Why has cannabis legalization taken so long?
Monday, May 6, 2019 - Posted by Rich Miller
* John Pletz at Crain’s makes a valid point…
Illinois is trying to do something no other state has accomplished, legalizing recreational marijuana by statute instead of coming up with a program on the fly after a ballot initiative.
That’s one of many reasons it’s taking so long. Legislators, led by Sen. Heather Steans and Rep. Kelly Cassidy, have been working on the bill for months, with the effort intensifying over the past several weeks. “No state has gone to tax-and-regulate by legislation vs. ballot referendum,” Cassidy, who started laying the groundwork for the bill with Steans more than two years ago, said recently. “That’s why it’s taken more time than other bigger bills.”
And it’s good that they’re taking some time because they’re able to see what has worked and what has failed in other states.
* Meanwhile…
The Legislature is split along party lines with this issue, and although Democrats control both chambers, a few of them are on the fence and mirror the views of those in law enforcement and religious communities who worry about illegal sales and any addictive nature of marijuana.
Lawmakers have made an unusual step of introducing the bill first in the Senate, rather than presenting companion bills in both chambers. That’s likely because the Senate has been the friendlier venue for marijuana legislation then the House, which is expected to be a bigger hurdle.
Um, the issue has GOP support in both chambers. It doesn’t command a majority of the Republican super-minority, but the support is significant enough to say it’s bipartisan. As subscribers know, there is a big question about whether Republicans will support this particular proposal, but the governor said Saturday that he expects changes will be made.
Also, introducing one bill in one chamber is not unusual at all. Identical bills are occasionally introduced in both chambers because, for instance: 1) Sponsors have ego issues; 2) The General Assembly is preparing for ramming speed so that one chamber can have a hearing while the other chamber takes up an identical bill on the floor.
But this particular proposal does, indeed, have a better chance in the Senate partly because the Senate Democrats have 40 members, which would be equal to 80 House members. The House has 74 members.
- Matt - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 9:37 am:
25% of revenue is dedicated to a social equity grant. 20% of revenue is for a dedicated mental health and substance abuse fund. 20% of revenue is for a combination of unpaid bills, law enforcement and public awareness. That’s 55% of new revenue (excluding unpaid bills) dedicated to new social programs.
Only 35% of the revenue will go to the General Revenue Fund which makes the pension payments.
This should used to pay off the pension debt. Instead we’re extending the pension ramp by seven years and kicking the can on the payment this year.
- Rich Miller - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 9:39 am:
===This should used to pay off the pension debt===
Those social programs are necessary to get the bill passed and to address the very real harm done by the war on drugs.
- XonXoff - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 9:51 am:
Partially, because people have co-sponsors on HR0157 to point at. @capitolfax prompted a tweet from Kevin Sabet at SAM on Saturday. The traditional print media is compelled to quote Kevin at every opportunity and I’ll quote his tweet (in reference to Gov. Pritzker) here:
“On a Saturday!
Maybe he knows it’s gonna go down just like:
Murphy-NJ
&
Cuomo-NY
But in IL? —>This one’s gonna be *really* fun.”
Fun, eh? Kevin Sabet is President and CEO of SAM, which he founded with Patrick J. Kennedy. Mr. Sabet is a career prohibitionist, first in Federal Government as a drug policy advisor, locking people up while being paid by taxpayers. Now he runs not-for-profit and tax-exempt “organizations” he claims are funded by wealthy prohibitionists who apparently want a quotable authority figure out front. @kevinsabet plans to make short work of this, in Illinois, based on his tweet Saturday, predicting Illinois will be “really fun.”
We all have varying ideas of fun and I’d bet there’s some legal-type who would have a real blast sliding self-righteous SAM’s multi-million dollar a year non-profit funhouse(s) under the microscope.
Closer to home, in April, SAM awarded Marty Moylan their “Advocate of the Year” award in Illinois. Apparently, congratulations are in order. The day has come for Illinois taxpayers to ask Marty and his co-sponsors on HR0157 directly if SAM will be paying their salaries after they are voted out of public office in Illinois.
Here’s the list: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=157&GAID=15&GA=101&DocTypeID=HR&LegID=120713&SessionID=108
Is SAM a problem? When our legislatures legislate based on direction from a career prohibitionist in Massachusetts running tax-exempt multi-million dollar organizations – instead of the desires of their tax paying constituents in Illinois – call me old fashioned, but yeah, I think that’s a problem.
Steppenwolf says it well: https://youtu.be/7Q6sUP4NHVs
- CJA - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 9:51 am:
^^^^ I wouldn’t be surprised if this money never gets to pension and other things. Just like the lottery money. Everyone will have a program they want funded.
- Southern - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 10:02 am:
I left the Politico post when I got to the misuse of then/than: That’s likely because the Senate has been the friendlier venue for marijuana legislation then the House, which is expected to be a bigger hurdle.
- Moe Berg - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 10:07 am:
You get what you pay for with the Politico Illinois tip sheet.
- Illinois Resident - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 10:13 am:
Its early April so we will know soon how the legislative process goes. There appears to be strong support to get something done.
- {Sigh} - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 10:16 am:
There are a few errors in the bill.
Not sure they can get to 71 the way it’s drafted.
- don the legend - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 10:21 am:
===Its early April ===
My calendar reads May.
- Rabid - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 10:29 am:
For fun let SAM write the warning labels to get bipartisan support
- qualified someone nobody sent - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 10:56 am:
Taxing of recreational marijuana proposed by the bill is shortsighted. Dropping of products price will come as phase two and three are up and running. Instead of using a percentage tax, it should be taxed by the gram of usable cannabis sold. Medical producers already have to state the amount of usable cannabis in EVERY product to ensure no one gets more than the law allows (2.5 oz. per two weeks). Therefore, concentrates, edible, etc. already have an usable amount on the label. Taxing at $!.00 per usable gram would ensure State revenues increase as the amount of product sold increases regardless of price. 10% tax may be nice when ounces sell for $400.00 to $500.00 but WHEN the price eventually drops below $280.00 an ounce (28.35 grams) revenue streams would be protected for all designated uses. Municipal taxes should also be administered the same per gram way. $.25 per gram of usable cannabis would ensure a stable revenue source that would increase as the amount of product sold locally increases.
- Nonbeleiver - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 10:57 am:
CJA - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 9:51 am:
^^^^ ”
That pretty much sums it up. The Governor and the Democratic leadership will divide the money as they want
- Langhorne - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 11:27 am:
It is typical when passing large complex issues like this, to require tweaks and adjustments and modifications the second and third year out. By doing all the work the sponsors have now, hopefully those tweaks and adjustments will be refinements rather than large scale mid course corrections.
- {Sigh} - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 12:20 pm:
=It is typical when passing large complex issues like this, to require tweaks and adjustments and modifications the second and third year out.=
Tweaks? Under personal use of cannabis (aka home grow) it talks about “by the person registered to home grow” but unless I missed it in the bill, it does say who those individuals will register with. There are other drafting errors.
The bill also contains language regarding privately owned facilities where cannabis can be consumed. The privately owned facility must provide a smoke free area for employees. This provision was included in any highlights/talking point of the bill. These private facilities would need to get approval from a unit of local government where the facility would be located.
And there is authority for DFRP to issue up to 500 dispensary licenses. The first 2 licensing phases do not equal 500 licenses, so the bill grants DFPR to issue additional licenses in the future.
- Illinois Resident - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 12:49 pm:
Agree, what does register for home grow mean? Kind of annoying if they make you go through that red tape. Hopefully this is not the case.
- Hyde Parker - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 1:11 pm:
The concerns that not enough revenue will go toward pensions are understandable and have some validity. However, we have to keep in mind that the War on Drugs has put immense damage onto black and brown communities, and it will take major investments to repair all of that harm.
Many folks in these communities feel a million miles away from the pension crisis, even if it affects them in less salient ways. I’m very pleased with the efforts of Pritzker, Steans, and others.
- CJA - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 1:18 pm:
- Hyde Parker - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 1:11 pm
Not saying that it shouldn’t, but I am skeptical that the slice of the pie allotted to pensions will get eaten up along the way. History has shown that already as I mentioned.
- City Boy - Monday, May 6, 19 @ 7:28 pm:
If the War on Drugs was a failure and did so much damage, why are we bringing more drugs into our neighborhood. With that thinking, let’s legalize coke, meth and heroin. We don’t wanna be arresting people for such crimes
- Paceman - Tuesday, May 7, 19 @ 7:37 am:
How does this bill deal with persons found in possession of blackmarket (untaxed) Marijuana?