Refresh Checked Unchecked Menu Search Shopping bag Geolocation Person Facebook Instagram Twitter YouTube Info Icon CBC Icon CBC Shape CBD Icon CBD Shape CBG Icon CBG Shape THC Icon THC Shape THCV Icon THCV Shape Loading…
Advertise on Leafly

Massachusetts Update: Sorting out the Cannabis Conundrum

June 26, 2017
(capricornis/iStock)
UPDATE, 6/26/2017:

BOSTON (AP) — A six-member Massachusetts House and Senate conference committee has begun work behind closed doors trying to hammer out a compromise bill making changes to the recreational marijuana law.

The two chambers last week approved separate bills aimed at overhauling the voter-approved law legalizing the recreational use of marijuana in Massachusetts.

The six-member panel, made up of four Democrats and two Republicans, voted to kick out reporters as they were set to begin negotiations on a final compromise bill.

Related

Photos Prove Government-Grown Cannabis Is Basically Ditch Weed

One member of the panel, Democratic House Majority Leader Ron Mariano, said lawmakers are facing an aggressive timetable to come up with a final bill.

The House bill made more extensive changes to the law compared to the Senate version, including raising the tax rate on marijuana from 12 to 28 percent.

__

Original story:

BOSTON (AP) — After a week of sharp divisions and heated rhetoric over the future of the state’s recreational marijuana law, it’s now up to a conference committee of six legislators to try and sort everything out.

On one hand, there’s a House bill that infuriated pro-legalization activists by proposing a major overhaul of the voter-approved law. On the other, a more restrained Senate bill won praise from the groups behind the November ballot question.

Related

Massachusetts House Passes Controversial Cannabis Bill, Setting up Showdown

Democratic Rep. Mark Cusack, the House bill’s lead author, suggested before the votes that the two chambers were in about 80 percent agreement on their respective approaches.

There is, in fact, more common ground than readily apparent given the dialogue of the past week.

The House repealed the ballot question and wrote an entirely new law; the Senate keeps the existing law while offering changes.

Neither the House nor Senate changed the current legal possession limit of up to 1 ounce of cannabis or home growing provisions that permit up to a dozen plants per household.

Each place state oversight of recreational and medical marijuana under the Cannabis Control Commission, which would become larger and ostensibly more independent than under the ballot initiative that puts it under control of the state treasurer.

Both bills allow medical marijuana dispensaries to transition into for-profit companies, but eliminate the head start those companies had been given over other applicants for recreational licenses. Both set guidelines for the testing of all marijuana products by independent labs, and standards for packaging, labeling and marketing.

Both adopt diversity measures designed to level the playing field for minority and women cannabis entrepreneurs, and address the historically disproportionate impact the “war on drugs” had on minority neighborhoods. And with no currently reliable test for marijuana impairment, both ask a task force to study issues around driving under the influence.

Related

Washington’s Cannabis Law Is an Obstacle to Equity. It Doesn’t Have to Be.

Similarities aside, barriers to reaching a deal by the Legislature’s self-imposed July 1 deadline are many.

A few:

“Repeal and Replace” or “Amend and Improve”

Perhaps the most fundamental difference between the competing bills: The House repealed the ballot question and wrote an entirely new law; the Senate keeps the existing law while offering changes.

More than just legislative sausage-making, it’s a central question conference committee members must resolve before doing much else. Do they start from scratch as the House did or keep on the books — with modest revisions — the law 1.8 million Massachusetts voters approved? The answer may well dictate the parameters of the final bill.

High on Taxes?

The sizeable gulf between marijuana tax rates — 28 percent in the House, 12 percent in the Senate — garnered the most public attention during the past week’s debates.

It may also be the easiest issue to resolve should lawmakers simply agree to split the difference. But the underlying issues are more complicated.

Related

Massachusetts Whiplash: Cannabis Tax Pulled Back to 12%

Senators insisted on a tax low enough to encourage consumers to buy from licensed marijuana stores, thereby crushing the underground market for the drug. House lawmakers sought a tax high enough to pay for what the bill described as a “rigorous regulatory scheme” for the cannabis industry. The House also set an ambitious goal of directing $50 million in marijuana revenues to substance abuse treatment programs.

It’s unclear if a compromise tax of about 20 percent satisfies either or both sets of objectives.

Power to the People?

The House grants local governing bodies — city councils and town meetings for example — power to ban or limit retail shops from opening in their communities. The Senate bill leaves unchanged the current law that requires a voter referendum to shut the door on marijuana establishments.

Related

What’s Behind All the Delays in Newly Legal States?

There is no readily apparent compromise, so barring a creative solution one side must give on this issue.

If No Agreement, What Then?

Failure by legislators to reach a deal by next Saturday would simply leave the voter-approved law intact, and allow Treasurer Deb Goldberg to begin appointing the Cannabis Control Commission. But a possible scenario in the event of deadlock would be to have conferees separate out and approve items they have consensus on, while resolving to address thornier issues further down the road.

The Associated Press's Bio Image

The Associated Press

The AP is one of the world's largest and most trusted sources of independent newsgathering.

View The Associated Press's articles

  • massvocals

    personally as voting citizen the representative has no right even lawfully to repeal the petition , then replace it with there own ideals , first allowing city and towns fathers to vote out pot shops without the citizens allows prohibitionist to rule over those districts , This point alone is outrage as it was raise at every joint committee meeting by police and town officer who vote against the question Mpp is failing the republic of Massachusetts by not filing a injunction with The SJC for re-leaf and Damages The state law makers void the vote so i asked why did we vote ?I also state there is no evidence of any emergency that would give way to issue such acts , Everyone of those legislator that voted for the repeal and replace has violated there oath of office They worked against the people Claiming no one read the petition even that big marijuana was behind the question when that was faults BIll Downing of reading ma , ” said on TV he help write the law ” I live long enough to see this happen 3 times now once with seat belt law 2ed income tax law and now the marijuana law , This is not how a representative government should behave , The people will There vote has been usurp first by the 7 and governor and now the house , at least the sen had the since to only cause additional issue and leave the law alone , WE in Massachusetts as patriots should be up in arms over this , our liberty and our vote has been stolen and squash in our faces , Its high time the leaders and MPP organize a real protest

  • massvocals

    No NO KNOW where in state Constitution of Massachusetts under petitions does it say the people vote the petition in and the legislators repeal it NO NO KNOW that this is NOT legal process and it must be challenge in a court of law for the cost even .. the petition cost millions of dollars to make happen , what all for nothing ? where are the blood trusty lawyers who want to make names for themselves WE need layers like Clarence Darrow who raise Constitutional logic and principle over such zealous acts in so many of his cases , WHERE ARE YOU ?

  • FlunkedAgain

    12 plants that are 20 feet tall are legal, but 13 plants that are 8 inches tall are illegal.
    This makes no sense at all.