Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

[Sieglinde]

Too late for early voters who have already mailed their ballots. I think they should have written an opposition argument for the ballot and then mailed letters to the Press Democrat and the other newspapers in the county.

"The SCGA has surveyed our membership and found an overwhelming response opposing Measure A. We urge our membership and other citizens to vote NO on Measure A."

[Sieglinde]

I did. I really don't know how to spell it so I should have looked it up. I am not at all familiar with who it was named after and have never been to it.

I think you mean the Glaser Center; I've never heard of the Glazier Center.

[Sieglinde]

I thought the medical card cost $150.

No one with a medical condition needs to "see" a doctor anymore. I got my recommendation online for $50, and yes it works! ...

[hanford]

Wake up greedy pot growers ,times are changing and your big profit ticket is over . The future is going to hold many changes and all the "med pot patients" are going to have to get a pill ,non get high medicine.
too bad for the check out on reality crowd.,there is good and bad in any changes but the crime, gangs, polutuion, destruction of wildlands ,openspace, habitat for the single purpose of greedy criminals who are equal to corporate grape growers,have no place in a fair ,safe healthy society.
Yes tax,Yes regulation start now.

[Sieglinde]

Calling people names gets you nowhere. Even though you disagree with the legalization of pot, the state needs to deal with it in an orderly manner. Whether this tax is the answer is why there is a debate but your attitude is not helpful. The legalization of pot ought to reduce crime related pot sales and the attendant crime surrounding them. Do you think any Speakeasys existed once Prohibition was lifted? Only as fun retro bars but not underground establishments. Medical marijuana comes in many strengths and types. Many folks are not getting high from rubbing some oil on their skin or taking a drop under the tongue.

Wake up greedy pot growers ,...

[Evram]

Really? Really??

Wake up greedy pot growers ,times are changing and your big profit ticket is over . The future is going to hold many changes and all the "med pot patients" are going to have to get a pill ,non get high medicine.
too bad for the check out on reality crowd.,there is good and bad in any changes but the crime, gangs, polutuion, destruction of wildlands ,openspace, habitat for the single purpose of greedy criminals who are equal to corporate grape growers,have no place in a fair ,safe healthy society.
Yes tax,Yes regulation start now.

[rossmen]

You keep putting out this info like it is fact. But it reads nothing like 64. Why would the state not issue permits for local pot business? They want the taxes required in 64. I'll keep researching and let you know for sure. Btw, 5 days for opposition arguments? Narrow window is a very kind description.

I'm sorry- but that is NOT realistic. The state is supposed to start issuing permits Jan 1st 2018 (yes, looks like they are behind schedule). One can't get a state permit (which they must have in 2018) without a county permit.

The next general election is nov 2017. The county has to hire and train staff before permits can be issued. PMRD, just on general issues, is currently several months out on being able to act on anything.

If this does not pass, no permits (or the county has to scramble and pull millions from the general fund in the hope another tax passes). Basically- the cannabis industry in SO will likely become illegal under state/local law for ~ 2 years- even more worrisome given our current federal AG.

[rossmen]

I am so glad pot is now legal in caly. The old days of cruel oppression, vicious prosecution, and senseless demonizing of the pot using, growing, and distributing public are fading fast! And yes! The crime and environmental insanity of growing this beautiful, fun, and powerfully medicinal plant in hiding will be gone! Freed from the market distortion of racist criminalization it will be less costly and easier to purchase, despite continued efforts by governments to stand in the way, keep the price high, and suck up profit with taxes.

[Stuart]

What seems odd to me is why dispensaries, labs and transport are EXCLUDED from this tax?
This is just a tax on growers, from my understanding.
Please see my above thoughts and comments re my objections:
-$400,000. Yes, nearly a half a million dollars for a single issue ballot!
-No opposing views in the voter guide, which is paid for by taxpayers!
-No guarantee any of the money will be spent on the stated intentions
-Why just on growers and not the sellers, i.e. dispensaries, transport, labs?

Vote NO, and make sure you do vote. Pass it on, not too many folks aware of what is going on

[Evram]

.... Looks like there will be some sort of meeting about it on February 25th at the Glaser Center. https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Cannabis

The meeting is next Tuesday, Feb 21st (not 25th!)

