Legalization of marijuana will come at a high cost

by Pat Butler

As Nevada City moves forward with its medical marijuana dispensary ordinance, discussions concerning the legalization, regulation and taxation of cannabis are occurring across the Golden State.

Oakland could become the first city in the nation to add another layer of taxation to marijuana if voters approve Measure F, a “special” business tax that proponents say will generate around $315,000 a year for the city. Medical marijuana dispensaries there support the tax, which ultimately would be paid by the patients.

Pot proponents are crafting a ballot measure called the California 2010 Cannabis Reform Proposition. It would essentially put marijuana in the same category as liquor and cigarettes, with the promise of generating millions of dollars in additional sales tax revenue.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a San Francisco Democrat, has introduced legislation that would put a $50 fee on every ounce of medical marijuana sold in the state with the money going to drug prevention and rehabilitation programs.

According to a state Board of Equalization analysis of Ammiano's AB 390, the $50 special fee would generate $990 million a year that would be in addition to an estimated $392 million in medical marijuana sales tax revenue.

The state's budget crisis is providing much of the traction for these discussions and that should make all of us paranoid.

California's recent history is all about growing government at the expense of tapped-out taxpayers.

In the analysis of AB 390, no mention was made of the administrative costs that would accompany the enactment of the legislation except to say it would be “substantial.”

It's stunning that the same lawmakers who brought us multi-billion deficits while earning more than a $100,000 a year themselves can still propose legislation that takes more money from Californians and adding more bureaucracy.

Ammiano's legislation also imposes an unfair burden on medical marijuana users. If it is considered medicine in California, which it is, how does Ammiano justify imposing an additional $50 fee on those who have legal prescriptions for a medication.

It seems if the lawmakers who get high spending our money want to take this approach to balancing the budget, every medication should be subjected to the same fee. How can we justify charging an extra fee to a cancer patient who uses marijuana without applying the same fee to those who take pain-killers, anti-depressants, blood-pressure pills or Viagra?

The legislation seems to discriminate against medical marijuana patients and all in the name of a cash-grab by the state of California.

This sort of legislation likely would have a profound affect on medical marijuana dispensaries like the one's being considered in Nevada City and Grass Valley. Rather than pay the additional fee, medical marijuana patients may turn to dealers to get their medicine, a risky practice that Prop. 215 was designed to make unnecessary.

Fewer patients shopping at the dispensaries also means less sales tax revenue would be collected by the cities and the state.

Now, there's no question that many people believe medical marijuana patients should have to pay excessive fees or taxes. It's their belief that these folks are scamming the system so they can smoke pot without the risk of arrest.

The primary problem with the logic is that people who want to smoke marijuana don't worry much about getting arrested in Northern California as well as other places in the state and country. It's a prevalent and popular drug that many people believe is a legitimate medicine.

But the push to tax and regulate marijuana has nothing to do with furthering medical care or even the growing acceptance of cannabis. It's all about the money.

Now, what if the taxation of medical marijuana does not bring in the kind of money we need to feed the state's appetite for revenue and regulation? It likely will move on to another revenue opportunity.

Now that yoga is a popular and growing industry, several states and cities are taking steps to further regulate the industry (for our own good, of course) and assessing additional fees that are driving small yoga studios out of business.

The list of activities and products that provide us with some measure of relief is a long one. Do you want a state government that can't balance its own budget eyeballing every successful enterprise so it can take its cut off the top and then impose new standards and rules?