19 Sep 2012

MJ Legalization Ballot Measure Favored By Majority

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

A recently published poll from The Denver Post has good news for pot legalization advocates. According to the survey, a majority of Colorado voters are in favor of Amendment 64, a November ballot measure that seeks to legalize and regulate marijuana like alcohol for adult use.

Of the 615 likely Colorado voters surveyed by The Denver Post, 51 percent are in favor of the measure, while only 40 percent are opposed.

Read the entire poll, exact question wording and results here at The Denver Post.: http://www.denverpost.com/news/marijuana/ci_21548398/colorado-marijuana-legalization-initiative-leads-new-poll

Colorado’s Amendment 64 does appear to be popular among voters. Earlier this month, Public Policy Polling surveyed 1,000 likely voters and found that 47 percent would vote in support of Amendment 64, while only 38 percent would vote against the ballot measure.

That percentage was the exact same that PPP had found one month prior during a similar survey.

The largest percentage in favor of legalization in Colorado ever polled came from Rasmussen, back in June, which found 61 percent of likely Colorado voters in favor of legalizing marijuana if it is regulated the way that alcohol and cigarettes are currently regulated.

According to a report by the Colorado Center on Law & Policy, the passage of Amendment 64 could be a boon for the state economy. Marijuana legalization would produce hundreds of new jobs, raise millions for the construction of Colorado public schools and raise around $60 million annually in combined savings and revenue for Colorado’s budget, the report says.

It’s not just pot advocates that are in favor of legalization. The NAACP recently backed pot legalization measures in Oregon and Colorado not because the group necessarily favors marijuana use, but because members say current marijuana laws lead to a disproportionately high number of people of color being incarcerated or otherwise negatively affected.

“Marijuana prohibition policy does more harm to our communities than good,” said Rosemary Harris Lytle in a statement, president of the NAACP-Colorado-Montana-Wyoming State Conference. “That is why we have endorsed Amendment 64 which presents a more effective and socially responsible approach to how Colorado addresses the adult use of marijuana.”

The NAACP provided this data in a press statement about marijuana arrests in Colorado:

African-Americans made up roughly 4% of the population in Colorado in 2010, but they accounted for about 9% of marijuana possession arrests and 22% of arrests for marijuana sales and cultivation. The numbers in Denver are particularly staggering. According to a report prepared by the Denver Police Department for the the city’s Marijuana Policy Review Panel, African-Americans accounted for more than 31.5% percent of arrests for private adult marijuana possession, despite making up less than 11% of the city’s population.

Politically, the measure has received support from both Democrats and Republicans in Colorado, as well as more than 100 professors from around the nation. However, just last week Gov. John Hickenlooper came out in opposition to Amendment 64, saying in a statement:

Colorado is known for many great things –- marijuana should not be one of them. Amendment 64 has the potential to increase the number of children using drugs and would detract from efforts to make Colorado the healthiest state in the nation. It sends the wrong message to kids that drugs are OK.

To which Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol — the organization behind Amendment 64 — responded with strong words for the Governor. “Governor Hickenlooper’s statement today ranks as one of the most hypocritical statements in the history of politics,” Tvert said. “After building a personal fortune by selling alcohol to Coloradans, he is now basing his opposition to this measure on concerns about the health of his citizens and the message being sent to children. We certainly hope he is aware that alcohol actually kills people. Marijuana use does not. The public health costs of alcohol use overall are approximately eight times greater per person than those associated with marijuana. And alcohol use is associated with violent crime. Marijuana use is not.”

Hickenlooper’s statement that Amendment 64 has the “potential to increase the number of children using drugs” is debatable at best. A recent study from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention shows that marijuana use among Colorado minors is going down, while it is simultaneously going up nationally. The drop in usage by Colorado teens as seen in the CDC data — a drop below the national average — coincides with the same period that the medical marijuana industry developed in the state, between 2009 and 2011.

Marijuana legalization advocates point to the data as sign that regulation is helping reduce marijuana use amongst minors. Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, told The Huffington Post “that even the partial regulation of marijuana can make it harder for young people to get their hands on marijuana. By regulating all marijuana sales, we can further reduce teen access and use.”

And a 2011 study from economists at University of Colorado Denver and Montana State University may backs that claim up. “Medical Marijuana Laws, Traffic Fatalities, and Alcohol Consumption” by Daniel I. Rees, from UCD, and D. Mark Anderson, from MSU looked at state level data from the more than a dozen states that had passed medical marijuana laws at the time of the study. Rees and Anderson found that there was no evidence of an increase in marijuana usage among minors in the states surveyed.

Amendment 64 will appear on Colorado’s ballot in November, but the state voting guide — the so-called “blue book” — will not include the three main arguments in favor of legalization after the Colorado Legislative Council deleted the text, in apparent confusion, and would not restore the text to the voter guide. The three deleted arguments “For” are as follows:

• Marijuana is objectively less harmful than alcohol.
• The consequences of a marijuana offense are too severe.
• Law enforcement resources would be better spent on more serious crimes.