Here's the information from the county website: https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Cannabis/

[occihoff]

Also, it is quite easy to grow plenty of marijuana for yourself or a few others in just one or two pots or in the earth in a sunny spot indoors or outdoors. Once the fear of "getting caught" is alleviated, buying marijuana from a dealer will become less necessary as many people or their friends save seeds and grow a little for themselves. It's a pretty plant, too.

[lgr]

A chicken in every pot and pot in every patio!

Update of the 1928 Republican campaign slogan promising a new era of prosperity if Hoover were elected.

If not prosperity, then surely more tolerance and civility!

[Sieglinde]

It has a rather pungent smell. Is there a way to mitigate that for your neighbors sake?

Also, it is quite easy to grow plenty of marijuana for yourself or a few others in just one or two pots or in the earth in a sunny spot indoors or outdoors. Once the fear of "getting caught" is alleviated, buying marijuana from a dealer will become less necessary as many people or their friends save seeds and grow a little for themselves. It's a pretty plant, too.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

A quick(ish) update...

After some discussins with some folks...some "clarification" on SCGA's "No" recommendation.

It seems SCGA has a grand plan to raise the nearly $400K from "the industry" to place this issue on the ballot again in November. I'm sure some small portion of this will come (ahem, be extorted) from us paniced small farmers who don't want to become illegal overnight. The rest will surely come from the ballers of "the industry" who will demand to be taxed at the same rate as the small players.

Optimistically, this would mean SoCo might start accepting permit applications Fed 2018. Which still means permits issued 4 months later. Then the State processe- for the small players, who don't have teams of lawyers and $$ to fight- they'd be illegal all of 2018.

Let's be clear here- we have players who have been getting filthy rich violating both the spirit and the letter (very few letters) of the law for years, now trying to use fear and uncertainity against the people who have been trying to do the right thing all these years. Despite the counties attempts to level the playing field and hamper the big players, we are >< this close to handing the entire industry over to them.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

You keep putting out this info like it is fact. But it reads nothing like 64. Why would the state not issue permits for local pot business? They want the taxes required in 64. I'll keep researching and let you know for sure. Btw, 5 days for opposition arguments? Narrow window is a very kind description.

We are NOT talking about Prop 64- which is a LONG was from implementation. We are talking about MCRSA (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act) - which supercedes the pathetic 215.

Quick sidenote- Trumps Sean Spicer today said that the Trump administration views "medical" and "recreational" cannabis VERY differently- and hinted strongly they DOJ will be cracking down on "recreational" cannabis- ie: prop 64.


Back to the point- in 2018 all medical cannabis grows will require a state permit. Which requires a county permit first. (and county permit here (and pretty much everywhere in nor-cal) requires compliance with the North Coast Regional Water Board.

I'm not quite sure what your point is? It seems you are the one not paying attention...

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

What seems odd to me is why dispensaries, labs and transport are EXCLUDED from this tax?
This is just a tax on growers, from my understanding....

Simple answer- once the state puts "Track and Trace" into effect in 2018 the tax will shift to the distributor. For now the grow is the only place the county can place the tax without millions escaping through diversion to export. Why should labs be taxed when they are going to have a thousand fold increase in business with all cannabis having to be tested, and will only increase cost to growers? Likewise why tax transport- which will only serve to increase tax to growers? Dispensaries are already under brutal taxes from the feds (Google 280E, a nominal 70% tax...no deductions for normal business costs).

And yes- an expensive election. No other option- the next general election is nov 2018- which would result in 2+ years of an illegal industry.
It is not the counties fault no one submitted an opposition.
And not the counties fault the state requires a 2/3rds vote to put the $ to a specific purpose rather then a 50%+1 vote to pass a general tax.

[rossmen]

We are NOT talking about Prop 64- which is a LONG was from implementation. We are talking about MCRSA (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act) - which supercedes the pathetic 215....

Doesn't 64 supercede mcrsa? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I really am here to just learn. Sorry you find my stupid challenging questions annoying. I suspect pot law is confusing for everyone since it is changing so quickly and highly politicized. Must be a difficult business to be in.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

Doesn't 64 supercede mcrsa? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I really am here to just learn. Sorry you find my stupid challenging questions annoying. I suspect pot law is confusing for everyone since it is changing so quickly and highly politicized. Must be a difficult business to be in.

Nope- 64 does not supercede MCRSA- they are two completely different animals. Set up and regulation under 64 is still a ways off (and will likely be slowed even more by Spicers comments yesterday).

