Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

House of Representatives
State House, Boston, MA 02133-1054
BRADLEY H. JONES, JR.

20TH MIDDLESEX DISTRICT


READING NORTH READING
LYNNFIELD MIDDLETON
ROOM 124
TEL. (617) 722-2100
Bradley.Jones@MAHouse.gov

STATE REPRESENTATIVE
MINORITY LEADER

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


October 19, 2016

CONTACT: Michael E. Smith, 617-722-2100

Question 4 wrong for Massachusetts


By Representative Bradley H. Jones, Jr.
Question 4 is bad for Massachusetts. It is bad for our children, for our schools, for our cities and towns,
and for taxpayers.
Philosophically, many people probably believe that pot should be legalized. While I can understand that
viewpoint, Question 4 is really not about legalization, but about creating a billion dollar commercial
marijuana industry subsidized by the state.
The excise tax rate proposed by Question 4 is 3.75%, far lower than rates set by other states 25% in
Alaska and Oregon, 29% in Colorado, and 37% in Washington. It is also much lower than any of the tax
rates being proposed in states that are currently considering legalizing marijuana. Most states are
proposing tax rates ranging from 10% to 20%, while Missouri is looking at a proposed tax rate that
could be as high as 75%.
The tax revenues generated in Massachusetts will not be enough to cover the cost of regulating the
industry. When revenues fall short, where will the money come from? Taxpayers. Beyond the obvious
financial costs, Question 4 is not well thought out and it completely fails to address many key issues that
come along with the legalization of marijuana.
For example, Question 4 sets no limit on potency. We arent talking about smoking a joint here.
Marijuana plants average 17-18% tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), but edible products such as gummy
candy, cookies, and soda, complete with mascots promoting their use which we know will be
marketed to children have THC levels as high as 95%. Following legalization in Colorado, doctors at
Childrens Hospital Denver reported the Emergency Department began treating one to two kids a month
for accidental marijuana ingestions. Prior to legalization, they reported none. A July study in the JAMA
Pediatrics Journal cited a 150% increase in the number of marijuana poison-control cases for children
ages 0-9 in Colorado since 2014.
The ballot measure also does not include any enforceable legal standard for drugged driving. In fact, no
such test exists that would be similar to a breathalyzer. While there is technology on the horizon, its not
available yet and certainly will not be available within the short 37-day window between the November

8 election and December 15, the day Question 4 will take effect. Fatal road crashes involving marijuana
doubled after legalization in Washington. Massachusetts does not need to be the first to test out the new
technology or determine what the appropriate legal limit is when we are quite literally dealing with a
matter of life or death on our roadways.
Under Question 4, there will be no limit on the number of marijuana dispensaries in Massachusetts or on
the number of operations used to grow or manufacture marijuana and marijuana products. Existing
medical marijuana facilities will have the right to enter the recreational market at the same location, and
if state regulations are not in place by January 1, 2018, medical marijuana shops can automatically begin
selling recreational marijuana, without regulation or a license. Colorado currently has more pot shops
that Starbucks and McDonalds combined. If Question 4 passes, you can be sure that main streets across
Massachusetts will undergo a similar transformation and look far different than they do today.
Question 4 not only limits municipalities ability to regulate and control marijuana dispensaries, but it
also contains a legal loophole allowing the industry to challenge any state or local rule deemed to be
unreasonably impractical. The only way a community will be able to prevent recreational marijuana
sales is to hold a town-wide referendum to opt-out. Cities and towns will also be barred from imposing
any registration, licensing or zoning requirements to restrict the home-growing of marijuana in private
residences. Instead, up to 12 full-size plants will automatically be allowed in any two-person household,
enough to produce over 500 joints valued at more than $60,000.
Question 4 is not what it looks like. It is a wolf in sheeps clothing that has drawn wide-ranging
bipartisan opposition, even among those who support legalization. If legalization of marijuana for
recreational use is something that you support, Question 4 is not the way to do it. Lets learn from the
experiences in other states before we move forward with a deeply flawed proposal. Question 4 is a
mistake; it is a mistake that our taxpayers, our cities and towns, our schools, and our children cant
afford for us to make.
State Representative Bradley H. Jones, Jr. (R-North Reading) serves as the House Minority Leader in
Massachusetts. He represents the 20th Middlesex District which includes the towns of Reading, North
Reading, Lynnfield, and Middleton.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi