An Act to Regulate and Tax the Cannabis Industry ?

[format]

Just seen this http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/sena...01/st01801.htm

Certainly interesting, with any luck this could have a 'domino' effect on other states, and perhaps countries as the stigma dissappears and the benefits become clear.
Obviously this legislation is not perfect but it is certainly a large step in the right direction.

The governor and the representatives of the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging that previous efforts have not succeeded in eliminating or curtailing marijuana use and abuse; determined to exercise some measure of control over the use of cannabis consistent with respect for individual freedom and responsibility; and declaring our objectives to be the reduction of cannabis abuse, the elimination of marijuana-related crime and the raising of public revenue, do hereby ordain and enact The Cannabis Regulation and Taxation Act.

[Brucelles]

it is a weird thing that someone decided to mqke cannabis illegal in the first place, thus creating a class of criminal. Reversing that idiotic decision sounds like q bloody good idea.

Please forgive typing due to French keyboard.

[chuckskull]

Personally I'm all for legalising and taxing it. Just like cigs and booze. I believe California is planning something very similar in addition to their medicinal marijuana laws.

I know this is in America, but how many hospitals(or bath plugs for MP's) would 15% of the revenue of the entire UK cannabis market pay for? How many jobs would it create? How many police resources would it free up? How many people would never use harder drugs if they could buy their cannabis from someone reputable rather than some hoody?

I really hope these laws go into effect in a lot of US states, because as we all know our government tends to follow Americas lead

[format]

Good point chuckskull - I've been preaching this stuff to anyone that'll listen for a long time.

One potential problem ( and I'm venturing slightly off from the facts here) is that the U.S prison system is one hell of a lucrative business. If they can't lock up stoners then they will lose a LOT of business.

[funke_munke]

Jolly good, very suprised it's happening in America though - I was under the impression they are harsher on Cannabis laws than over here?

[thestjohn]

Did anybody read the report from Transform on the monetary benefits of legalisation of drugs in the UK? I'll link the website below, but a section I think is relevant I'll quote:

The net annual benefit of a move from prohibition to legal state regulation and control of drug markets would be: Scenario a) 50% fall in use, net benefit = £13.943 billion Scenario b) No change in use, net benefit = £10.834 billion Scenario c) 50% increase in use, net benefit = £7.724 billion Scenario d) 100% increase in use, net benefit = £4.616 billion

So worst case scenario, the taxpayer ends up £4.6 billion better off. It's an interesting report anyway, they concentrate on heroin and cocaine use as that seems to be the more worrying aspect of potential legalisation, and they seem to provisionally confirm the growing consensus that the war on drugs hurts us more than we think.
Link to PDF on Transform's website

[chuckskull]

Jolly good, very suprised it's happening in America though - I was under the impression they are harsher on Cannabis laws than over here?

It's an odd situation over there. There are a lot harsher on it and at the same time they aren't(literally). It's to do with the way states are incorporated into the union among many other things, mainly the difference between local and federal law and the right the states have to these differences.

Marjiuana is a schedule 1 drug in the USA and completely illegal to own, use or distribute, and carries similar penalties as all other schedule 1 drugs(coke, crack etc etc).

But in some(11 I believe) states it is legal to own, use and distribute for medical use, so long as you have all the proper paperwork from the state. Yes you read that right, it literally is illegal and legal at the same time.

Whether or not you're arrested and charged (assuming you have all the aforementioned paperwork) depends on nothing more than who is holding the cuff's. If it is a local police officer, in his eyes you have committed no crime and will be allowed to go on your way with your weed and an apology for troubling you.

If it is a DEA agent on the other hand the conversation starts weapons drawn and I imagine lots of overly masculine men calling you 'dirtbag' and yes can end in very harsh prison sentences(you get less for killing someone over here). The DEA regularly raids state registered and licensed dispensaries.

The DEA's position is that they cannot choose which laws to enforce and until federal law changes their hands are tied.

Currently more states are slowly moving toward legalising medicinal use and eventual decriminalisation, but I think it will be a while before there is enough weight behind it to influence federal lawmakers.

[Barakka]

Personally I'm all for legalising and taxing it. Just like cigs and booze. I believe California is planning something very similar in addition to their medicinal marijuana laws.

But isn't the tax on cigarettes in the UK so high that it would make the cost more than 4 times the current illegal price. The Government wouldn't be able to tax it at a different rate due to public opinion and perception, and the illegal black market would just continue except for a tiny minority that didn't mind spending 4 times the cost for legal stuff.

One of the reasons this topic always stalls is the medicinal use is seriously over-hyped, and usually by people with no medical reason for taking it themselves.

[format]

But isn't the tax on cigarettes in the UK so high that it would make the cost more than 4 times the current illegal price. The Government wouldn't be able to tax it at a different rate due to public opinion and perception, and the illegal black market would just continue except for a tiny minority that didn't mind spending 4 times the cost for legal stuff.

One of the reasons this topic always stalls is the medicinal use is seriously over-hyped, and usually by people with no medical reason for taking it themselves.

Is that just like the massive black market that exists for cigarettes?
I doubt the government would be naive enough to tax it to an extent where people prefer to break the law to save money. Remember there are a lot of profits being made at many points along the supply chain in the current business model, so it's likely that if the whole process was controlled or subsidised by the government, prices could remain the same, it's even possible that they could decrease!

As for medicinal use being seriously overhyped, there is a body of evidence that suggests the contrary.

[kalniel]

It wouldn't really be legalised for pro-cannibis reasons though - quite the opposite - it's easier to control use and importantly take money away from organised crime if you legalise a previously banned substance. The same debate is frequently had about class A drugs over here as well - at some point the beneficial effect of taking away money to be made by organised crime and putting it towards rehabilitation and education might produce a situation where we have less abusers, and those that do abuse have less effect on the rest of society.