For the forseeable future, all we are talking about is medical cannabis- not "adult use"/Recreational.

No apologies needed, except maybe from me. Stressful times, especially loosing hundreds and hundreds of hours of work time to having to attend meetings, write letters, and network with people. So sorry if I come across harsh or arrogant at times...

[Barry]

Here's the SonomaWest article on the cannabis tax proposal:


Measure A seeks tax on cannabis
By Amie Windsor Staff Writer [email protected] Feb 26, 2017

T

ax could generate $6.3 million

Should cannabis be taxed at 10 percent?

That’s the question the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors is asking constituents on March 7 during a special election.

In the simplest of terms, Measure A would impose a business tax on both medical and recreational cannabis businesses located in unincorporated Sonoma County. The tax would be applicable to all commercial cannabis-related businesses, from the grower through supply chain operators. The funds collected from the tax would feed into county’s general fund.

Proposed tax rates are as follows: for operators, including manufacturers, nurseries, distributors, transporters, labs and dispensaries, the maximum tax rate is 10 percent of gross receipt sales. Starting points for supply chain operator taxes would be 5 percent for manufacturers and 0 percent for all others. Measure A also imposes a cultivation tax at maximum rates of $10 per square foot for outdoor cultivators, $38 per square foot for indoor cultivators and $22 per square foot for mixed-light cultivators.

The county tax would be tacked onto taxes already imposed by the state. Under Proposition 64, the Adult Use Marijuana Act that legalized recreational cannabis in November, the state will tax nonmedical sales at 15 percent. Additionally, Prop. 64 imposes a cultivation tax on all cannabis at a rate of $9.25 per ounce for flowers and $2.75 per ounce for leaves.

The county has said the funds will be used to “address the risk and adverse impacts of legalized cannabis in Sonoma County while also maintaining the existing general governmental services that the County funds,” according to a staff report dispersed at the Dec. 6 Board of Supervisors meeting. The staff report states that fees imposed on cannabis businesses can recover costs associated with issuing permits, inspections and compliance monitoring. However, the fees cannot be used to fund other costs such as code or law enforcement, policy development, health impacts and education and potential environmental cleanup.

That’s where the tax comes in.

The county plans to use the tax to address costs associated with the new industry in order to ensure funding is not funneled away from other vital county services. However, as a general tax with no specified expenditures attached to it, the county can use the revenue generated from cannabis sales and cultivation — estimated to be roughly $6.3 million — on any county initiative. Examples include roads repair and improvements, according to a fact sheet distributed by the county’s cannabis ad hoc committee.

Although there is no formal opposition language on the ballot, ...

Continues here

[Sieglinde]

I wonder if it goes into the General fund because there is less of a supermajority needed to pass a general fund tax proposal. I do prefer to see taxes on specific industries go to deal with the issues around those industries. But the slogan Pot for Pot Holes really did mean that the tax was thought of as going into the general revenue.

Here's the SonomaWest article on the cannabis tax proposal:
...
The county plans to use the tax to address costs associated with the new industry in order to ensure funding is not funneled away from other vital county services. However, as a general tax with no specified expenditures attached to it, the county can use the revenue generated from cannabis sales and cultivation — estimated to be roughly $6.3 million — on any county initiative. Examples include roads repair and improvements, according to a fact sheet distributed by the county’s cannabis ad hoc committee. ...

[Barry]

I wonder if it goes into the General fund because there is less of a supermajority needed to pass a general fund tax proposal.

I presume so.

But the slogan Pot for Pot Holes really did mean that the tax was thought of as going into the general revenue.

That was Noreen Evan's slogan. She wasn't elected. The current tax proposal was made before Lynda Hopkins was seated on the BOS.

[eggplant]

Sunday's Press Democrat Letter to Editor:
Passage of Measure A would result in more pot being grown in the county on even-larger factory farms, more exposure of our children to this dangerous THC drug and more crime in the county as most pot growers are forced deeper underground. It would weaken the local economy, send our money to out-of-state corporate interests and make CBD, the only effective epilepsy medicine, harder to get.

Passage of Measure A would give the empire-building county more money to rescue its pensions, pay for more bureaucratic bloat and more law enforcement to fight an increase in prohibition-driven crime (as opposed to pot-driven crime) and to spend on anything else they want.

We rightly rejected other general fund tax measures like the so-called road-repair tax a couple of years ago.They are up to the same misleading tricks - rushing into spending $400,000 on a no-opposition-statement election designed to circumvent the two-thirds-majority rule. Has anything changed so we can now trust them to spend the tax revenues the way they promise? Nothing I can see.

Make sure you vote, and make sure you vote NO. - ALEXANDER CARPENTER, Santa Rosa

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

I wonder if it goes into the General fund because there is less of a supermajority needed to pass a general fund tax proposal. I do prefer to see taxes on specific industries go to deal with the issues around those industries. >snip<

Indeed, that is the case. CA really shot themselves in the foot requiring a 2/3's vote for taxes for special purposes as opposed to 50%+1vote for general fund.... especially given the general animosity towards taxes and the general fund.

But...to be clear, we are talking about a tax whose revenues are going to grow exponetially over the next decade...and putting it to a specific purpose would likely have been a mistake in that light.

But of course- we all like to whine. Not many actually want to pay attention and be involved- and actually hold our government accountable (or even share their views with them). It's far easier to whine in the comments section of the PD. What's the old line about people getting the government they deserve?

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

>snip<
Should cannabis be taxed at 10 percent? >snip<

I do find the article dishonest and fear-mongering. The proposal is not a 10% tax - that is what the BOS, in theory, could raise it to at some point in the future.

And yes- I'd be much happier if there was language requiring a supermajority rather then simple majority in the BOS.

That said- the initial proposed rates are relatively fair for the state. Better then the rates (or at least initial rates) in OR, WA, and CO.

This industry still battles the perception that we're all rich. I made more money, by far, in the private sector. But I've also abided by the spirit of prop 215 and sb420...and to be fair- erred on the side of caution of these laws that never made what we do legal- just gave us, at least some, "legal defense". While a lot got rich rolling the dice and going big, while many more brought in a lot of extra income- both often by producing for out of state markets in defiance of both the intent and the letter of the law.

I'll admit- I'm scared s*****ss. I welcome the regs and taxes. But also admit it is a steep curve, and that I'm going to have a very, very rough couple of years. But If I can make it through this journey into the "real world"... I'll have the ability to expand without putting my family and my workers at risk.

I don't think we will ever see the 10% tax rate for small farmers- not unless the new realities show it can be supported. A major problem right now is that for the last two decades keeping records was a huge risk. So there is very little clear data for this industry. This will change over the next few years- and the county will realize that for most "family farms" the taxes are a very real burden. They will also likely realize that for the financially backed huge grows, with their economies of scale and low wages, that higher taxes ARE appropriate.

[sharingwisdom]

All signs point to a corporate takeover of the marijuana industry by Bayer, Monsanto

Following months of negotiations and various offers, Germany-based Bayer has finally sealed the deal with Monsanto, purchasing the seed giant for $66 billion. The merger is reported to be the largest all-cash deal on record.


The purchase means a lot of things, and none of them good for consumers. For one, it strengthens the monopolization of the world’s food supply. It also means more genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and chemicals to be doused on them.


Now, some are predicting the merge could also mean the takeover of the marijuana industry. Monsanto has an intimate business relationship with Scotts Miracle-Gro, “a convicted corporate criminal– and Scott’s Miracle-Gro is trying to take over the marijuana industry,” according to Big Buds Mag.

Continues here

[Sieglinde]

Excellent points. If we don't like how the tax is being spent, we run for Supervisor, support candidates we prefer, go to Board of Supervisor meetings etc. The argument that the revenue goes into the general fund is probably not the best argument for or against this measure.

Indeed, that is the case. CA really shot themselves in the foot requiring a 2/3's vote for taxes for special purposes as opposed to 50%+1vote for general fund....

[Sieglinde]

The corporate take over of a popular product does not surprise me. But we have Kraft brew beer, Estate wines and other very local products here. And that sells products. People are looking for terrier even in cider now. So we could sell estate grown equivalent pot in the Emerald Triangle. Think of the difference between Budweiser Beer and Russian River Beer. Folks don't wait in line for a Bud. But Bud is popular and sold everywhere. So the same could be done with pot.

All signs point to a corporate takeover of the marijuana industry by Bayer, Monsanto

https://www.defenddemocracy.press/al...ayer-monsanto/

[Barry]

The proposal is not a 10% tax - that is what the BOS, in theory, could raise it to at some point in the future.

