Katelyn Baker
Well-Known Member
Montana's new medical marijuana initiative hasn't even taken full effect, with thousands of critically ill patients still awaiting legal access to the only medication that relieves their suffering, and already they are facing the possibility of hefty taxes on medical marijuana sales in the state.
That's right: For the first time, the state of Montana is looking at taxing medicine.
Gov. Steve Bullock's biennial budget includes a proposal to tax medical marijuana at a rate of 6 percent. The estimated $2.6 million raised through this tax would go from the pockets of medical marijuana patients into the state general fund.
Further, legislation proposed by a Great Falls representative would tax medical marijuana at rates of 3 percent and 21 percent— on top of the governor's proposed 6 percent tax. That money would be used specifically to subsidize medical marijuana for low-income patients, and to help pay for drug treatment programs.
Whatever the reason, it is wrong to tax people's medicine. It is wrong to treat patients' reliance on a strictly controlled substance that eases their pain and relieves nausea and insomnia like any other revenue stream.
In making their case to voters before Election Day, proponents of the new medical marijuana initiative rightly argued that medical marijuana should not be confused with recreational marijuana. Yet that is exactly what the governor, for one, appears to be doing. Tim Crowe, a spokesman for the Governor's Office, told reporters the tax would be similar to the kinds of "consumption taxes" placed on alcohol and tobacco.
Medical marijuana patients presumably qualify for a green card because medical marijuana was determined to be the best way to treat their illness. If marijuana is truly going to be regarded as a medicine in this state, as its supporters argue, then under no circumstances should it be treated — or taxed — like a recreational substance.
Montana's medical marijuana program has been in place for more than a decade, since voters approved its legal use in the state through the ballot initiative process in 2004. However, the particulars of that program and the laws guiding it have been much debated, especially in the legislature and in court.
While it was ultimately a good thing to have these issues sorted out within an official framework, the unfortunately side effect has been the tens of thousands - 12,730 medical marijuana cardholders at last count — left without any sort of certainty about whether their medicine would continue to be available to them. Indeed, 11,850 cardholders are without any provider at this very moment, and will continue to be until the new law takes effect on June 30, 2017, unless the Legislature acts sooner.
Montana voters told our leaders, in approving the medical marijuana initiative Nov. 8, to lift unreasonable restrictions on patients — while also approving a new regulatory structure that ensures providers are held accountable without allowing abuses. While many were undoubtedly expecting new attacks on medical marijuana in the upcoming Legislature, it's probably safe to saw few expected them to come in the form of burdensome tax proposals.
Great Falls Rep. Bradley Hamlett, a Democrat like Bullock, has a worthy goal of raising revenue to help low-income Montanans access medical marijuana. He told reporters in November that he would consider an additional tax to help pay for drug counseling and rehab, another valuable effort.
After all, drug addiction is a serious problem in Montana, as is affordable access to health care, including prescription medication. But it simply doesn't make sense to raise money for these efforts on the backs of already suffering medical marijuana patients, any more than it would make sense to tax traditional pharmaceutical drugs. Would we consider a tax on blood pressure medication to pay for opiate addiction programs? Why single out one particular kind of medicine?
The short answer is: because it's marijuana, and because it's new. Medical cannabis has a long history of being linked to recreational use that has not been shaken off — not yet, not in Montana. And as the state faces a tighter budget with revenue dropping in certain areas, any potential new sources are sure to get a thorough chewing in the greedy jaws of government.
Even the Montana Cannabis Industry Association, perhaps weary after years of court battles and election campaigns, has said it is willing to consider taxes on medical marijuana, as doing so might help ensure the program's continued existence.
That would be a mistake. Legislators should hear from their constituents right now, in no unequivocal terms, that a tax on medical marijuana should not be on the table.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Missoulian Editorial - Don't Tax Medical Marijuana
Author: Staff
Contact: (406) 523-5200
Photo Credit: Thinkstock
Website: Missoulian
That's right: For the first time, the state of Montana is looking at taxing medicine.
Gov. Steve Bullock's biennial budget includes a proposal to tax medical marijuana at a rate of 6 percent. The estimated $2.6 million raised through this tax would go from the pockets of medical marijuana patients into the state general fund.
Further, legislation proposed by a Great Falls representative would tax medical marijuana at rates of 3 percent and 21 percent— on top of the governor's proposed 6 percent tax. That money would be used specifically to subsidize medical marijuana for low-income patients, and to help pay for drug treatment programs.
Whatever the reason, it is wrong to tax people's medicine. It is wrong to treat patients' reliance on a strictly controlled substance that eases their pain and relieves nausea and insomnia like any other revenue stream.
In making their case to voters before Election Day, proponents of the new medical marijuana initiative rightly argued that medical marijuana should not be confused with recreational marijuana. Yet that is exactly what the governor, for one, appears to be doing. Tim Crowe, a spokesman for the Governor's Office, told reporters the tax would be similar to the kinds of "consumption taxes" placed on alcohol and tobacco.
Medical marijuana patients presumably qualify for a green card because medical marijuana was determined to be the best way to treat their illness. If marijuana is truly going to be regarded as a medicine in this state, as its supporters argue, then under no circumstances should it be treated — or taxed — like a recreational substance.
Montana's medical marijuana program has been in place for more than a decade, since voters approved its legal use in the state through the ballot initiative process in 2004. However, the particulars of that program and the laws guiding it have been much debated, especially in the legislature and in court.
While it was ultimately a good thing to have these issues sorted out within an official framework, the unfortunately side effect has been the tens of thousands - 12,730 medical marijuana cardholders at last count — left without any sort of certainty about whether their medicine would continue to be available to them. Indeed, 11,850 cardholders are without any provider at this very moment, and will continue to be until the new law takes effect on June 30, 2017, unless the Legislature acts sooner.
Montana voters told our leaders, in approving the medical marijuana initiative Nov. 8, to lift unreasonable restrictions on patients — while also approving a new regulatory structure that ensures providers are held accountable without allowing abuses. While many were undoubtedly expecting new attacks on medical marijuana in the upcoming Legislature, it's probably safe to saw few expected them to come in the form of burdensome tax proposals.
Great Falls Rep. Bradley Hamlett, a Democrat like Bullock, has a worthy goal of raising revenue to help low-income Montanans access medical marijuana. He told reporters in November that he would consider an additional tax to help pay for drug counseling and rehab, another valuable effort.
After all, drug addiction is a serious problem in Montana, as is affordable access to health care, including prescription medication. But it simply doesn't make sense to raise money for these efforts on the backs of already suffering medical marijuana patients, any more than it would make sense to tax traditional pharmaceutical drugs. Would we consider a tax on blood pressure medication to pay for opiate addiction programs? Why single out one particular kind of medicine?
The short answer is: because it's marijuana, and because it's new. Medical cannabis has a long history of being linked to recreational use that has not been shaken off — not yet, not in Montana. And as the state faces a tighter budget with revenue dropping in certain areas, any potential new sources are sure to get a thorough chewing in the greedy jaws of government.
Even the Montana Cannabis Industry Association, perhaps weary after years of court battles and election campaigns, has said it is willing to consider taxes on medical marijuana, as doing so might help ensure the program's continued existence.
That would be a mistake. Legislators should hear from their constituents right now, in no unequivocal terms, that a tax on medical marijuana should not be on the table.
News Moderator: Katelyn Baker 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: Missoulian Editorial - Don't Tax Medical Marijuana
Author: Staff
Contact: (406) 523-5200
Photo Credit: Thinkstock
Website: Missoulian