The campaign says that the “Arguments For” Amendment 64 section of of the blue book is now just 208 words following the deletion, whereas the “Arguments Against” section is approximately 366 words — meaning “Against” has nearly 75 percent more words than the “For” section. “The blue book is supposed to be fair and balanced, and it’s safe to say this is quite lopsided and, thus, unfair,” the campaign said in a statement.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Matt Ferner
Published: September 17, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

14 Sep 2012

Commentary: Medical Marijuana and Taxes

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

An obscure tax law, intended to prevent cocaine kingpins from deducting yachts and other necessities, may alter Boulder’s landscape. Experts say it may shutter dispensaries nationwide.

Fourteen years before any medical marijuana laws existed, US Tax Code was amended because a convicted coke dealer had successfully deducted guns, boats, and bribes. Ever since, Section 280E has banned deductions related to “trafficking in controlled substances.”

Because marijuana is a “controlled substance,” dispensaries are taxed on all revenue — without subtracting rent, payroll, or supplies. The IRS has embarked on an auditing spree, slapping some dispensaries with tax bills in the millions. (The representative who sponsored 280E in 1982, observing its current invocation, now leads the effort to reform his own law.)

Aware of the threat, Colorado dispensaries have tread carefully. Some calculated the square footage used for selling meds, versus the area used for discussing and observing said meds ­— and wrote off rent for the latter. Some claimed that their employees multi-tasked, and deducted a portion of payroll for non-trafficking pursuits.

These number-crunching taxpayers were abiding Tax Court’s 2007 decision (C.H.A.M.P. v. Commissioner): Caregiving services were separate from trafficking, the court had ruled, and could be deducted. Dispensaries pay a higher tax rate than other businesses — but they’ve been able to keep the doors open.

Until now. In August, the Tax Court unanimously reached its second decision on 280E: It precludes dispensaries “from deducting any expense related to the business in that the business is a single business that consists of trafficking in a controlled substance.”

No more multi-tasking staff or separate “wellness spaces.” Your stores’ rent, employees, marketing, supplies — what might seem like normal business expenses — are all part of your trafficking. Growing controlled substances (still just as federally illegal as trafficking them) was somehow omitted by the lawmakers who wrote 280E in 1982. So you can deduct rent and supplies for your grow operation — great news, if you operate your dispensary out of your warehouse, or poorly maintain your storefront and pay your employees terrible wages. In Boulder, your dispensary and warehouse must be separate, and running a retail establishment isn’t cheap. It’s a troubling choice: “We either change our 2011 taxes, and suddenly owe the IRS far more than we earned this year,” says one Boulder dispensary owner who for obvious reasons would rather not be identified, “or we leave them and wait for an audit.” If audited, he’ll likely receive a tax bill high enough to sink his small business.

Owning a dispensary here was costly already. To comply with state regulations, you must: Install enough state-of-the-art surveillance to capture each moment of your plants’ lives from every angle; build the appropriate number of doors, bathrooms, and hallways for the amount of marijuana you plan to grow; fork over at least $10,000 in fees every time you need to change your dispensary’s name, location, or owner/investor lineup — and at least $10,000 annually to remain open, whether or not you’ve adjusted your name/location/ownership to comply with other changing regulations.

Now it’s even harder for Colorado dispensaries to profit, thanks to their multiplying taxes. One small-business owner in Boulder expects to owe an additional $100,000 a year — money he doesn’t have, because he’s invested it in his business.

Yes, our country needs tax dollars. But dispensaries aren’t the only businesses selling controlled substances: Others sell Oxycodone, Vicodin, morphine. In 2007, the US pharmaceutical industry collected $315 billion, and their revenue keeps rising. If 280E was enforced, their taxes would go a long way towards reducing our national deficit.

But the pharmaceutical industry enjoys a relaxed tax rate, about 40 percent less than other industries, according to a Public Citizen report. Those companies get tax breaks for paying their executives high stock-option-supplemented salaries. (At least one pharma giant paid its CEO more than it paid the government in taxes last year.) They receive tax credits and subsidies for research and development. Tax dollars fund most pharmaceutical R&D, so how much is the industry really spending? None of your business. Thanks to a nine-year legal battle the industry fought and won in Supreme Court (Bowsher v. Merck and Co.), they don’t have to disclose R&D records.

No disclosure needed: It’s just medicine. Dispensary owners only have to sign away privacy rights and submit a 22-page application measuring their “moral character.” (Question #672D: What is the value of your spouse’s great-aunt’s stock portfolio divided by the average age of your pets?) Even extraneous MMJ folks like me can’t escape the disclosure demands. The state department of revenue has, currently on file, a diagram mapping of the bodily locations of my tattoos. (Not a joke.)

