Here’s one of my messages to sponsors of federal marijuana legalization bill:
Dear Senators and Staffers,
On the joint Congressional Committee that devoted four full days of public hearings to liquor taxes alone in December 1933 were a future Supreme Court Justice (Vinson), a future Speaker of the House (McCormack), and a future Vice President (Barkley). That kind of work might well help Congress today. The 1933 hearings were hardly a political graveyard for those who took time to listen and study tricky issues.Continue reading “Hold Hearings before legalizaing marijuana federally”
Comment on the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act draft submitted to the Act’s authors:
I don’t understand what (B) is doing in new 26 U.S.C. 5902(a)(2).
‘‘(2) THC-MEASURABLE CANNABIS PRODUCT.—
The term ‘THC-measurable cannabis product’ means any cannabis product—
‘‘(A) with respect to which the Secretary has made a determination that the amount of tetrahydrocannabinol in such product (or any particular category of products which includes such product) can be measured with a reasonable degree of accuracy—
‘‘(i) consistent with good commercial practice, and
‘‘(ii) sufficient to protect the revenue and the public, or
‘‘(B) which is not cannabis flower and the concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol in which
is significantly higher than the average such concentration in cannabis flower.
Definitions of cannabis and cannabis product — submitted to U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which accepts comment on a draft bill at Cannabis_Reform@finance.senate.gov. https://www.democrats.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CAOA%20Detailed%20Summary%20-.pdf
Something “derived” from the plant is a product taxable by THC content, while a “derivative” of the plant is not a cannabis product, but simply cannabis not taxable by THC content. That confuses me.
+++Continue reading “Confusing definitions of cannabis and cannabis product in federal legalization bill”
Here are comments on North Carolina SB711 sent to Senators on the Health Committee.
John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was a Baptist teetotaler who opposed alcohol and a Republican businessman who liked the profit motive. When prohibition was repealed in 1933, Rockefeller didn’t want profit-maximizers retailing liquor. For health and temperance, he said, let the states themselves sell liquor—and that’s the North Carolina way.
This bill would let just 10 big companies sell medical cannabis. If the recreational kind is legalized, those companies will say, “Hooray,” and line up to control the recreational market. That’s the profit motive.
There’s a more restrictive way than SB711, proven in Canada: Sell medical cannabis only through government retailers—online only, delivered to the patient’s door. No glitzy storefronts, no marketing to tempt the weak. No lawsuits claiming cartoons and advertising are protected free speech under the North Carolina Constitution.Continue reading “The profit motive and medical marijuana in North Carolina”
Full results with more cross-tabs are at https://newtax.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/nc-marijuana-polling-march-2013.pdf.
Draft statement of Pat Oglesby, Center for New Revenue, for the North Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee meeting August 18 at 2 p.m.
Medical marijuana is coming to North Carolina, like it or not. Like most people, I’m for that.
But Senate Bill 711 could be improved in a lot of ways, I think.
New N.C.G.S. section 90-113.122 would say the Medical Cannabis Production Commission is to have two industry representatives among its nine members. The industry doesn’t need representatives on the Commission. Marijuana sellers can lobby the Commission quite readily, just as they can present their views to the North Carolina Senate without being Senators.Continue reading “Improving the Medical Cannabis Production Commission in North Carolina”
Speaking to the North Carolina Senate Finance Committee on medical marijuana money, 19’26” mark on video:https://www.wral.com/nc-medical-marijuana-bill-approved-by-another-senate-panel/19782886/
And here’s a verbatim transcript, all too accurate, I’m afraid, in reporting my stream-of-consciousness delivery:
“I’m Pat Oglesby with the Center for New Revenue. I think you’re leaving a lot of money on the table here. $50,000 [for an intial license]. These folks would if you had an auction, I hesitate to think how many people, how much money people would pay for these licenses . . . in Maryland last earlier this month, a medical marijuana license [sold] for $8 million dollars … there’s another way and Canada has done it. They have the provinces have, there have a monopoly on medical marijuana, That’s how it started delivery only. Online only. No glamour, no glitz. The patients just get the patients the medicine and the government gets the money. In Louisiana. The government gets the money that the state of Louisiana has a monopoly on medical marijuana growing and it uses the L. S. U. And Southern University which correspond to our N. C. State and A. N. T. And they get that money. Now people say, well then the patient is not going to buy it from the government. They don’t trust the government and that may be true, but I trust the government and that’s why I’m here today and I really hope you all take a good look, getting some more revenue out of this thing. Thank you very much.”