Pubdate: Mon, 04 Nov 2013
Source: Oregonian, The (Portland, OR)
Copyright: 2013 The Oregonian
Contact:  http://www.oregonlive.com/oregonian/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/324
Author: John Sajo
Note: John Sajo is the director of the Voter Power Foundation. He has 
drafted three marijuana initiatives that have appeared on the Oregon 
ballot (1986, 2004, 2010)

POT LEGALIZATION ACTIVIST EXPLAINS WISDOM OF LEGISLATIVE REFERRAL

Deep-pocketed New Approach Oregon recently filed a new marijuana 
legalization initiative. This reasonable proposal regulates and taxes 
marijuana and deserves a "yes" vote next November. The Oregonian 
editorial board urges our Legislature to look at the details for some 
alternatives. I agree.

One huge question is how - and how much - to tax marijuana.

The goal should be to maximize revenue and minimize abuse.

Done properly, marijuana taxes can raise hundreds of millions of 
dollars for Oregon schools and other projects.

The decisions made now will determine the size of this new revenue 
stream for decades.

If tax rates are too high, consumers will continue to support the 
black market and we lose the revenue.

The tax structure is important.

Three models have been suggested. Marijuana can be taxed by price, 
weight or potency.

Colorado, Washington and Congressman Earl Blumenauer's federal 
legalization bill all tax by price. Alternatively, the New Approach 
Oregon model taxes marijuana by weight, copying the alcohol model.

It is unclear how this will apply to the vast array of marijuana 
products that are already available. Companies process marijuana into 
edibles, tinctures, e-cigarettes and many other products.

Taxing by weight may give a price advantage to the most potent forms 
of marijuana, which might have undesirable consequences. Having an 
overly complicated tax scheme will be difficult to enforce and will 
cut revenue.

The Legislature should hold hearings, consult with tax experts and 
consider what will work best for Oregon.

Another key question is should "legalization" end marijuana 
prohibition? The New Approach Oregon measure really doesn't go far 
enough because it maintains criminal penalties (arrest, trial, 
incarceration) for many violations of the new rules.

For example, a college student selling an ounce to his roommate would 
be committing a class B felony.

Criminal penalties will mean police and the justice system spend 
millions of tax dollars making arrests, holding trials where 
defendants are provided counsel, and incarcerating those convicted.

Criminal penalties should be reserved for behavior that actually 
harms other people, like driving impaired or selling to kids. The 
alternative is to punish unwanted behavior with stiff fines.

This would be an effective deterrent and raise money instead of 
spending millions.

A reasonable legalization law must allow adults to produce their own 
marijuana. This should be part of any adult American's freedom to 
make the choices that shape their lives.

Criminalizing home gardening means unending arrests at great expense.

Rules and civil penalties can deal with issues of grows affecting neighbors.

The New Approach measure allows adults over 21 to grow their own 
marijuana but sets the limits so low as to be almost unworkable. A 
"household" would be limited to four plants, including seedlings, and 
only eight ounces of marijuana for a year. This is far less than many 
individuals use, let alone an entire household.

The limit is drawn from the OLCC rules for home brewing, but those 
rules allow a household to brew 200 gallons per year, a much larger 
amount than eight ounces.

An adult growing 24 plants, the current limit for medical marijuana 
growers, would be committing a class B felony. Adopting the same 
limits that have worked for medical marijuana would be more reasonable.

Overall, the New Approach proposal is excellent, but the Legislature 
should use its resources to make sure that as we reform marijuana 
laws we do it right.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom