. I opposed casino gambling, but am glad rules were in place ready to be enforced the second they opened. That taxes were ready to be collected and applied. However you feel about marijuana, setting up a well taxed and regulated product was part of the bargain legislators made when they punted the decision to the voters.
OTOH I can also understand why the legislature that didn’t want something to happen in the first place not making preparing for it a priority.
SInce I think you are getting where we come from. That said, polls consistently showed this had a high chance of passage throughout the campaign and the legislature, even if a majority opposed the question, should have been ready with a regulatory regime like it had been with a different vice it supported.
I don’t recall any arguments.
Just because you didn’t like or agree with the arguments doesn’t mean I didn’t make them. Let’s at least respect each other on that point. Like I said above I stand by what I have said previously.
went marijuana is legal, but I’ve yet to hear convincing arguments for why implementation is going so slow.
There’s the argument that there’s no test for driving under the influence of cannabis. It already happens now. Are those people let go? I’m also skeptical of the argument that it can’t be allowed until there’s a way to catch people who abuse it. It sounds prudent, but I’d like to see some stats to back it up.
Then there’s the let’s tax it into oblivion. I was talking to someone working in the “cannabis industry” (let that term soak in for a while) in Washington. He said they had a 20% tax. I’m not familiar with pricing on weed, but he said it was uncompetitive with black market weed.
Colorado has a 16% tax and they are considering lowering it. Their initial annual pot revenue was eight times the projected target, while casino revenue is half of what was projected. The grey market is the only reason the referendum organizers pushed a 12% tax. They figured start low and go high as the market begins to develop.
They have always been open to raising the tax and open to local taxes and local controls.They are actually fairly sensible students of drug policy who were willing to work with the legislature before the referendum on a better bill. They would’ve pulled their ballot question entirely had the Rogers-Jehlen bill been passed instead.
This is no longer a question about legality-the product is already legal and it’s already in the streets without distributors being taxed or regulators having much of a role in policing the potency and safety of the product. It is a far more dangerous drug policy for this policy malpractice to continue to leave those dollars on the table and unregulated products on the streets. Let’s have a regulated market-this is what the voters wanted.
Marijuana is illegal under federal law in every state in the union. Anyone who possesses marijuana is subject to arrest and prosecution by federal authorities whenever they choose.
There most certainly IS a question about legality, and I suggest that anyone who ignores reality of our current US Attorney General and President does so at their extreme peril.
Nor is it a sufficient barrier to the legislature doing its job and following the will of the voters.
25% plus their rather high sales tax. I have my doubts if that’s really the reason why legal pot is more expensive though. The regulatory scheme is rather complex and the quasi-legality adds costs as well. If it could just be grown in normal fields, like a normal crop, you could support the high taxes State governments want.