Katelyn Baker
Well-Known Member
YES
John F. Keenan
State senator, Quincy Democrat
With the passage of Question 4, on Dec. 15 it became legal in Massachusetts to possess marijuana for recreational use. However, last month the Legislature and the governor passed legislation that delays some parts of the marijuana law by six months, including when shops will be able to sell marijuana.
The six-month delay will best serve all the residents of Massachusetts for many reasons, but here I focus only on one: The extra six months will give the state the time needed to address a budget shortfall while planning for the responsible implementation and funding of the recreational marijuana program.
Just recently, Governor Charles Baker, citing concerns of a budget deficit that must be closed over the next six months, cut $98 million from this year's budget. This included funding for education, emergency food assistance, senior care, suicide prevention, services for young people with disabilities, and efforts to combat the opioid epidemic.
Meanwhile, to meet the timelines set forth in the ballot question, over the next 12 months the state would be required to implement a large-scale, well-regulated recreational marijuana program. At a minimum, that means ensuring the state is able to collect marijuana sales taxes properly, address issues relating to cultivation such as pesticide regulation, train law enforcement and health departments, and adequately inform the public on the new law and marijuana use.
The ballot question did not provide a source of funding for these items, which are necessary to get a responsible program underway long before the state sees a penny of marijuana tax revenue. Two years ago, Colorado legalized recreational marijuana and, according to public officials there, had to budget nearly $16 million this past year alone for these items and millions more for other marijuana program related costs.
Rather than pitting the needs of students, the hungry, seniors, those with mental health issues, young people with disabilities, and those suffering addiction against the requirements of a recreational marijuana program, residents of the Commonwealth would be better served by the state taking the time to address its current budget shortfall. We need to get this done correctly now, so the proposed benefits can become reality.
NO
Jim Borghesani
Duxbury resident, spokesman for the 2016 "Yes on 4" ballot campaign
The recent informal-session move by a handful of legislators to delay implementation of retail marijuana sales by six months was as unnecessary as it was unacceptable. Of the eight states that have approved legal, regulated marijuana systems, only Massachusetts has a Legislature that has delayed the legal sales timetable. This is an unflattering distinction.
The law passed by 54 percent of voters created a tightly-controlled system of sales to be overseen by a Cannabis Control Commission, similar to how the state's Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission regulates liquor sales. The authors of the new law granted the Cannabis Control Commission full authority over writing and enforcing all rules governing the industry, including application and permitting, security, packaging, labeling, advertising, public safety, product tracking, and quality control. The Legislature should have let the commission perform its duties on the timeline prescribed by the new law. Any necessary legislative actions could have then been shaped through the commission's guidance.
Instead, a small group of legislators, acting without any data or expert guidance, pushed back retail sales by six months. This move creates numerous negative consequences. First, it extends the current awkward period where marijuana possession and use is legal but sales are not. Second, it delays a significant new source of much-needed tax revenue for the state. Third, it represents legislative intrusion onto a system designed to be regulated, not legislated. And fourth, it blatantly disregards the will of Massachusetts voters.
The new law's authors were well aware of the painfully slow rollout of the state's medical marijuana system and proposed reasonable structures and deadlines to avoid a repeat. It is important to note that the deadlines were exactly the same as those in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and other legal states, each of which set up their systems without delay.
It is also important to note that the Legislature had numerous opportunities to create a regulated marijuana system. They chose to do nothing, which led to the ballot initiative process. In essence, they punted, and now want the ball back. That is not the way the system should work, and is not what voters intended on Nov. 8.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Were State Leaders Right To Delay By Six Months The Start Of Recreational Marijuana Sales?
Author: Staff
Contact: 1-888-694-5623
Photo Credit: None Found
Website: The Boston Globe
John F. Keenan
State senator, Quincy Democrat
With the passage of Question 4, on Dec. 15 it became legal in Massachusetts to possess marijuana for recreational use. However, last month the Legislature and the governor passed legislation that delays some parts of the marijuana law by six months, including when shops will be able to sell marijuana.
The six-month delay will best serve all the residents of Massachusetts for many reasons, but here I focus only on one: The extra six months will give the state the time needed to address a budget shortfall while planning for the responsible implementation and funding of the recreational marijuana program.
Just recently, Governor Charles Baker, citing concerns of a budget deficit that must be closed over the next six months, cut $98 million from this year's budget. This included funding for education, emergency food assistance, senior care, suicide prevention, services for young people with disabilities, and efforts to combat the opioid epidemic.
Meanwhile, to meet the timelines set forth in the ballot question, over the next 12 months the state would be required to implement a large-scale, well-regulated recreational marijuana program. At a minimum, that means ensuring the state is able to collect marijuana sales taxes properly, address issues relating to cultivation such as pesticide regulation, train law enforcement and health departments, and adequately inform the public on the new law and marijuana use.
The ballot question did not provide a source of funding for these items, which are necessary to get a responsible program underway long before the state sees a penny of marijuana tax revenue. Two years ago, Colorado legalized recreational marijuana and, according to public officials there, had to budget nearly $16 million this past year alone for these items and millions more for other marijuana program related costs.
Rather than pitting the needs of students, the hungry, seniors, those with mental health issues, young people with disabilities, and those suffering addiction against the requirements of a recreational marijuana program, residents of the Commonwealth would be better served by the state taking the time to address its current budget shortfall. We need to get this done correctly now, so the proposed benefits can become reality.
NO
Jim Borghesani
Duxbury resident, spokesman for the 2016 "Yes on 4" ballot campaign
The recent informal-session move by a handful of legislators to delay implementation of retail marijuana sales by six months was as unnecessary as it was unacceptable. Of the eight states that have approved legal, regulated marijuana systems, only Massachusetts has a Legislature that has delayed the legal sales timetable. This is an unflattering distinction.
The law passed by 54 percent of voters created a tightly-controlled system of sales to be overseen by a Cannabis Control Commission, similar to how the state's Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission regulates liquor sales. The authors of the new law granted the Cannabis Control Commission full authority over writing and enforcing all rules governing the industry, including application and permitting, security, packaging, labeling, advertising, public safety, product tracking, and quality control. The Legislature should have let the commission perform its duties on the timeline prescribed by the new law. Any necessary legislative actions could have then been shaped through the commission's guidance.
Instead, a small group of legislators, acting without any data or expert guidance, pushed back retail sales by six months. This move creates numerous negative consequences. First, it extends the current awkward period where marijuana possession and use is legal but sales are not. Second, it delays a significant new source of much-needed tax revenue for the state. Third, it represents legislative intrusion onto a system designed to be regulated, not legislated. And fourth, it blatantly disregards the will of Massachusetts voters.
The new law's authors were well aware of the painfully slow rollout of the state's medical marijuana system and proposed reasonable structures and deadlines to avoid a repeat. It is important to note that the deadlines were exactly the same as those in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and other legal states, each of which set up their systems without delay.
It is also important to note that the Legislature had numerous opportunities to create a regulated marijuana system. They chose to do nothing, which led to the ballot initiative process. In essence, they punted, and now want the ball back. That is not the way the system should work, and is not what voters intended on Nov. 8.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Were State Leaders Right To Delay By Six Months The Start Of Recreational Marijuana Sales?
Author: Staff
Contact: 1-888-694-5623
Photo Credit: None Found
Website: The Boston Globe
