Pubdate: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 Source: Mail Tribune, The (Medford, OR) Copyright: 2016 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 Note: By Albany Democrat-Herald FIRST POT TAX COLLECTIONS HIGHER THAN EXPECTED This past January marked the first month that the state of Oregon collected taxes on the sale of recreational marijuana, marking another milestone in the state's unfolding experiment with legalized pot. But it was the amount collected in taxes in January that raised eyebrows in Salem and around the state: The Oregon Department of Revenue pegged the amount at $3.8 million. Let's put that number into perspective: Obviously, no one knew for sure what sort of sales would result from the voter-mandated decision to make recreational use of marijuana legal, so state economists admitted that their estimates were little more than guesses. But they figured that Oregon would collect somewhere between $3 million and $4 million in tax revenue. A year. So, in other words, the amount of money collected in taxes from marijuana sales in January, just that one month, was equal to what experts were expecting for the entire year. Now, it's true that the January figure might be an aberration: For one thing, the state has temporarily levied a 25 percent tax on recreational marijuana sales; eventually, after the Oregon Liquor Control Commission takes over regulation of recreational sales, the state tax will be 17 percent and local governments will be allowed to levy up to an additional 3 percent. So the 25 percent tax rate eventually will drop. In addition, it's true that the state does not yet have a good feel for what the full price tag will be for regulating the marijuana market. But the January tax number suggests that Oregon has a robust market going for recreational marijuana sales. And, perhaps even more important, the numbers suggest that, at least for the time being, pot consumers are turning to licensed locations and not the black market. (Legislators who were charged with working out the details of legal marijuana spent considerable time worried about how to keep the black market at bay, and at first glance, it appears that their efforts are paying off. In addition, legislation such as Rep. Andy Olson's recent House Bill 4094, which helps move the industry away from a cash-only basis, is increasingly important.) The surprisingly large tax collection in January also could toss a new wrinkle into the election campaigns pending in jurisdictions that have decided to ban recreational sales. For example, officials in Linn County and a number of cities in the county have decided to ban sales of recreational pot - but voters need to weigh in on the matter in the November election. One of the arguments that ban supporters have advanced is that sales of recreational pot won't generate much in the way of tax revenue for local governments. It's true that local governments get a relatively small slice of the tax pie from marijuana sales: Under the law, dispensaries can keep 2 percent of the tax to help cover the costs related to collection. The Revenue Department and the Liquor Commission keep some of the tax to cover their costs. After those costs are cleared, 40 percent goes to the state's Common School Fund, 20 percent goes to mental health, alcoholism and drug services, 15 percent to the Oregon State Police, 10 percent for city law enforcement, 10 percent to county law enforcement and 5 percent to the Oregon Health Authority for alcohol and drug abuse prevention. But now it looks as if the tax pie might be considerably bigger than first thought. Will that change the dynamics going into the November marijuana elections? It adds an intriguing new twist to Oregon's continuing marijuana saga. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom