Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Supreme Court rules against Six Flags on state biometric law
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
The Democratic lawmakers with plans to promote legalizing recreational pot use in Illinois said Thursday they’re waiting for Gov. J.B. Pritzker to name a “point person” in his administration before they introduce their legislation.
State Sen. Heather Steans and state Rep. Kelly Cassidy laid out their proposal to end Illinois’ prohibition on pot in the coming months for more than 200 people Thursday night at a forum on recreational pot legalization at the Athenaeum Theatre in the Lake View neighborhood. The North Side Democrats previously introduced similar legislation in 2017 that failed to gain much traction in Springfield. […]
Under Steans’ and Cassidy’s proposal, Illinoisans over the age of 21 would be able to buy up to an ounce of marijuana from licensed dispensaries. Additionally, Illinois residents would be allowed to grow up to five cannabis plants at their home, something that is currently prohibited under the state’s medical cannabis law.
Revenue from legal pot sales would be used to “support law enforcement and pay for public education campaigns, substance abuse treatment and programs to reverse harms to communities adversely affected by the War on Drugs,” according to a slide projected during the presentation. […]
“We really have tee’d up a whole bunch of questions that we need to work through with [the Pritzker administration], or that’s the goal anyway,” Steans told the Sun-Times. “So, once we have that [gubernatorial point person] identified, we’ll sort of work through some of those issues and get it out there.”
Gov. Pritzker has said he wants to use cannabis revenues for all sort of things, including funding a capital bill. But that’s not how it’s developing at the moment. Stay tuned.
* More from the event…
Sponsors of much anticipated legislation to #legalize #cannabis in #Illinois gave a first preview today. #twill #Marijuana pic.twitter.com/jk4voZ0hMy
— Mark Peysakhovich (@MarksBigMouth) January 25, 2019
The industry will continue to be highy regulated and taxed. pic.twitter.com/aXjal5SHjk
— Mark Peysakhovich (@MarksBigMouth) January 25, 2019
There will be a substantial focus on #CriminalJusticeReform and #equity for communities hurt by the #WarOnDrugs. #
cannabis #marijuana pic.twitter.com/UWoo5oRUXn— Mark Peysakhovich (@MarksBigMouth) January 25, 2019
And next steps. Bottom line per @RepKellyCassidy and Sen. @HeatherSteans, we may not see the actual first draft for some weeks yet. #HoldingOurBreath #PunIntended #twill #Illinois #cannabis #twill @capitolfax pic.twitter.com/cS5Jx3upvb
— Mark Peysakhovich (@MarksBigMouth) January 25, 2019
* Related…
* Foxx vows to expunge all misdemeanor pot convictions, pushes full legalization: “At the [state’s attorney’s office], we have moved away from prosecuting most possession cases — but that does little to help the person who can’t get a job or apartment due to a marijuana conviction,” Foxx wrote. “The research and evidence indisputably show the housing and employment barriers associated with a marijuana conviction.” People with misdemeanor pot convictions will not have to petition individually to have them expunged from their records, according to Kiera Ellis, a spokeswoman for the state’s attorney’s office.
* State’s Attorney Kim Foxx announces support for legalizing pot, calls for expunging misdemeanor convictions: In the 1960s, possession of even one joint under Illinois law was a felony with a mandatory prison sentence. By 1970, a misdemeanor possession charge of 2.5 grams of marijuana could yield a one-year sentence in county jail and a $1,000 fine, while a felony conviction was punishable up to 10 years in prison, according to a Tribune article from that time. But public opinion has swayed in favor of marijuana legalization over the decades, with 62 percent of Americans in support as of last October, a five-fold increase from 12 percent in 1969, according to the Pew Research Center.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:18 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Next Post: Supreme Court rules against Six Flags on state biometric law
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
I thought the revenue was supposed to go towards pensions?
Comment by Pekin Pete Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:28 am
I vote for using the tax proceeds to rebuild the drug treatment and mental health treatment infrastructure in Illinois that was decimated by the two years of no budget.
