MPP Update

March 13, 2009.

Dear fellow Americans,

MPP's communications staffers have been busier than ever in the last few months, as media interest in marijuana policy continues to rise, and I want to tell you about a few upcoming and recent TV appearances that might interest you.

• On Sunday night, I'll be appearing on an Al Roker special on marijuana, airing on MSNBC at 10 p.m. EST.
  
• Medical marijuana will be part of the focus of John Stossel's ABC special that airs tonight. He'll be examining the case of Charles Lynch, the former operator of a medical marijuana dispensary — operating legally under California state law — who was raided by federal law enforcement officials and convicted on federal drug charges. A respected member of the community who operated with the support of local officials and the chamber of commerce, Lynch was known to refuse payment from patients who could not afford it. MPP provided research assistance for the show, which airs tonight on ABC at 10 p.m. EST.
  
• On Wednesday night, MPP's Bruce Mirken appeared on "The Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC. You can watch his interview here.
  
• And last, Bruce will also appearing later this month on D.L. Hughley's show on CNN (tentatively scheduled for March 28).

Meanwhile, thanks to the generous support of our 26,000 dues-paying members, MPP is moving a slate of bills forward in states across the country:

• Minnesota's medical marijuana bill has a strong chance of passing into law this year. The Senate bill has already passed three committees, and the House bill now heads to what is expected to be its most difficult committee. We're in the final push now and hope to have exciting news to report from Minnesota within weeks.
  
• In Illinois last week, for the first time ever, a House committee approved an effective medical marijuana bill, and the bill is now on the House floor, where the next step is a vote by the full chamber.
  
• In Iowa, more than a dozen seriously ill patients and advocates and a doctor testified at a subcommittee hearing in favor of a medical marijuana bill, generating extensive news coverage. Although it is too late for the bill to receive a full committee vote, we'll continue to build support and momentum for next year.
  
• In New Hampshire on Monday, a neurosurgeon, seven patients, MPP's grassroots organizer, and MPP's lobbyist testified in favor of a medical marijuana bill. The House health committee is scheduled to vote on the bill next Wednesday.
  
• Rhode Island legislators, who in 2006 enacted MPP's model medical marijuana bill over the governor's veto, seem poised to improve access to medical marijuana. On March 4, doctors, patients, and representatives from the state medical society and nurses association testified in favor of allowing organized distribution through compassion centers. Not a single witness opposed the bills. Last year, the Senate passed a similar bill 30-6, and this year, 50 of the 75 House members are co-sponsoring the bill.
  
• MPP has been featured in local, statewide, national, and even international news discussing the bill to tax and regulate marijuana in California. Whatever the bill's fate is this year, it has started a long overdue conversation about the wisdom of marijuana prohibition.
  

Thank you,

Rob Kampia
Executive Director
Marijuana Policy Project
Washington, D.C.

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Struggling States Look to Unorthodox Taxes: Porn & Pot.

New York Times
by: JESSE McKINLEY
Published: February 28, 2009

In his 11 years in the Washington Legislature, Representative Mark Miloscia says he has supported all manner of methods to fill the state’s coffers, including increasing fees on property owners to help the homeless and taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, most of which, he said, passed “without a peep.”

And so it was last month that Mr. Miloscia, a Democrat, decided he might try to “find a new tax source” — pornography.

The response, however, was a turn-off.

“People came down on me like a ton of bricks,” said Mr. Miloscia, who proposed an 18.5 percent sales tax on items like sex toys and adult magazines. “I didn’t quite understand. Apparently porn is right up there with Mom and apple pie.”

Mr. Miloscia’s proposal died at the committee level, but he is far from the only legislator floating unorthodox ideas as more than two-thirds of the states face budget shortfalls.

“The most common phrase you hear from the states is, ‘Everything is on the table,’ ” said Arturo Perez, a fiscal analyst with National Conference of State Legislatures, who predicted the worst financial year for states since the end of World War II.

Nowhere is that more true than California, where Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a freshman from San Francisco, made a proposal intended to increase revenue, and, no doubt, appetite: legalizing and taxing marijuana, a major — if technically illegal — crop in the state. “We’re all jonesing now for money,” Mr. Ammiano said. “And there’s this enormous industry out there.”

In Nevada, State Senator Bob Coffin said he would introduce legislation to tax the state’s legal brothels, a fee that would be “based on the amount of activities.” And unlike the Washington porn proposal, which drew the ire of the adult entertainment industry, Mr. Coffin’s plan has the backing of the potential taxpayers, in this case brothel owners who employ women as independent contractors.

“I think they figure if they become part of the tax stream, the less vulnerable they will be to some shift in mores,” he said.

Hawaiian legislators were also considering capitalizing on another potential shift in public attitudes when they proposed legalizing same-sex unions, which supporters say could help the slumping tourism trade.

In Massachusetts, meanwhile, state legislators have introduced a proposal to build two resort-style casinos, including one in Boston. A similar push died last year in the State House of Representatives. But Representative Martin J. Walsh, a Dorchester Democrat and co-author of the new casino bill, said a $2 billion budget deficit might have changed some minds.

“Every state in the nation, including Massachusetts, needs to figure out a way of raising revenues,” Mr. Walsh said. “So we need to be creative.”

Scott Pattison, executive director of the National Association of State Budget Officers, said many lawmakers were loath to tap more traditional tax sources during a downturn. “What’s pushing it is this incredible desire to raise revenue,” Mr. Pattison said. “But it’s coupled with the desire not to raise the general and sales and income taxes.”

Whether such proposals can pass is another issue, though each idea has its supporters. Betty Yee, chairwoman of the California Board of Equalization, the state’s tax collector, said that legal marijuana could raise nearly $1 billion per year via a $50-per-ounce fee charged to retailers. An additional $400 million could be raised through sales tax on marijuana sold to buyers.

The law would also establish a smoking age — 21 — effectively putting marijuana in a similar regulatory class as alcohol or tobacco. Marijuana advocates argue that legalization could also decrease pressure on the state’s overburdened prison system and law enforcement officers.

All of which, Ms. Yee said, at least makes the proposal worth talking about in a state with chronic budget problems and a law already on the books allowing the medical use of the drug.

“We know the product is out there, and we know marijuana is available to young people as well, but there’s no regulatory structure in place,” Ms. Yee said. “I think it’s an opportunity to begin the debate.”

Such a debate, of course, does not always favor tax innovators. Several law enforcement groups have already objected to the idea of legal marijuana, which would conflict with federal law.

John Lovell, a lobbyist for several groups of California law enforcement officials, said the plan would create a large, illicit — and thus untaxed — black market, in addition to magnifying substance abuse problems. “The last thing we need is yet another legal substance that is mind-altering,” Mr. Lovell said.

Having taxes on illegal activities, like a seldom-collected tax on marijuana sales in Nevada, also has its drawbacks, said Robert MacCoun, a professor of law and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, who has researched drug policy.

“It is very hard to tax illegal vices unless one is comfortable with contradiction,” Mr. MacCoun said. “How can you collect the taxes without documenting the behavior? And how can you document the behavior without making an arrest?”

In Washington State, Mr. Miloscia said he had also received criticism from an array of residents and business owners, who accused him of attacking the First Amendment and other sacred institutions with his pornography proposal.

“I had people call up saying their marriages would fall apart,” said Mr. Miloscia, who represents a suburban district between Tacoma and Seattle. “I didn’t know how passionate people are about this stuff.”

LET THE REVOLUTION BEGIN!

Thanks for all you do!
Live your values. Love your country.
And, remember: TOGETHER, We can make a DIFFERENCE!

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.