The post 3 medical marijuana proposals on MO ballot: Compare and contrast appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>If you’re voting in Missouri on Nov. 6, 2018—and you are, aren’t you?—you’re going to find: not one, not two, but three proposals pertaining to legalizing medical marijuana. If you haven’t thought about them before you get to your polling place, you’re probably going to find them confusing. Each one has a different focus and a different tax rate attached. And you’ll have the opportunity to vote on all three of them. [Of course, you can vote on just one or two, or all three—or none of them, and your ballot will still count.]
So, how do you decide which ones to vote for, and which to vote against? Thanks to Nancy Miller, co-president of the League of Women Voters of Metropolitan St. Louis, you can compare and contrast them. Miller has read each bill closely and has created a spreadsheet analysis of the three bills, spelling out what they propose to do, the tax level associated with each, the implications of each proposal, and the names of groups and individuals sponsoring them.
Having read her analysis, I’ve come to the conclusion that all three are flawed in their own way. But I’ve also come to the conclusion that, in the interest of getting the benefits of medical marijuana into mainstream medical practice in Missouri, we need to find one proposal that makes sense and at least opens the door to 21st Century medical care.
All three legalize marijuana for medicinal use only. All three regulate growing, processing and dispensing medical marijuana.
But there are other, significant differences between the proposals. Here’s my streamlined version of the information in Miller’s highly informative spreadsheet, supplemented with my own commentary:
Amendment 2
What it would do: Change the Missouri Constitution to allow growing, processing and dispensing medical marijuana.
Administered by: MO Dept. of Health and Human Services; tax oversight by MO Dept. of Revenue; State Treasurer
Tax rate on sales: 4%
How much money it would raise from taxes: $18 million [$6 million for local governments] per year
Where the tax money would go: Veterans’ health care
Who’s sponsoring it: NORML, New Approach Missouri, Individual donations
Commentary on Amendment 2
Pro – Clearly states what medical marijuana production, distribution and sales would be. Clear explanation of where the revenue will go and what agency of government will have oversight.
Con – Revenue will go only to health needs of veterans, capital improvement of Missouri Veterans’ Homes, and other services for veterans.
Amendment 3
What it would do: Change the Missouri Constitution to allow the use of medical marijuana; create licensing procedures for marijuana facilities.
Administered by: Brad Bradshaw, the financier of this initiative, who would be chairperson of the board of directors of a newly created organization [Biomedical Research and Drug Development Institute] to oversee medical marijuana in Missouri. Bradshaw would select the members of this board, who would issue regulations.
Tax rate on sales: 15%
How much money it would raise from taxes: $66 million per year
Where the tax money would go: Biomedical Research and Drug Institute
Who’s sponsoring it: Brad Bradshaw [Finding the Cures] – $1 million
Commentary on Amendment 3
Pro – Similar to Amendment 2 in the description on licensing and taxes; immunity of patients, doctors, facilities.
Con – A private individual will be in control of money from taxes paid by citizens. This individual [Bradshaw] will select the administrative board that will make decision concerning every phase of the medicinal marijuana operation. 15% sales tax would be the highest in the US.
Proposition C
What it would do: Change Missouri statutes [not Constitution] to remove prohibitions on personal use and possession of medical marijuana with a written certification by a physician who treats patients diagnosed with a qualifying medical condition.
Administered by: MO Department of Health and Senior Services, and the Division of Liquor Control.
Tax rate on sales: 2%
How much money it would raise from taxes: $10 million per year [$152,000 per year for local governments]
Where the tax money would go: Veterans’ services, drug treatment, early childhood education, public safety in cities with a medical marijuana facility.
Who’s sponsoring it: Rex Sinquefield, Missourians for Patient Care, supporters with ties to St. Louis County Executive Steve Stenger; Pelopidas LLC – $1 million.
Commentary on Proposition C
Pro – Worthy causes would receive the proceeds. Lowest tax rate of the three proposals. License fees will pay the cost of administering the program.
Con – ½ of 1% of the tax revenue would be split between the four beneficiary areas, a total of just $12,500 each. As a simple change in statutes, this law could be changed at any time by the Missouri legislature.
How will the winner be decided?
