Truth Seeker
New Member
Give credit where credit is due: The Amendment 64 Implementation Task Force faced a tremendously complex chore under a terribly tight deadline and yet succeeded.
In finishing its work this week, the task force is giving lawmakers, for the most part, a solid set of recommendations as they begin to consider how to regulate the growing and sale of marijuana.
We don't agree with every recommendation, as we'll explain, but many of the ideas are sensible attempts to comply with the intent of Amendment 64 while minimizing the possibility of diversion of marijuana to minors.
Thus the task force suggests outlawing the "gifting" of marijuana in return for a donation – a scam already underway – as well as any pot smoking at bars or even special social clubs set up for that purpose. The language of Amendment 64 clearly never contemplated such clubs, no matter what their supporters say.
We also believe the task force was right to say that sales to people visiting from out of state should be permitted. Trying to suppress such trade not only would be difficult, it goes far beyond any provision in Amendment 64.
We don't have room to list the many other recommendations that appear sound, but we do want to highlight several concerns. The first has to do with taxes, which the task force discussed this week. In addition to a 15 percent excise tax, the task force recommended a special sales tax for marijuana, mentioning 25 percent as an example.
Supporters of such high taxes point out that the fees imposed on medical marijuana have not been sufficient to fund adequate state oversight, and they're right. But on the other hand, lawmakers need to be careful not to pump up the retail price of marijuana to the point that it drives consumers back into the black market.
One of the major purposes of Amendment 64 was to dry up the black market and its associated ills, and yet that won't happen unless the price of retail marijuana is competitive with the drug on the street.
We also question the task force's concessions to the medical marijuana industry, first by giving those businesses a monopoly on retail licenses for the first year and then mandating that they grow the bulk of what they sell – as is the case today – for a transitional period of three years.
Both these provisions – and especially vertical integration – threaten to stifle competition at the expense of consumers and are simply not needed for effective regulation.
And are lawmakers really likely to let vertical integration lapse in 2016 even if it proves counterproductive given the forces that will be arrayed on behalf of the status quo by then?
The best way to serve competition in the long run is to enshrine it at the outset.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: denverpost.com
Author: The Denver Post Editorial Board
Contact: Contact Us - The Denver Post
Website: Colorado pot panel was up to the task - The Denver Post
In finishing its work this week, the task force is giving lawmakers, for the most part, a solid set of recommendations as they begin to consider how to regulate the growing and sale of marijuana.
We don't agree with every recommendation, as we'll explain, but many of the ideas are sensible attempts to comply with the intent of Amendment 64 while minimizing the possibility of diversion of marijuana to minors.
Thus the task force suggests outlawing the "gifting" of marijuana in return for a donation – a scam already underway – as well as any pot smoking at bars or even special social clubs set up for that purpose. The language of Amendment 64 clearly never contemplated such clubs, no matter what their supporters say.
We also believe the task force was right to say that sales to people visiting from out of state should be permitted. Trying to suppress such trade not only would be difficult, it goes far beyond any provision in Amendment 64.
We don't have room to list the many other recommendations that appear sound, but we do want to highlight several concerns. The first has to do with taxes, which the task force discussed this week. In addition to a 15 percent excise tax, the task force recommended a special sales tax for marijuana, mentioning 25 percent as an example.
Supporters of such high taxes point out that the fees imposed on medical marijuana have not been sufficient to fund adequate state oversight, and they're right. But on the other hand, lawmakers need to be careful not to pump up the retail price of marijuana to the point that it drives consumers back into the black market.
One of the major purposes of Amendment 64 was to dry up the black market and its associated ills, and yet that won't happen unless the price of retail marijuana is competitive with the drug on the street.
We also question the task force's concessions to the medical marijuana industry, first by giving those businesses a monopoly on retail licenses for the first year and then mandating that they grow the bulk of what they sell – as is the case today – for a transitional period of three years.
Both these provisions – and especially vertical integration – threaten to stifle competition at the expense of consumers and are simply not needed for effective regulation.
And are lawmakers really likely to let vertical integration lapse in 2016 even if it proves counterproductive given the forces that will be arrayed on behalf of the status quo by then?
The best way to serve competition in the long run is to enshrine it at the outset.
News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: denverpost.com
Author: The Denver Post Editorial Board
Contact: Contact Us - The Denver Post
Website: Colorado pot panel was up to the task - The Denver Post