This is a very important point! The tax rates in the measure are "MAXIMUM RATES". It's not clear to me if they will be initial rates or that this BOS will need to set them if them if the measure passes.

The proposed law clearly specifies "The Board of Supervisors may, by ordinance, decrease or increase the tax rate up to the maximum authorized rates at any time thereafter."

So any quibbling about what the right rate can be addressed by our supes at a later date. This measures just sets the maximum rates that can be accessed.

I think it is a good thing that cannabis be taxed, and I think the MAXIMUM rates that this measure establishes are a reasonable cap. Again, if the rates are too high, it will reduce revenue and bolster the black market. This measure gives the BOS the power to adjust the rates as this nascent legal market develops.

I think all the backlash you are hearing is based from growers, and their friends and associates, that don't want to be taxed, just like any other business.

[Peacetown Jonathan]

Six Reasons to Vote No on Measure A, the “Marijuana Hypocrisy Tax”

https://www.sonomaindependent.org/si...hypocrisy-tax/

COMMENTARY: Alcohol is far more harmful than cannabis. A 10% tax on grapes & wineries would yield far more money for the County. But that will never happen.

Jonathan Greenberg
March 2, 2017

cohol is far more harmful than cannabis. A 10% tax on grapes & wineries would yield far more money for the County. But that will never happen. Why, then, should we force the emerging cannabis industry into a huge tax and regulatory environment that would penalize local small growers, force many underground, and escalate the unwanted police, prison and probation war on marijuana?

Here are six compelling grassroots reasons why voters–and their friends and families–should vote AGAINST Sonoma County’s Measure A, the Marijuana Hypocrisy Tax, before or on March 7:

1. 1. Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and should be treated, regulated and taxed like wine. The unspoken truth is that cannabis will ALREADY be taxed like alcohol, from the existing 9 to 9.5% sales tax (which fills the coffers of local, county and state government). In addition, legal cannabis businesses, like wineries, will pay real estate, corporate, income and payroll taxes just like every other normal businesses. There is no rationale for forcing those in this embryonic, fast growing, jobs creating industry to be singled out and be taxed extra.
2. Hypocrisy busting time: Imagine a 10% tax on hundreds of millions of grape growers across the County. And a tax on the billion dollar wine industry. This would raise at least ten times the $6 million which Measure A aims to collect. Yet we know that our Supervisors would never even discuss placing such a measure on the ballot. One explanation for this double standard: hypocrisy.
3. The public has spoken: about 60% of Sonoma County voters cast their ballots for full legalization last November. We, the People, want Sheriff Dept. SWAT teams to bust down fewer doors and terrorize and imprison fewer of our neighbors, not more of them.
4. This tax is intended to increase “public safety” of the new regulations, meaning arresting more of the true victims of the victimless crime of marijuana than before. Enough already! Growers want cannabis to be treated like grapes and agriculture, subject to civil fines and inspections, not militarized raids and outrageous asset forfeiture laws. We want a peace dividend from stopping the escalation of prison, probation and police costs, not more reasons to bust our fellow Americans.
5. The way this got on the ballot without time for opposition statements represents sleazy backroom County Supervisor politics at its worse. When was the last time we saw that happen? Yet the Sonoma County Grower’s Alliance and its members overwhelmingly oppose Measure A. This suspicious process alone is sufficient reason to vote against this Marijuana Hypocrisy Tax.
6. Taxes like those imposed in Measure A defy the widely shared objective that Sonoma County citizens have to support locally owned small businesses. Only large cannabis agribusiness corporations will be able to afford the high taxes, accountants and lawyers that it will take to comply with the Marijuana Hypocrisy Tax. Small local farmers will be driven underground, where their “noncompliance” will lead them into the armored jaws of our criminal injustice system. This is the opposite of what We, the People, voted for on last November.

[rossmen]

I'm not a grower, friend or associate. Of course pot will be taxed, but A is license to tax at 10% for every step plus, on top of state and sales taxes. As explained here this is about laws passed before 64. Legalize it doesn't mean make government the dealer instead of the cop, A is over the top!

This is a very important point! The tax rates in the measure are "MAXIMUM RATES". It's not clear to me if they will be initial rates or that this BOS will need to set them if them if the measure passes. ...

I think all the backlash you are hearing is based from growers, and their friends and associates, that don't want to be taxed, just like any other business.