Pharmaceutical giants justify their secrecy and skimpy taxes by citing the high “risk” they face. If only the marijuana industry was riskier. Like, if crop failures due to pests were increasing because inspectors now tramp through grow after grow without changing clothes; or if MMJ grows were now especially vulnerable to break-ins, due to state regulations now requiring that their locations be made public. Or if, say, dispensaries could be shut down by the federal government at any moment.

Both the marijuana industry and the federal government face changes in November, when Colorado votes on legalizing marijuana, and the country decides between candidates whose campaigns focus on taxes and small business. In a safer, healthier, more economically-stable America, marijuana would be legal — or would at least be a Schedule II drug like Oxycodone, not a Schedule I drug like heroin. That wouldn’t be a full victory for MMJ — but at least the taxes would be easier.

Cecelia Gilboy owns Colorado Quality Collective, the first wholesale marijuana brokerage licensed by the state.

Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Author: Cecelia Gilboy
Published: September 13, 2012
Copyright: 2012 Boulder Weekly
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.boulderweekly.com/

11 Aug 2012

MJ Ballot Measure Favored By Colorado Voters

posted in: Cannabis News | 0

A new poll released this week by Public Policy Polling shows that likely voters in Colorado are in support of Amendment 64, the ballot measure that seeks legalization and regulation of marijuana similar to that of alcohol — and that support appears to be growing.

The survey of 779 likely Colorado voters conducted between the dates of August 2nd and 5th shows 47 percent would vote for Amendment 64 if the election were held right now and only 38 percent would vote against it. 15 percent of those surveyed were “not sure.”

Read PPP’s full report and see the question’s wording here: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_CO_080812.pdf

The poll also suggests support is growing for Amendment 64 in the Centennial State. Back in June, PPP conducted a similar poll and those in favor of the legalization measure narrowly outpaced the opposition 46 percent to 42 percent. Now, two months later, that support has grown to 47-38. The reason for this, according to PPP, are the independent and young voters who are increasingly in favor of legalization. From the PPP report:

This movement is entirely because of independents, who were already in favor of the amendment by a 49-40 margin; they now support it by 30 points, 58-28. Democrats are still slightly more in favor (59-22) than Republicans opposed (26-61).

Voters under 45 support it by a 58/30 margin, while those over 45 oppose it by a 44/39 margin.

This is the highest percentage of Colorado voter support for Amendment 64 that a PPP poll has shown to date. The survey also showed growth in general sentiments about marijuana legalization with 50 percent of those surveyed in favor of marijuana usage being legal and 42 percent in opposition to marijuana legalization (8 percent were “not sure”). This percentage is also slightly up from June’s support at 49-43.

However, Amendment 64′s opponents at “No on 64″ say that this percentage of approval is simply not high enough to pass. From a press release:

Ballot measures usually require a much higher level of support at this point in an election cycle because the default position for most voters is no, especially when it comes to amending the Colorado Constitution. In October 2008, a Mason-Dixon poll found Amendment 59, a school funding proposal, at 41% approval. It failed 55%-45%.

An October 2010 poll by SurveyUSA for The Denver Post and 9News revealed that 20% of polled voters supported the “personhood” Amendment 62, while 56% were opposed and 25% were undecided. Amendment 62 failed 70%-30%. Another 2010 ballot measure, Amendment 63, an attempt to undercut the Affordable Care Act, also failed 53%-47%.

But survey results often rely on question wording and marijuana legalization has seen other higher poll numbers recently. PPP’s survey follows a June Rasmussen poll of 500 likely Colorado voters which showed 61 percent were in favor of legalizing marijuana if it is regulated the way that alcohol and cigarettes are currently regulated.

Coloradans are getting ready to vote on Amendment 64 and will decide whether Colorado should legalize marijuana this November — a vote that some say could affect the presidential race in a state where marijuana dispensaries in Denver alone outnumber the Starbucks throughout the entire state, The Denver Post first reported in 2010.

This will be the second time Coloradans will vote on recreational pot legislation — state voters considered and rejected a similar recreational pot legalization initiative in 2006. But Mason Tvert, co-director of the Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, believes that Colorado has come a long way since 2006, he recently told The Huffington Post:

More Coloradans than ever before are aware of the fact that marijuana is not as dangerous as they have been led to believe and is actually far less harmful than alcohol.

They have also seen firsthand via our medical marijuana system that it is possible for the state and localities to regulate and control the production and distribution of marijuana. They have read stories that quote law enforcement officials acknowledging that it has not contributed to crime or caused any significant problems.

The environment here has changed dramatically.

The marijuana legalization initiative also recently received support from both Republicans and Democrats — in March, 56 percent of the delegates at the Denver County Republican Assembly voted to support the legislation, and in April, the Colorado Democratic Party officially endorsed Amendment 64 and added a marijuana legalization plank to the current party platform.

Source: Huffington Post (NY)
Author: Matt Ferner, The Huffington Post
Published: August 10, 2012
Copyright: 2012 HuffingtonPost.com, LLC
Contact: [email protected]
Website: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

1 … 5 6 7 8