For example, Southeastern Illinois Counseling Centers, Inc. filed for bankruptcy protection and is closed, of course as a result of no funding for two years, and inadequate funding prior.
I suspect other areas of Illinois are in the same situation. Given the issues Illinois residents have with opioids and methamphetamine dependency, we must provide more funding to combat same.
Real criminal justice reform would include this funding, as such a large percentage of crime in Illinois (nationwide for that matter) is tied to substance abuse and mental health issues.
Comment by BCOSEC Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:29 am
If we decide MJ is no longer illegal, it absolutely makes sense to let people out of jail, but expunging their record seems a step too far. They decided the law didn’t apply to them; whether or not you agree with the law matters very little. Giving someone’s freedom back and pretending that they never broke the law are two very different things.
Also, it seems weird that the first slide declares (in broad terms) how the money is going to be used, and then the last slide says the allocation and distribution will be the next step. Are they saying they just need to work out the details of implementing slide 1, or is it still possible to revenue gets used for something else?
Comment by Perrid Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:30 am
If it is going to happen (and it seems like it will) this seems like a good first step, lets hope we realize what we get wrong early and address it.
So is this new money for these programs or just a different way of funding them?
Comment by OneMan Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:34 am
===Revenue from cannabis sales will support law enforcement…===
I’m not a fan of directing revenue like this generally, but I’d interpret this to mean that Chicago could devote its revenue to the Police and Fire pensions which are the most under-funded of the city funds.
I’d be cool with that.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:35 am
These sales will be subject to sales tax and the state’s portion of that tax revenue will go to the General Revenue Fund as opposed to a special fund. The locals can do with their share what they want but it would be part of their overall sales tax allocations. If an excise tax is also part of the picture, I suspect those revenues may be directed for specific purposes/funds.
Comment by regnaD kciN Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:41 am
==I thought the revenue was supposed to go towards pensions?==
And education and social services and law enforcement…
And it’s already been spent.
Comment by City Zen Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:43 am
#5 - any municipality that prohibits recreational marijuana will not receive any proceeds from the taxes collected on recreational marijuana.
And there is no reason to funnel any money to law enforcement. That needs to be removed before this is passed. Can anyone point out a similar transfer of funds taking place in other states that have legalized? It may be the case that this is happening elsewhere, but I haven’t dug too deep to find it.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:44 am
Homegrow needs to stay in this bill for everyone. Homegrow was in the original medical bill before they yanked it out and people are still suffering because of financial situations or being thrown in a cage for growing a plant. Has to end!
Comment by Gro Up Gardening Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:47 am
At what rate is cannabis going to be taxed? I don’t think we get very much from medical cannabis.
Comment by Sam Hall Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:48 am
While we are at It, why not apply these Cannabis regulations to the Liquor industry? Ha ha.
Comment by Al Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:50 am
How connected will you need to be in order to get approved to operate a dispensary?
Comment by Chicagonk Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:55 am
No new spending. All proceeds should go to pensions.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:56 am
===Municipalities….can restrict or prohibit use.===
This mean only in use in public, correct? They won’t be able to prohibit possession in public or use on private property, correct?
Comment by Moby Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 9:57 am
—They won’t be able to prohibit possession in public or use on private property, correct?—
Incorrect, as I understand it.
For an example, plainfield has outlawed the possession of cell phone cases that look like guns. Even having one in your dresser drawer would be a violation of the local ordinance.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 10:00 am
—They won’t be able to prohibit possession in public or use on private property, correct?—
I believe it means they can restrict the establishment of dispensaries and cultivators in their community.
Comment by regnaD kciN Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 10:05 am
Better hurry up and pass this because Democratic special interest groups like the CTU think every penny of tax revenue is going to them.
Comment by Lucky Pierre Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 10:10 am
I’m curious about the enforcement mechanisms for a five-plant home growing limit. Is the spirit of this provision simply to eliminate search-and-seizure except for probable cause of the presence of large growing operations? I’m curious what the effective policing of this law would be. My hope is it would reduce arrests.
Allowing some home growing makes sense, especially for chronically ill Illinoisans.
Comment by details Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 10:12 am
With $500 million in potential tax and fee revenues, the sooner this happens the better. Put a stake in the ground and move forward. A temporary benefit of being fast to market is we can take revenue from neighboring states that haven’t legalized.
Please don’t delay.
Comment by SSL Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 10:16 am
Over taxation is already leading to the revival of the black market in Nevada and other places with full recreational. The decriminalization is where the overall government savings should be coming from. Trying to make this into a cash cow by doubling up prices on consumers is going to backfire.
Comment by High Socks Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 10:19 am
Excise Tax revenue has to be by the gram in order to prevent price drops from impacting tax revenue collections. $1.00 per gram for flower and $5.00 per gram for concentrates for instance. More products selling increases excise tax revenue. General fund sales tax revenue based on a percentage of the sale will fluctuate as price of product changes.
Comment by qualified someone nobody sent Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 10:25 am
I suspect the weed possession/use laws will eventually mirror the ones already established for alcohol. No need to reinvent the wheel.
I believe employers have the right to restrict/forbid use but there needs to be a way to determine, with scientific accuracy, whether or not someone is under the influence because weed stays in the system so long.
It’s easy to determine if someone is currently under the influence of alcohol but I fear people who use pot legally and responsibly will be discriminated against.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 10:26 am
–Additionally, Illinois residents would be allowed to grow up to five cannabis plants at their home, something that is currently prohibited under the state’s medical cannabis law.–
That’s a great idea, in and of itself.
But it begs the question as to what it will take to be a legal grower for sale to others.
It’s imperative that the little guy gets a crack at this new business and we let a thousand buds bloom throughout the state. Think small business, give entrepreneurs a chance to have a go of it.
If we’re not on it, the big-money monopolists will manipulate the government and steal it all for themselves.
Here’s a big-time chance for our billionaire governor to show that he’s a real progressive and a true traitor to his class (in the good way, like FDR). That’s what his peeps voted for.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 10:29 am
It makes sense that towns prohibiting cannabis sales get no revenues. If the police associations oppose legalization, however, then why should law enforcement get the revenue? It should be dedicated to enforcement of the rules and regs of the new law, and to stamping out the black market, which still exists in Colorado.
Taxes should be a fixed amount per ounce, not a percent of the price. Prices have plummeted in Colorado and Washington, as have revenues.
Comment by anon2 Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 10:34 am
Very pleased with the home growing proposal, the five plants. Three plants can give a pretty good yield, so five is real nice.
With allowing five plants, it makes sense that it would bring some economic growth, with creating/expanding the home growing industry: grow lights, soils, seeds, hydroponics, nutrients, tents, exhaust fans and ducts, etc.
Comment by Grandson of Man Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 10:57 am
===what it will take to be a legal grower for sale to others.===
It feels strange to disagree with you (even slightly), but I’m not ready to go that far. In my mind, I think of this as the same as brewing beer at home, a perfectly valid and cool hobby. But we don’t allow home brewers to sell their beer and, I think, for good reason.
I hear what you’re saying about opening up the market to innovation and entrepreneurs, but if the law says the product must be labeled for potency, I think that’s going to be difficult for mom and pop operations to comply with. That’s just one problem. The other is preventing a return to black market production since there would be strong incentives for some to avoid paying the taxes if there are few barriers to entry.
I like the idea of limited home use. I don’t have a green thumb and I’ve never gotten any plants to produce flowers, but from what I understand from more successful home growers, five plants should produce a stable and steady supply if properly cultivated, enough for several adults in a household anyway. Being able to produce your own supply should keep retail prices as low as possible while still producing the revenue the state sorely needs.
But I am no expert, so I’ll defer. So far though, this concept seems to be on the right track.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 11:00 am
“and to stamping out the black market”
Anon2, how do you spend money on stamping out the black market but not give more money to the police? That’s a serious question, are you planning on the state advertising it to convince people to buy from legitimate sellers or something, instead of the black market?
