Pubdate: Sun, 26 Oct 2014
Source: Mail Tribune, The (Medford, OR)
Copyright: 2014 The Mail Tribune
Contact:  http://www.mailtribune.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/642
Note: Only prints LTEs from within it's circulation area, 200 word count limit

COST IS A POOR EXCUSE FOR LOCAL POT TAX

Jackson County last week became the latest local government to slap a
tax on recreational marijuana, just in case Ballot Measure 91 passes
and just in case the courts throw out clear language in the measure
prohibiting local taxes. County commissioners cited increased costs to
the county if marijuana is legalized, but have provided no specifics.
They should do so before asking voters to approve a new tax.

The county tax isn't official yet, and would go to voters next March
if Measure 91 passes. In addition to a 25 percent tax on the sale of
recreational marijuana, the commissioners endorsed the same tax rate
for medical cannabis.

Measure 91 includes a statewide tax of $35 per ounce on marijuana
flowers, $10 per ounce on leaves and $5 per immature plant. The
revenue would be shared among state and local governments, with 40
percent going to schools, 35 percent to state and local law
enforcement and 25 percent to drug treatment, prevention and mental
health programs.

Measure 91 says the state marijuana law, "designed to operate
uniformly throughout the state, shall be paramount and superior to and
shall fully replace and supersede any and all municipal charter
enactments or local ordinances inconsistent with it. Such charters and
ordinances hereby are repealed."

That sounds clear enough to us, but it hasn't stopped cities and
counties across the state from enacting taxes in hopes of being
"grandfathered in" if the measure passes. We're not lawyers or judges;
the courts will have to sort that out if the time comes.

The sudden desire of local officials to tax recreational marijuana, we
suspect, is motivated more by opposition to legalization than by any
desire to capitalize on a new retail industry. It's fine to have
concerns about the unknown consequences of legalizing marijuana use,
and we share some of those concerns. The Legislature might need to
make changes in the law as circumstances warrant.

But it's hard to see how Measure 91 would impose any significant costs
on local governments that they don't already incur. Police now spend
time and resources chasing illegal marijuana growers and sellers; it's
logical to suppose that burden would be less under legalization.
Collecting and enforcing a sales tax, moreover, would represent new
costs to the county and to local municipalities.

The tax rate written into Measure 91 was carefully calculated to keep
the retail price low enough that it wouldn't encourage more
black-market sales. Piling local option taxes on top of that could
have that unintended effect.

The marijuana taxes are considered low-hanging fruit by officials in
some cities and counties where they would not expect to get pushback
from the usual anti-tax crowd. That and their opposition to marijuana
in the first place seem to be fueling the rush to pump up the price of
pot. But if the statewide measure passes, they owe it to their
constituents to prove their case before piling on with more taxes and
bureaucracy.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard