We’ve finally reached agreement on a marijuana bill. I hope that
most voters will feel that the language improves on what the majority
approved last November while fundamentally respecting the majority’s
intentions.
First, to highlight some things that the compromise bill does not do:
As to local voter approval,
the compromise does provide
that if a community voted against the ballot question last November and
local officials want to implement the expressed will of their community
by imposing a ban on marijuana establishments, they can do so between
now and 2019 without going to the voters a second time. This affects
91 communities comprising 28% of state’s population.
Second, to highlight the major things the compromise bill does do:
- Broadens the governance of the new state regulatory agency, the
Cannabis Control Commission, by dividing the appointing authority among
the state’s top elected officials.
- Fills out “boilerplate” powers, duties and procedures for the CCC that were absent in the ballot question language.
- Strengthens public health protections – the ballot language gave the
CCC the authority to regulate advertising, packaging and labelling and
to require purity testing, but the compromise bill provides much
stronger and more specific direction to the CCC.
- Defines research questions to be answered by the CCC in the course of implementation.
- Consolidates the regulation of adult recreational marijuana and medical marijuana under the single new authority.
- Moves the medical marijuana language approved by the voters in 2012
to a new statutory home as Chapter 94I, while preserving the approved
language and regulations issued under it. Previously, this language was
not properly codified. There are a few minor changes, mostly to
clarify and streamline procedures for patients.
- Clarifies procedures for local ballot questions limiting the number
of marijuana establishments and adds new language to assure that zoning
and other regulations will not be used to evade the requirement of voter
approval for numeric limits.
- Caps the fees that municipalities can charge prospective licensees at 3% of gross sales – the ballot question included no cap.
- Makes certain possessory offenses civil that remained criminal under the ballot question
- Adds language assuring that people with prior convictions for possession under the old laws can have their records sealed.
- Add language intended to direct benefits of the new law to communities that were impacted by enforcement under the old law.
Other measures
- Adds language authorizing full background checks for commission
employees and applicants for licenses, but does not alter the principle
that people having criminal records but without felony drug convictions
records should not be barred from employment by a licensee.
- Reduces the head start in the application process for adult
recreational store licenses that the ballot question gives to medical
marijuana licensees – this should move the market out more rapidly.
- Creates a new provision for cultivation of industrial hemp and also supports small growers through a new cooperative concept.
Finally, the compromise does increase the excise tax on marijuana
from 3.75% to 10.75%. It also bumps up the excise that municipalities
may add from 2% to 3%. So together with the state sales tax of 6.25%,
the maximum tax goes from 12% to 20%.
That total tax is still among the lowest in the nation and should
not, in itself, be a barrier to expansion of the legal market. I came
to peace with the tax increase when it dawned on me that it would give
both state and local regulators stronger incentives to actively support
expansion.
The compromise reached by negotiators from the House and Senate is subject to final approval in each branch later this week.
I’m hopeful that with these changes, we will be on our way to a
well-regulated market in marijuana products that will replace our
dangerous and destructive illegal market.