Comment by Perrid Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 11:01 am
–It feels strange to disagree with you (even slightly),–
Trust your feelings, my young padawan….
May the force be with you.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 11:06 am
===Trust your feelings===
I completely agree that licensed dispensaries for recreational mj should include a process for local, mom and pop style businesses to get into the market. Maybe a co-op of some kind, just to keep the corporate Wall Street types from sucking up all of the profits. It’s good for everyone if the profits stay in Illinois.
I just wouldn’t open it up too far to let the home growers sell without a pretty strong regulatory framework.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 11:14 am
When the new director is appointed for DCFS, someone should ask whether the agency will stop its practice of basing child abuse and neglect cases on allegations of a parent’s use of marijuana. Poor parents are having their children taken away for even limited recreational use not in the presence of the kids.
Comment by anon Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 12:28 pm
The established medical production warehouses very likely are way over production capacity for the very limited and anemic med market in Illinois. They should be able to ramp up production swiftly to meet the initial demand for rec. They have the huge advantage of having the security infrastructure and testing protocols in place. By now they are also experts in the lobbying arts which will serve their interests well as the legislation gets crafted. Rec. will be their big ROI in med. One concern is with pesticide residues . Are any fungicides or insecticides labeled for cannabis? Will they be required to test for pesticide residues and put these on product labels? A multi million dollar crop in the warehouse will be protected from pests. And while not wishing to throw more cold water, warehouse production has a significant carbon footprint. I guess you could cut back on meat consumption to provide your conscience some carbon offset.
Comment by vole Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 12:48 pm
Raise your hand if you are shocked that weed revenue is being devoted to new spending initiatives despite the fact we have a multi-billion dollar back log of unpaid bills and one of the worst fiscal situations in the country.
This is a perfect example of how a hypothetical progressive tax will change nothing in this state.
Every new dollar raised from any of these programs should be in a lock box that can’t be touched until the bill back log is paid off and the pension funding level has reached levels that will allow our bond rating to significantly improve.
We can’t afford the government we have as it is even if we didn’t add another new dollar of spending, and yet all new potential revenue sources are already spent on new spending when we haven’t even paid the bill for the old spending.
God help us all if there is even ever the slightest hint of a recession in the next few years, as this state will be ungovernable.
Ultimately the joke is going to be on Springfield though when the progressive tax doesn’t end up happening.
The SALT deduction cap is going to be felt for the first time this year, and people are going to feel like they had a nice big tax increase already. There is going to be zero appetite for another new higher tax on those same people.
SALT having been capped is a huge elephant in the middle of this room that everyone pretends doesn’t exist, and won’t have an impact on this state and people’s open-ness to even higher taxes on top of this.
There is no plan B in this state if that nasty confluence of the federal SALT cap and a potential economic slowdown globally make the progressive tax a no go at the ballot box. We have spent that revenue already and it doesn’t even exist yet.
What we are seeing happen with the weed tax issue is a preview of things to come.
Comment by Anon Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 1:12 pm
==Taxes should be a fixed amount per ounce, not a percent of the price. Prices have plummeted in Colorado and Washington, as have revenues. ==
Actual data from Colorado Department of Revenue disagrees: https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-tax-data
Total Revenue
2014 $67,594,323
2015 $130,411,173
2016 $193,604,810
2017 $247,368,473
2018 $266,529,637
Comment by supplied_demand Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 1:19 pm
How are they going to monitor how much each person is buying? Is there going to be a statewide database like with the MCPP? I buy 1oz at store A then go across town and buy another 1oz at store B. A statewide database of adults’ purchases sounds like an invasion of privacy. I understand they don’t want folks just buying it to turn around and sell it but we don’t take that precaution with many other items. Prescription Drug Monitoring sounds like what they are aiming for.
