Just in from the state Attorney General's office.
Via Valerie Vande Panne.
Let's keep allowing your friendly neighborhood dealer to pocket all of the money they get from selling weed or have state run dispensaries bringing in tax revenue....hello?...
I always felt that was one of the the best arguments for legalization.
that marijuana dispensaries would get too sketchy, either. CVS sells significantly harder drugs, also by prescription, and I've never been afraid of having a CVS or a Walgreens in my neighborhood.
Don't count your tax dollars until the smoke clears. In CA about 1/2 the medical marijuana shops avoid paying any tax. First, some just refuse and see how much a town is willing to spend in court trying to shut them down; at which point they go out of business. But more often, most shops conduct a cash only business (many have atm's right there) so they can really understate their recepits and pay minimal tax. San Jose is leading the charge on this and estimates that the town is missing about 50% of the taxes they should be getting. And in SF there are a few shops that are not selling anything, rather they accept cash donations; they are currently in tax court with SF.
Alot depends on how the State writes the rules... so we'll have to wait to see what Mass does.
Its the feds that keep pot a cash business inviting tax fraud. Some laws or other don't allow banks to knowingly transact drug money, or merchants wanting a paper trail for the DEA to use to seize everything. Another example of government being the problem, not the solution.
If the govt wants to make any real money on pot they have to grow it and control the distribution. Thinking your going to make a killing off taxing private dispensaries is unrealistic. If Mass fully legalized it and set up state run dispensaries at all the major borders as well as in the cities the money they would rake in would be insane.
Moving beyond the old, "should it or shouldn't it" be legal, regarding the current law, the towns and cities that have put in place "moratoriums" on placement of dispensaries aren't doing so for any legitimate reason; they're doing it so that those who want to open dispensaries will do so in towns and cities that haven't passed moratoriums, since there can only be up to five in any one county.
Boston's City Councilor Consalvo was right on top of this. He figures of the five max for Suffolk County, three will end up in Boston. He went ahead and scheduled hearings and will propose the zoning to enable the selling/growing shops.
He's not taking a pot position, other than noting that by commonwealth law, the shops are legal. He wants an orderly process.
Not to plug the site, but he was on a short podcast a couple of weeks ago on the very topic.
I'm still waiting for the feds to get real about this, with so many states enabling medical-pot dispensaries.
Chatter from the back seat is that big pharma and Wall Street have BIG plans for weed.
I've heard that since I was in high school, thirty years ago. Have you heard about actual new plans that are being executed or just general "We always knew this would happen someday" stuff? Not that I'd expect you to name names, of course.
that you can expect companies like Pfizer, Astra Zeneca, and Novartis to be making plans that include weed. Venture capital is also salivating at the thought of a US with MMJ in every state.
Except that back then, it was "Big tobacco". Rumor had it that the big tobacco companies had already trademarked the names then in common use for various strains of marijuana like "Panama Red," "Colombian Gold," etc., in anticipation of legalization, which was being talked about in the early 80s in much the same way it's being talked about today.
Of course, a few years later, we got "Just Say No," the crack epidemic happened, and Len Bias died, resulting in a whole new rash of laws designed to clamp down on traffic in illegal drugs. By the late 80s, legalization was a faint hope.
(Disclaimer: I don't smoke weed but I'm pro-legalization.)
Cyrus and Nancy went to work for a pharma. Must be true.
Existing case law stemming from when the Commonwealth legalized and licensed tattoo artists and their shops, and cities and towns tried to ban them, made this one a no-brainer.