More debate continues in our Valley over medical pot and whether it can sold or taxed.
Tonight the Palm Springs City Council will debate whether or not to put a proposed tax on sales of over 100 dollars. The tax would be 15%.
In Cathedral City last night, the city council heard from attorneys about whether or not they can join Palm Springs in being the only city in the county which dispenses legal pot. The discussion was put on hold till August.
The medical pot debate in California has become more and more ridiculous as time goes on. The real issue is whether or not small quantities of pot should be legalized and if so how. The collectives and dispensaries have failed on a number of levels. The prescription of medical pot for almost any and all ailments has marginalized any serious arguments from a purely medical standpoint.
It is time to have a proper discussion on legalization.
To: Palm Springs City Council
ReplyDeleteSubject: A 15% Sin Tax on Physician Prescribed Medical Marijuana Pharmacy Sales
Dear Mayor Pougnet and Councilmembers:
Today's local newspaper urges that you "Let Palm Springs vote on a medical marijuana tax". The editors acknowledge our valley has "a high percentage of AIDS patients and elderly residents, (and) it makes sense ... to give people in pain the relief that cannabis can bring." The remainder of their rather cynical editorial is devoted to support for a new 15% tax that will ultimately be paid by those who are in pain. They rely on an undocumented claim the City may have spent as much as $500,000 over the years "controlling illegal dispensaries" as justification for salivating over their "new tax could bring in $900,000 a year" recommendation.
The local paper would have you believe that legal Medical Marijuana pharmacy sales require strict controls and that patients in pain seeking relief should pay for policing "illegal store fronts" and other costs unrelated to healthcare prescription purchases. It's too early to know whether the the City will incur unusual costs with respect to authorized Medical Marijuana pharmacies. A year from now firm cost figures may be available and that's when a tax, related to just those costs, may be appropriate for your consideration. Now is not that time and the 15% recommended by the newspaper would represent little more than an opportunist grab for additional tax revenues from those in pain.
The newspaper editors are probably betting a new 15% Medical Marijuana tax would stand an excellent chance of passage. It's a fact that Palm Springs city officials have an excellent track record when it comes to getting ballot tax measures passed. It's their job, they do it well - as they've previously demonstrated, and once again all available resources will surely be brought to bear in order to secure passage of a new tax. There will be campaign publications, press releases, media appearances and key city officials, including those in protective services, will undoubtedly be employed on behalf of a new tax.
A ballot measure authorizing a tax on healthcare may be a harder sell. It's not a utility, cell phone, sewer or sales tax - and it's not a sin tax on alcohol or tobacco, etc. It's going to be a tax on healthcare! Is Palm Springs so strapped for cash that taxing medical pain prescriptions to pay for unrelated, or any, local government services a step we wish to take? Have we so little compassion for the financial well-being of AIDS patients, cancer stricken sufferers, the elderly with painful arthritis and other age-related maladies?
Palm Springs, "a place like no other", should also be a City that cares.
Bond Shands