Comment by Kentucky Bluegrass x Featherbed Bent x Northern California Sinsemilla Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 1:26 pm
===How are they going to monitor how much each person is buying?===
Interesting question. My guess is that possession of one ounce or less is how they plan to deal with it. In other words, buy as much as you want, but if you’re caught with more than an ounce, you’re busted.
Comment by 47th Ward Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 1:29 pm
Great to hear. Chicago, of all places, is the poster child for the hypocrisy of prohibition-style laws. Unfortunately, there are big economic interests profiting from the war on drugs. Budgets, prisons, law enforcement. At least this is a start.
Comment by No Raise Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 1:49 pm
—How are they going to monitor how much each person is buying? Is there going to be a statewide database like with the MCPP? I buy 1oz at store A then go across town and buy another 1oz at store B. A statewide database of adults’ purchases sounds like an invasion of privacy. I understand they don’t want folks just buying it to turn around and sell it but we don’t take that precaution with many other items. Prescription Drug Monitoring sounds like what they are aiming for.—
===Interesting question. My guess is that possession of one ounce or less is how they plan to deal with it. In other words, buy as much as you want, but if you’re caught with more than an ounce, you’re busted.===
They will likely require the system to monitor purchases so that people from out-of-state (or in state) can’t go from store to store purchasing an ounce. The system will likely monitor purchases and prohibit additional purchases above the legal amount within 24 hours. If you’re worried about invasion of privacy, you probably gave that away when you use your credit card because a private company, not the government is tracking your purchases and your behavior.
As for possession, I believe that if you are caught with more than the legal limit or with product not in a retail container, you will be subject to arrest.
Comment by regnaD kciN Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 2:29 pm
Revenues should be earmarked to curb the black market, not simply turned over to police to fund pensions as someone suggested.
Comment by anon2 Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 3:35 pm
“curb” the black market? Lol, we’ve trying to do that for the last 100 years or so.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Jan 25, 19 @ 4:15 pm
==If we decide MJ is no longer illegal, it absolutely makes sense to let people out of jail, but expunging their record seems a step too far. They decided the law didn’t apply to them; whether or not you agree with the law matters very little. Giving someone’s freedom back and pretending that they never broke the law are two very different things.==
Expunging more than just pot violations would be even better, but I’ll take this small victory. I see no social benefit for a naughty list of of people who are disobedient. The list is inaccurate, you can be disobedient and still not get on the list. Others who are not disobedient get on the list because they can’t afford a lawyer and they don’t want to lose their job or their kids with a long drawn put court fight, so they plea guilty.
Rich people can hire lawyers and get all kinds of things expunged. Let’s have automatic expunging for all who pay their debt to society unless the crime is specifically heinous, and has been deemed so in court.
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Monday, Jan 28, 19 @ 11:14 am
Da Big Bad Wolf bellowed: “Expunging more than just pot violations would be even better, but I’ll take this small victory. I see no social benefit for a naughty list of of people who are disobedient.” Are you kidding? Of course it makes sense to keep a criminal record of offenders. It takes multiple slaps on the wrist in any state before any criminal is sent to prison unless the crime includes a mandatory sentence. How many burglaries would be too many in your progressive mind?
Comment by Not My HOuse Monday, Jan 28, 19 @ 12:11 pm
“Bellowed”? How does one bellow in the written word?
“Progressive”? Like the Koch Brothers. This has bipartisan support.
This is a modest attempt to extend what has already been available for rich people to poorer people. If some people were against all expungements, where were you’all before? Not a peep was heard from you when rich people could hire lawyers and were getting expungements, now an attempt to get it for everyone and we hear from you. Hmmm
Like I said previously there will be cases where expungement isn’t in the best interest of society. And reasonable people can debate where that line is. Possessing a joint is no where near that line.
If people can’t work because of a record then how do they support themselves? Keeping people from earning an honest living means they will be forced by hunger to earn a dishonest living. How does that help?
Comment by Da Big Bad Wolf Tuesday, Jan 29, 19 @ 12:39 pm