The problem comes if legalisation therefore comes with a 'it must be okay' message.. but while that might have been the case in the past I think we're getting to the point where people no longer use the law as a measure of what could be potentially harmful to society.

[Barakka]

Is that just like the massive black market that exists for cigarettes?
I doubt the government would be naive enough to tax it to an extent where people prefer to break the law to save money. Remember there are a lot of profits being made at many points along the supply chain in the current business model, so it's likely that if the whole process was controlled or subsidised by the government, prices could remain the same, it's even possible that they could decrease!

As for medicinal use being seriously overhyped, there is a body of evidence that suggests the contrary.

The difference with the black market for cannabis is that it already exists, is massive in scale, and makes a lot of money for a lot of people. It's not something that will start-up, it's something that a legal supply would need to compete against, and if taking the most obvious taxation route would struggle to make a dent.

There was a program "Joint Ventures" back in 1995 shown as part of Channel4''s "Pot Night" where they set up the scenario of what if it was legalised ? exploring the financial side and how best to capitalise on it. Adam Faith was tasked with finding the best capital venture to make money from the legalisation. The biggest hurdle he faced was the taxation as it had to be assumed that it would be taxed the same as nicotine and therefore would make it 4-6 times more expensive than the black market price. In the end he had to settle on making a box of chocolates, but even then a standard size box (£3-5 normally) came out around £25-30 with the added ingredient.

If the government was to legalise it they would struggle to tax it differently to cigarettes due to how people view it's use as a drug, and this could be the downfall.

[Salazaar]

I find it hard to imagine a situation where corporate involvement (which would inevitably happen once it was legal) would not significantly reduce the costs involved all along the chain.

[Barakka]

I find it hard to imagine a situation where corporate involvement (which would inevitably happen once it was legal) would not significantly reduce the costs involved all along the chain.

Yes, but that was factored in, you need to remember the tax on cigarettes is well in excess of 300%.

So, say the price for X on the black market is £15, the economies of scale and mass production bring this down to say £5, which is probably realistic, the tax would be well over £15 on that making it in excess of £20. In reality it would probably be closer to £30, effectively doubling the price of the black market, which when faced with competition would probably drop their prices too!

[JPreston]

It wouldn't really be legalised for pro-cannibis reasons though - quite the opposite - it's easier to control use and importantly take money away from organised crime if you legalise a previously banned substance. The same debate is frequently had about class A drugs over here as well - at some point the beneficial effect of taking away money to be made by organised crime and putting it towards rehabilitation and education might produce a situation where we have less abusers, and those that do abuse have less effect on the rest of society.

The problem comes if legalisation therefore comes with a 'it must be okay' message.. but while that might have been the case in the past I think we're getting to the point where people no longer use the law as a measure of what could be potentially harmful to society.

Good post. I've yet to hear any kind of coherent argument in favour of drug prohibition, and cannabis is a drug that could be decriminalised this afternoon entirely practically, as a step towards full legalisation/regulation/taxation sometime next month .

I don't even see the problem with the 'it must be OK' message, because actually it is OK (on a scale where alcohol is still 'bad' and tobacco is 'very very bad', despite them being legal already).

[Barakka]

... because actually it is OK (on a scale where alcohol is still 'bad' and tobacco is 'very very bad', despite them being legal already).

OK In what ways ? It's comparitive effect on society ? The effects of THC on tumor growth ? It's actions as a carcinogen and shared cardiotoxins with nictoine ? THC's effect on the human psyche ? The effect of long-term use on interaction skills/motivation/memory ? The physical addiction ?

There's an age old comparison that if alcohol and nicotine were newly discovered today they would be class A and banned. Just because it's not as bad (in your opinion) as something that is already legal doesn't give grounds to make it legal. Cannabis is most closely compared to nicotine, which is arguably the worst legal drug, but nicotine is gradually being phased out, the changes in pricing, availability, ability to use, and image portrayed to the rest of society has been vastly changed over the last 10 years. It's only a matter of time until it goes forever, hardly grounds to legalise another potentially dangerous substance.

[format]

OK In what ways ? It's comparitive effect on society ? The effects of THC on tumor growth ? It's actions as a carcinogen and shared cardiotoxins with nictoine ? THC's effect on the human psyche ? The effect of long-term use on interaction skills/motivation/memory ? The physical addiction ?

There's an age old comparison that if alcohol and nicotine were newly discovered today they would be class A and banned. Just because it's not as bad (in your opinion) as something that is already legal doesn't give grounds to make it legal. Cannabis is most closely compared to nicotine, which is arguably the worst legal drug, but nicotine is gradually being phased out, the changes in pricing, availability, ability to use, and image portrayed to the rest of society has been vastly changed over the last 10 years. It's only a matter of time until it goes forever, hardly grounds to legalise another potentially dangerous substance.

Show me something that is not potentially dangerous. The world's a dangerous place, and it's one that is full of adults who (in theory) are capable of making our own decisions. If you think about it, it's an absolute outrage that we can be incarcerated or even fined for choosing to smoke a relatively harmless plant. They keyword is relative. I could write all day long about the things that are perceived as acceptable, yet are way more dangerous than smoking weed. It's just a shame that a large portion of society has this phony moral stigma towards drugs and drug users. I'm not getting at you specifically by the way - it's refreshing to see someone argue the antidrugs stance using an argument other than 'er well, don't do drugs coz they're bad... and CRIME AND UR A BAD A PERSON FOR DOING THEM'