Here’s another confusing aspect of the marijuana ballot issues: Which one wins? We’re not voting for our favorite from a list of three. We’re voting Yes or No on each one separately. To pass, each requires a simple majority of the people voting on it. But what happens if all three get that majority? There’s actually a Missouri law addressing the question of what happens if two or more “conflicting” amendments or statutes are approved. The winner is the one that gets the most Yes votes. However, in this instance, two of the proposals [Amendment 2 and Amendment 3] are constitutional amendments, and the third [Proposition C] is a statutory proposal. Under Missouri law [as I understand it] constitutional law supersedes statutory law, so even if Proposition C passes, it can be superseded by one of the constitutional amendments, if one passes. Got that? Yeah, me neither.
Vote yes. Vote no. Just vote on Tuesday, November 6, 2018. Democracy is in the balance.
[Full disclosure: I’m leaning toward Amendment 2.]
The post 3 medical marijuana proposals on MO ballot: Compare and contrast appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The post The First Church of Cannabis, and other unintended consequences appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>
Indianapolis hosted the 100th Anniversary Convention for Kiwanis International these past few days. As is the norm, I represented my Valley Park [Missouri] club. At the convention, an organization which didn’t allow women members until the Reagan administration voted in their first woman president, and insured that the second woman president is just a year away.
The local Indy news didn’t say much about Kiwanis. The hot story: on Wednesday, the first effective day of Indiana’s new religious freedom law, services will be held at the First Church of Cannabis. http://www.indystar.com/
Yes, a law by an extremist state legislature, signed by a right wing-nut governor, promoted to “protect” Christian churches from clouds of oppression, allowed creation of a church dedicated to pot smoking.
Some were not amused. The Indy police chief and city prosecutor held a news conference where they competed to see who would be first to have an on-camera stroke as they spewed venom toward the new congregation. The prosecutor, as seen on WISH-TV 4, promised that those who attended the service – even if not toking along – would be arrested for participating in a public nuisance. They promised cops would be inside the church during services.
Meanwhile, the new church’s pastor (who looks like the sort of guy to head the First Church of Cannabis) explained that his church had been recognized by IRS as a religion and that the new state law protected his new congregation’s rights. TV showed a cute red brick church, complete with steeple and wheel chair ramp.
So, on July 1st look for the national news to cover police inside a church arresting parishioners…Probably not what the Indiana Legislature intended with their Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
It was great to see non-Missouri legislators dealing with unintended consequences.
The Show-Me State, alas, stands ready for tragedy. In a few weeks we begin the process of having people too poor to get anti-poverty benefits.
As you probably recall, the Missouri legislature voted to override Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of Senate Bill 24. As a result, an adult with a dependent child but no income will no longer be entitled to receive the state’s ‘generous’ Temporary Assistance cash grant of up to $234 a month (less than $8 per day) unless screening shows them worthy of applying for aid. To become eligible to apply they must sign – perhaps in blood – a contract to follow the program, meaning they accept that they are third-class citizens not to be trusted with doing what is in their family’s best interest without bureaucratic oversight. They must also demonstrate a commitment to working 30 hours every week or otherwise engaging in 30 hours of “work activities” such as sitting at an unemployment office computer searching for jobs.
If a screening bureaucrat deems them unworthy, they don’t get the $8 per day Temporary Assistance grant.
The legislators were not totally without compassion: 20% of the total Temporary Assistance case load may be exempted from these rules.
That’s not as generous as is sounds. As the rolls decrease (as they’ve been doing for a decade), that 20% “reserve” includes fewer people. In a very short time the state will need to rescind the exemption for some moms, meaning even those state bureaucrats deems unable to comply must.
Likewise, adults without dependents or jobs may only get food stamps for three months out of every three years. Until they reach age 65 or get certified as disabled and worthless, an unemployed adult can’t receive the average $4 per day in food stamps.
Add these new laws together and probably 100,000 Missourians will soon be too poor and needy to get help from basic anti-poverty programs.
This would be funny if it weren’t tragic.
In recent weeks I’ve kept busy warning food pantries that they must change the way they do business. Traditionally, pantries provide from three days to a week’s worth of food each month – an amount meant to supplement government benefits and other income.
Yet, these now “too-poor to get help” folks need to eat more often than one day in ten. Pantries, churches and other charitable groups must multiply their current aid by a factor of 10 for these “too poor” created by our elected legislature.
Not increasing aid isn’t an option.
You see, supporters of SB 24 claim people receiving government benefits get fat and lazy because $8 a day and $4 a day is too generous: “I think it will be surprising to see the success rate with this bill, and the smiles on the faces of those folks that move out of the poverty trap…” Rep. Diane Franklin, R – Camdenton, told the Post Dispatch http://www.stltoday.com/news/
The only option for food pantries and other charities is to empty their shelves and their bank accounts keeping families alive until they have no more to share – then turn to the media and ask, why aren’t these hungry and desperate people smiling and employed?
Then, perhaps, the media will ask the legislature Is this what you intended?
We have learned that common sense, reasoned compassion and thoughtful acts are no longer the Missouri way of governing. The ship must sink before we talk about lifeboats.
Meanwhile, back in Indy, they await the great religious showdown. Will people be arrested for going to church? Stay tuned.
The post The First Church of Cannabis, and other unintended consequences appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>The post Hemp: the real reason pot is illegal appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>California ballot Proposition 19, also known as the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, will be on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. According to Wikipedia, It legalizes various marijuana-related activities, allows local governments to regulate these activities, permits local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorizes various criminal and civil penalties. It requires a simple majority in order to pass, and would take effect the day after the election.
Proponents of Proposition 19 argue that it would help with California’s budget shortfall by taxing marijuana, cutting off funding to violent drug cartels, and redirecting law enforcement resources to more serious crime.
Hemp could be the big winner if Prop 19 passes
According to Harvey Wasserman in a recent article on Alternet, with legal marijuana comes legal hemp, another form of the cannabis plant that has very little THC— the substance in marijuana that produces a high. He says Prop 19 would result in the “opening up of the Golden State to a multi-billion-dollar crop that has been a staple of human agriculture for thousands of years, and that could save the farms of thousands of American families.”
Hemp may be illegal in the U.S., but it is legal in Canada, Germany, Holland, Rumania, Japan and China, among many other countries. Hemp is a crop that has many uses. It can be made into paper clothing, textiles, rope, sails, fuel and food, and, since ancient times, it has been a core crop in many parts of the world. Because it is easy to plant, grow and harvest, it was the main cash crop on virtually all American family farms from the colonial era on. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were hemp farmers. And if it were legal today it could bring much needed prosperity to American farmers.
Wasserman explains that hemp may be the real reason marijuana is illegal.
In the 1930s, the Hearst family set out to protect their vast timber holdings, much of which, were being used to make paper. But hemp produces five times as much paper per acre as do trees. Hemp paper is stronger and easier to make. The Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper, and one of Benjamin Franklin’s primary paper mills ran on it.
But the Hearsts used their newspapers to incite enough reefer madness to get marijuana banned in 1937. With that ban came complex laws that killed off the growing of hemp. The ecological devastation that’s followed with continued use of trees for paper has been epic.
As canvass, hemp has long been essential for shoes, clothing, rope, sails, textiles, building materials and much more. It’s far more durable than cotton and ecologically benign compared to virtually any other industrial crop. Hemp needs no pesticides, herbicides or chemical fertilizers, and can grow well without much water.
Hemp’s use for rope was so critical to the US war effort that in the 1940s, the US military lifted the bans and blanketed virtually the entire state of Kansas with it. The War Department’s “Hemp for Victory” is the core film on how to grow it.
Today, Canadian produced hemp milk, hemp ice cream and other products are showing up at Whole Foods and other heath oriented grocery store. Hemp powder from hemp seeds, an alternative to soy powder, is extremely high in protein and in omega-3 oils. Wasserman says hemp could be the key to better bio-fuels because growing food crops like corn and soy to make ethanol and diesel is extremely inefficient, expensive and takes food away from hungry people. Hemp seeds produce a far superior bio-diesel than soy.
The economic interests opposing legalizing marijuana are the alcohol and tobacco industries, pharmaceutical and privatized law enforcement and prison industries that make money when people are imprisoned for smoking pot. But their opposition also keeps hemp from being legal, a crop that could provide tremendous economic relief for the U.S. According to Wasserman, “the industrial production of hemp would also transform the industries for paper, cotton, textiles, plastics, fuel, fish oil and more. The economic, ecological and employment benefits would be incalculable.”
When Californians go to the polls November 2, they may end marijuana prohibition but they will also decide whether California, and the rest of the U.S., will resume production of hemp, a crop that could be central to our economic, ecological and agricultural revival.
If you want to learn more about hemp and it’s relationship to marijuana, David P. West, Ph.D, of the North American Industrial Hemp Council, offers extensive information about the difference between hemp and marijuana at his website: Hemp and Marijuana: Myths & Realities.
The post Hemp: the real reason pot is illegal appeared first on Occasional Planet.
]]>