Choosing sides on pot
Sorry, senators. Yes, it is important to respect the will of the voters — and how nice that many of you are now discovering this concept. But state lawmakers also have a duty to protect the public, including protecting them from the undue financial burden posed by the regulatory and law enforcement effort that will inevitably be part of the legalization of recreational marijuana.
“Minor tweaks” to the voterpassed marijuana bill, as one senator called them during the more than 10 hours of debate last week, are simply not enough.
The House version of the pot legislation — a more thorough rewrite of the ballot law — remains superior to the Senate version, and negotiations over a final bill ought to be weighted in its favor.
If lawmakers were to compile a tally of calls and emails and tweets they receive in response to the proposed changes, we’d be curious to know how many come from average constituents — ahem, the grassroots, as it were — and how many come from the professional pot lobby. Because we have yet to notice much pushback to the notion that the bill needs a big fix, at least from voters who approved Question 4 back in November.
Voters went to the polls and ordered the legalization, regulation and taxation of the sale and use of marijuana for recreational purposes. The 9,000-word bill they approved — a bill written by the pot industry — was deeply flawed. Those two facts do not have to stand in conflict.
A 12 percent tax on retail sales (2 percent of that a local option tax) is insufficient. The House proposal for an all-in tax rate of 28 percent — which includes a 5 percent local tax for those communities that agree to host pot shops — should cover the regulatory and law enforcement costs associated with the new industry.
Sure, compromise is possible as House and Senate conferees work this week to resolve their differences. But in no case should that levy slip below the 20 percent mark.
And if pot advocates want marijuana to be regulated like alcohol, as they’ve long insisted, then why shouldn’t local licenses for pot shops be subject to the same approval process as alcohol retailers? Why should it be subject to a city- or town-wide vote?
And the Senate, with its usual liberal hubris, decided that this bill should also be the vehicle for allowing courts to expunge the records of anyone ever convicted of possessing a Class D substance. Unless that is simply a bargain chip to eke out some additional concession from House conferees.
The House bill tackled all the relevant and the toughest issues and does so in the interest of average Massachusetts residents. The Senate merely parrots the happy talk of the growing cannabis industry.