Pubdate: Thu, 20 Aug 2015
Source: Los Angeles Daily News (CA)
Copyright: 2015 Los Angeles Newspaper Group
Contact: http://www.dailynews.com/writealetter
Website: http://www.dailynews.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/246
Author: George Runner
Note: George Runner represents more than 9 million Californians as a 
taxpayer advocate and elected member of the state Board of 
Equalization where he serves as vice chair.

EXCISE TAX ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA MAKES SENSE FOR CALIFORNIA

California lawmakers are finally considering legislation to regulate 
medical marijuana, which has been legal under state law for nearly 
two decades. Among the proposals is a bill calling for an excise tax 
on marijuana that could raise nearly $60 million in revenue each year.

As a fiscal conservative and opponent of recreational marijuana, I'm 
an unlikely voice in the cannabis tax policy debate. Yet after 
speaking with parties on all sides of the issue, I'm convinced an 
excise tax on medical marijuana could make sense, and if done 
correctly, would help ensure California taxpayers are treated fairly.

I'm the first to admit that government is too bloated and that 
Californians are overtaxed. But the fundamental question here is who 
should pay the steep costs of marijuana-related activities that 
include trespass on public lands, water theft and unregulated use of 
pesticides.

Simply put: Why should those who don't use marijuana pay the 
environmental costs associated with growing marijuana?

More funding is needed. Law enforcement officials are urging 
California to bolster its efforts to address the unintended 
consequences of legalizing marijuana for medical use at the state 
level. The rampant spread of unregulated marijuana grows have 
stretched local law enforcement thin in many communities around the state.

An excise tax on marijuana would provide local law enforcement with 
the revenue needed to combat these crimes. Local governments would be 
better able to respond to complaints related to cannabis grown and 
sold in their communities.

Revenue collected from a marijuana excise tax should not go to the 
state's general fund - where lawmakers can spend those dollars on 
their pet projects. The revenue should be placed in a special fund 
where monies would be protected and only spent to combat 
marijuana-related crime, corruption and environmental damage.

While curbing crime is a worthy goal, lawmakers shouldn't overreach. 
Setting the tax too high could backfire by harming industry 
participants willing to play by the rules. An unreasonable tax rate 
would cause an increase in the marijuana black market and drive the 
industry further underground.

As an elected tax official, it's my job to make sure taxpayers are 
treated fairly. An excise tax on medical marijuana would ensure the 
medical marijuana industry and its end users - rather than ordinary 
California taxpayers - pay the costs of combating marijuana-related 
crimes. Advertisement

Medical marijuana is already subject to sales tax - that's been a 
settled issue for quite some time. Excise taxes are imposed on a 
specific good, typically at the wholesale or distributor level. The 
Board of Equalization currently collects excise taxes on alcohol, 
cigarettes and tobacco products, but not on marijuana.

Some might resist the call for a new tax, and normally I'd be with 
them. However, we as a society have agreed that certain shared 
priorities like police, schools and roads should be a government 
priority. Taxes provide funding for these shared priorities.

The question is who should pay for needed enforcement efforts? I 
think the cannabis industry and its users should, not California 
taxpayers who don't use marijuana.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom