Sponsored by

PuffItUp Dynavap VGoodiez
  • Welcome to VaporAsylum! Please take a moment to read our RULES and introduce yourself here.
  • Did you know we have lots of smilies for you to use?
  • Need help navigating the forum? Find out how to use our features here.

Law California Voted for Legal Cannabis in November 2016

Baron23

Well-Known Member
I read stuff like this and all I can think or say is "FFS!!"


California marijuana tax hike puts future of legal market in spotlight amid worries over state industry’s viability

Flurries of meetings and negotiations have occurred behind the scenes in Sacramento since California announced a cannabis tax increase last month.


The stakes surrounding these discussions – all aimed at lowering the marijuana industry’s tax burden – are nothing less than the survival of the state’s legal marijuana market, according to some industry watchers.


Representatives from multiple cannabis companies and trade organizations spoke with staffers in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) and multiple state legislators with the aim of shoring up political support to lower tax burdens on legal marijuana businesses.


Among the proposals floated were:





  • Asking Newsom to order the CDTFA to cancel the tax increase.
  • Persuading the agency to postpone the tax hike.
  • Discussing prospective legislative measures to either simplify state cannabis taxes, lower them or both.

“We’re trying everything we can,” said state Assembly Member Tom Lackey, a Republican from Palmdale who sponsored unsuccessful bills in 2018 and 2019 to temporarily lower California’s marijuana taxes.


The lawmaker sent a letter to the CDTFA after the tax increase was announced to request more information about how and why the agency calculated the increase was necessary. But, as of last week, he had received no response.


Lackey said if the tax increases announced by CDTFA are allowed to stand through 2020, it’d sound a “death knell” for California’s legal marijuana industry.


Various options


Perhaps the biggest question mark in the tax equation is what the governor will do.


Newsom spokeswoman Nicole Elliott tweeted in late November that the governor is “sympathetic to the challenges faced by legal cannabis operators” and wants to work with stakeholders.


Industry insiders said they’ve received support from the Newsom administration but no firm policy position commitment yet.


“Things are changing every day, but I’m feeling cautiously optimistic that we can get something done” on marijuana tax reform in 2020, said Amy Jenkins, lead lobbyist for the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA), which outlined its concerns in a recent letter to Newsom.


“There have been a lot of signals from both the administration and the Legislature that they’re committing to do that.”


But the question remains what will be done – and in a timely manner so legal businesses don’t start failing or laying off employees.


Lackey and others speculated Newsom may have the power to order the CDTFA to either delay the implementation of the tax increase or to cancel it altogether.


Perfect Union – a vertically integrated cannabis company that has dispensaries in Sacramento and Marysville – sent a letter of its own to Newsom pleading for tax relief.


“Ultimately, the governor is in charge of the CDTFA and oversees it,” said Caity Maple, vice president of government affairs for Perfect Union.


“The governor has the authority to go in and say … ‘We’ve decided as a state that we’re either going to postpone this or for now cancel this.’”


Elliott, however, said that’s not an option, and pointed to laws established by both Proposition 64, which legalized growing, selling and possessing marijuana for recreational use in California in 2016, and Senate Bill 94, which brought the state’s medical and recreational programs under one umbrella in 2017 (the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act).


“The governor is not given carte blanche to simply ignore these legislative mandates, and it is a dangerous precedent to suggest he do so,” Elliott wrote in an email to Marijuana Business Daily.


She said the best way to address the issue is through the Legislature.


Jerred Kiloh, president of the United Cannabis Business Association (UCBA), said he’d received the same message from both the governor’s office and from talks with CDTFA Director Nick Maduros.


“(Maduros) was like, ‘The only way you can do this is through legislation.’ And that’s kind of what the governor’s office is saying, too,” Kiloh said. “We’re going to have to do legislation that’s going to override (current state law).”


Legislative fix?


Moving a tax bill through the state Legislature could take up to nine months, Kiloh estimated, and in the interim, companies could continue to lose money and possibly go under.


He suggested the conversation should shift to conflicting mandates within Proposition 64, which established the current tax structure but also required that the state eliminate the unlicensed marijuana market.


“If there’s a statute that says, ‘You can’t (enlarge) the illicit market,’ and you have a statute that says, ‘You need to charge us 15% (in excise tax),’ which one supersedes the other?” Kiloh said.


“We need to start looking at each of these provisions and ask, ‘Why does this tax supersede the intent of this law to stomp out the illicit industry?'”


Some industry watchers say the next step likely could involve a tax-reduction bill, either from Lackey or another industry ally such as Oakland Democrat Rob Bonta.


That could take the form of a temporary tax reduction – which both Lackey and Bonta have previously proposed.


Or it might entail a radical restructuring of California’s marijuana tax system to include a single tax collected at the retail point of sale – an idea some stakeholders are already pushing.


However, any stand-alone tax reduction bill would need to meet the tough threshold of two-thirds support in both chambers of the state Legislature.


If that doesn’t gain traction, then a marijuana tax reduction could get worked into the state budget, a process over which Newsom has a lot of control.


Jenkins, the CCIA lobbyist, also reiterated that a highly anticipated report on state cannabis taxes from the Legislative Analyst’s Office is due in mid-December, which could provide even more ammunition to persuade lawmakers to ratchet down taxes.


Jenkins said there’s “more appetite for tax reform this year than ever” inside the Capitol. CCIA has made the case to Newsom’s office and legislators that the legal marijuana industry is on the brink of failure, she added.


“We’re talking about layoffs, the fact that the industry has constricted pretty significantly, the fact that capital is drying up,” Jenkins said. “The industry is really struggling … and I think there’s a recognition of that finally among the majority of our legislators.”
 

momofthegoons

Vapor Accessory Addict
Staff member
This is such BS in my humble opinion. Not that my word is gospel... but I used cannabis during both of my pregnancies. It helped tremendously with nausea and other symptoms caused by it. Both of my children were a good birth weight and healthy. Both have high IQ's..... They have nothing to substantiate that cannabis is dangerous to pregnant women and I feel this is more fear mongering.

California Could Declare THC A Risk For Pregnant Individuals

The California Cannabis Industry Association believes there’s too little data to support such a claim.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — More than three years after California voters broadly legalized marijuana, a state panel is considering if its potent, high-inducing chemical — THC — should be declared a risk to pregnant women and require warnings.

Studies have indicated that a rising number of mothers-to-be have turned to marijuana products for relief from morning sickness and headaches, though it’s effectiveness has not been backed by science.

Cannabis industry officials say too little sound research is available on THC to support such a move and warn that it could make marijuana companies a target for lawsuits with unverified claims of injuries from pot use during pregnancy.

“That seems like an open-ended checkbook. How do we defend ourselves?” said Los Angeles dispensary owner Jerred Kiloh, who heads the United Cannabis Business Association, an industry group.


Lawyers looking for a quick buck will say “give us $10,000 or we are going to take you into a long court case,” he added.

The California Cannabis Industry Association echoed that fear, noting that pot’s standing as an illegal drug at the federal level has choked off research by government agencies. Those studies are needed to determine if THC poses health risks for pregnant women.

“Good policy and consumer protections are based on facts and data,” spokesman Josh Drayton said.


The meeting Wednesday of the obscure state Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee in Sacramento will focus on whether THC causes “reproductive toxicity.” The panel is made up of scientists appointed by the governor.

An affirmative finding would make THC one of hundreds of chemicals judged to cause cancer or birth defects that the state requires to carry warning labels, such as arsenic and lead.

The review is being carried out under the umbrella of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, better known as Proposition 65. It requires warning labels for chemicals judged as dangerous and allows residents, advocacy groups and attorneys to sue on behalf of the state and collect a portion of civil penalties for failure to provide warnings.


The 1986 law has been credited with weeding out cancer-causing chemicals from products but also faulted for setting the stage for legal shakedowns.

Since 2009, the state has listed marijuana smoke as being known to cause cancer, similar to tobacco smoke.

“The expansion of Proposition 65 as it relates to cannabis is premature and lacks both the facts and the data that would justify this move,” Drayton said.

The U.S. surgeon general warned in August that smoking marijuana is dangerous for pregnant women and their developing babies. Mainstream medicine advises against pot use in pregnancy because of studies suggesting it might cause premature birth, low birth weight or other health problems, but many of those studies were in animals or had findings that were open to dispute.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse is paying for several studies on marijuana use during pregnancy.

If the California panel declares pot a risk for pregnant women, it’s not clear what the immediate impact would be on the state’s legal pot industry.

Presumably, packaging would need to be changed over time to carry warning labels for pregnant women. But such requirements would likely take additional steps by agencies that oversee marijuana regulation and packaging.

Even products containing CBD, a trendy ingredient extracted from marijuana or hemp, can contain trace amounts of THC.
 

ataxian

In a BLACK HOLE!
This is such BS in my humble opinion. Not that my word is gospel... but I used cannabis during both of my pregnancies. It helped tremendously with nausea and other symptoms caused by it. Both of my children were a good birth weight and healthy. Both have high IQ's..... They have nothing to substantiate that cannabis is dangerous to pregnant women and I feel this is more fear mongering.

California Could Declare THC A Risk For Pregnant Individuals

The California Cannabis Industry Association believes there’s too little data to support such a claim.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — More than three years after California voters broadly legalized marijuana, a state panel is considering if its potent, high-inducing chemical — THC — should be declared a risk to pregnant women and require warnings.

Studies have indicated that a rising number of mothers-to-be have turned to marijuana products for relief from morning sickness and headaches, though it’s effectiveness has not been backed by science.

Cannabis industry officials say too little sound research is available on THC to support such a move and warn that it could make marijuana companies a target for lawsuits with unverified claims of injuries from pot use during pregnancy.

“That seems like an open-ended checkbook. How do we defend ourselves?” said Los Angeles dispensary owner Jerred Kiloh, who heads the United Cannabis Business Association, an industry group.


Lawyers looking for a quick buck will say “give us $10,000 or we are going to take you into a long court case,” he added.

The California Cannabis Industry Association echoed that fear, noting that pot’s standing as an illegal drug at the federal level has choked off research by government agencies. Those studies are needed to determine if THC poses health risks for pregnant women.

“Good policy and consumer protections are based on facts and data,” spokesman Josh Drayton said.


The meeting Wednesday of the obscure state Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee in Sacramento will focus on whether THC causes “reproductive toxicity.” The panel is made up of scientists appointed by the governor.

An affirmative finding would make THC one of hundreds of chemicals judged to cause cancer or birth defects that the state requires to carry warning labels, such as arsenic and lead.

The review is being carried out under the umbrella of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, better known as Proposition 65. It requires warning labels for chemicals judged as dangerous and allows residents, advocacy groups and attorneys to sue on behalf of the state and collect a portion of civil penalties for failure to provide warnings.


The 1986 law has been credited with weeding out cancer-causing chemicals from products but also faulted for setting the stage for legal shakedowns.

Since 2009, the state has listed marijuana smoke as being known to cause cancer, similar to tobacco smoke.

“The expansion of Proposition 65 as it relates to cannabis is premature and lacks both the facts and the data that would justify this move,” Drayton said.

The U.S. surgeon general warned in August that smoking marijuana is dangerous for pregnant women and their developing babies. Mainstream medicine advises against pot use in pregnancy because of studies suggesting it might cause premature birth, low birth weight or other health problems, but many of those studies were in animals or had findings that were open to dispute.

The National Institute on Drug Abuse is paying for several studies on marijuana use during pregnancy.

If the California panel declares pot a risk for pregnant women, it’s not clear what the immediate impact would be on the state’s legal pot industry.

Presumably, packaging would need to be changed over time to carry warning labels for pregnant women. But such requirements would likely take additional steps by agencies that oversee marijuana regulation and packaging.

Even products containing CBD, a trendy ingredient extracted from marijuana or hemp, can contain trace amounts of THC.
CBD is essentially decant?
THC is important as well,,
Written for those in need!
 

Baron23

Well-Known Member
These idiots in CA state government deserve the thriving black market and loss of tax revenue that this will result in. Good job, fellas.

California Marijuana Taxes Will Increase New Year's Day

After having avoided an increase in state taxes on legal marijuana, California officials changed course Thursday and announced MJ excise and cultivation taxes will go up effective Jan. 1.

High state and local tax rates have been an industry problem that have made legal businesses less competitive with the illicit market: Unlicensed retailers can lure customers with lower prices, since rogue shops don’t pay any taxes.

In announcing the move, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) -- which must recalculate the wholesale cannabis markup rate every six months -- revealed that the markup rate for the marijuana excise tax will increase from 60 percent to 80 percent on New Year’s Day.
The markup rate is used to provide the basis for California’s 15 percent excise tax.

The increase will also raise the state cultivation tax to adjust for inflation, raising those taxes as well:
  • $9.65 from $9.25 for an ounce of flower, or an increase of 4.3 percent.
  • $2.87 from $2.75 for an ounce of leaves, or an increase of 4.3 percent.
  • $1.35 from $1.29 for an ounce of fresh marijuana plant material, or an increase of 4.6 percent.
The CDTFA’s markup rate is based on the wholesale average market price of cannabis, and the agency had previously declined to increase the state marijuana tax rate.
The agency statement said the markup rate change was based on “an analysis of statewide market data,” and a CDTFA spokesman wrote in an email to Marijuana Business Daily that the tax adjustments are a result of existing state law.

“When implementing (Proposition 64), the Legislature moved the incidence of the tax from the retailer to the distributor, requiring CDTFA to determine the average markup rate every six months,” CDTFA spokesman Casey Wells wrote.

“The purpose of the markup is to have the actual tax match the 15 percent gross receipts rate approved by voters. After analyzing thousands of transactions in the state’s Track and Trace system, CDTFA analysts have determined that the required markup rate for the period beginning January 1, 2020, is 80 percent.”

When asked if the excise markup rate will change again in another six months, Wells said that will depend on wholesale market data. But the cultivation tax, since it’s based on inflation, would only be adjusted once a year, he said.

To date, legislative efforts to lower state taxes have fallen short, meaning the legal supply chain has continued to struggle to attract customers.
Nicole Elliott, senior advisor on cannabis in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Office of Business and Economic Development, emphasized that the tax hike “is not a discretionary action” by CDTFA, but rather a natural outcome of laws established in 2017 by the legislature.

“We support policies that lead to less cash flow issues for small businesses, establish more parity across the industry, simplify compliance for everyone involved and support a healthy legal market,” Elliott wrote in an email to MJBizDaily.

“We remain committed to working with stakeholders and the Legislature to further develop a framework that realizes all these things.”

Industry insiders, however, immediately criticized the move, as did Oakland Democrat Rob Bonta, a state assembly member who has twice tried -- but failed -- to lower MJ taxes through the legislature.

In an emailed statement, Bonta called the tax hike “deeply concerning.”

“This short-sighted move ignores the realities that licensed businesses are at the breaking point, with many struggling to survive,” Bonta wrote, and reiterated his support for at least temporarily lowering state cannabis taxes.

The California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA) said the increase left its members “stunned and outraged.”
“As California’s regulated market spirals towards collapse from taxes on cannabis consumers … we believe that the CDTFA’s decision to increase tax burdens on compliant cannabis operators is counter to developing a safe industry,” according to the association’s statement.

“Widening the price disparity gap between illicit and regulated products will further drive consumers to the illicit market at a time when illicit products are demonstrably putting people’s lives at risk.”

Other industry insiders agreed.

“At the very least, this is tone deaf, given what the legal industry is going through right now and the lack of control of the illicit market,” said Adam Spiker, the executive director of the Southern California Coalition, a Los Angeles-based cannabis trade group.

A report on cannabis taxes, expected in December from the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), has been highly anticipated by industry insiders who hope it will give them political ammunition to support lowering statewide marijuana tax rates.

Bonta cited that upcoming report in his emailed statement, and said the state would be “wise to consider the findings (of the LAO)… before unilaterally moving to create an even heavier tax burden” for the legal cannabis trade.
 

Baron23

Well-Known Member
California agency suggests state marijuana tax system shift to potentially lower rates, address illicit-market threat

An independent California state agency issued a long-awaited report about the state’s cannabis tax system, and its recommendations include a major overhaul that would simplify and possibly reduce marijuana tax rates.


The goals of the report were to assess how California’s marijuana taxes can best undercut the illegal market, discourage cannabis use by youth and also generate enough tax revenues to allow the state to properly oversee the legal cannabis industry.


Industry watchers suggest stakeholders will reference the report heavily during heated debates in the upcoming legislative session over whether to lower state marijuana tax rates.


The report from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) suggested several dramatic policy changes to California’s current marijuana tax structure, including:





  • Doing away with the weight-based cultivation tax entirely.
  • Replacing the state’s 15% excise tax with one based on either a tiered percentage of product sales price or one based on product potency.
  • Simplifying the tax-collection process so that all marijuana-related taxes are collected by retailers at the point of sale to customers instead of the current system – under which most taxes are collected and remitted to the state by distributors.

In a statement, the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA) said the recommendations “mirror legislative priorities that CCIA’s membership have been advocating for over three years.”


“Comprehensive tax reform will incentivize consumers to purchase regulated cannabis products, ease administration and compliance and increase and stabilize revenues for the state,” the CCIA noted.


State Assembly Member Tom Lackey, a Republican from Palmdale who’s backing marijuana tax reduction, said lawmakers must make undercutting the illicit market a top priority when they reconvene in Sacramento in January.


He argued that unless California successfully quashes the illegal cannabis market, then the other two LAO goals of ensuring state revenue and preventing youth cannabis use will prove “irrelevant.”


“This tax structure – we’re killing ourselves with it, and we’re killing the industry with it,” Lackey said. “We need to focus on simple, practical solutions.”


No silver bullet


The report, which was issued less than a month after state regulators announced that marijuana taxes will go up Jan. 1, echoed many of the talking points that industry insiders have hammered on for months, including that higher state taxes only empower the illicit market.


But it also cautioned that lowering state taxes could have offsetting impacts, depending on state lawmakers’ goals.


“Reducing the tax rate would expand the legal market and reduce the size of the illicit market,” the report notes. “On the other hand, such a tax cut would reduce revenue in the short term, potentially to the extent that revenue could be insufficient.”


The report asserted that state marijuana tax revenues needed to hit $350 million in the 2021-2022 fiscal year to be “sufficient” to cover mandated expenditures under California law and suggested that lowering the tax rates might not be enough to hit that revenue benchmark.


The LAO offered up a range of tax possibilities and changes and found that if the Legislature wanted to go with a potency-based tax – which is what the Canadian federal government uses – that a rate of $0.006 to $0.009 per milligram of THC would be advisable.


If lawmakers wanted to prioritize undercutting the illicit market, the report concluded, then they should adopt a tax at the lower end of that range. If legislators want to focus on preventing youth marijuana use, they should adopt a tax at the higher end.


The LAO also warned that a tax reduction won’t offer a silver bullet against the illicit marijuana market:


“Under current market conditions, changes in the state tax rate likely would not make legal cannabis less expensive than illicit cannabis.


“Even if the state eliminated its cannabis taxes entirely, other costs – such as regulatory compliance costs and local taxes – likely would keep legal cannabis prices higher than illicit market prices.”


The report further noted that local governments across California could respond by raising their own tax rates even if the state lowered its rates, making the situation a zero-sum gain for the industry.


Regardless, the report was immediately hailed by industry stakeholders as a win.


‘Lower and simplify’ taxes


State Assembly Member Rob Bonta, a Democrat from Oakland, wrote on Facebook that the report “delivers a clear message that the status quo is not working” and promised to reintroduce legislation he carried in 2019 to temporarily lower marijuana taxes.


“We must lower and simplify the taxes on cannabis if the regulated cannabis industry in California is to survive, let alone thrive,” Bonta wrote.


Assembly Member Lackey said that both he and Bonta in the 2020 legislative session will be “very motivated to try to get (marijuana tax reform) to happen as soon as possible because the market (is) headed in the wrong direction.”


The United Cannabis Business Association (UCBA), another California marijuana trade group, wrote in a statement that the report “represents the foundation for the work that we must now do to identify an appropriate level of taxation that will move buyers away from the illicit market.”


Legislative advocate Max Mikalonis of Sacramento-based K Street Consulting was a bit more circumspect and said the report is “no slam dunk.”


“The report could have been stronger on acknowledging the size and impact of the unlicensed market and acknowledging how not price competitive the legal market is with the illicit market,” Mikalonis said.


He added the illegal market is still “three times the size” of the legal one.


But, he noted, the report “gives me real hope” that serious marijuana tax reform can get pushed through the California Legislature next year.


“Whether or not we get an overall reduction in rates … that remains to be seen,” Mikalonis concluded.
 
Our local city council once used an increase in fees/tax to get rid of legitimate older mobile food vendors(burger trucks, coffee caravans)

Once the new vendors were in place, they quietly lowered the fees again.

It wouldn't surprise me if the CDTFA knows exactly what they are doing and are doing it in order to squeeze out the small players to open up the market for the bigger boyz.

Pure speculation on my behalf though.
 

Baron23

Well-Known Member

"changes would include moving the responsibility for the cultivation excise tax from the final distributor to the first and the retail excise tax from the distributor to the retailer."​

Isn't this a bit like rearranging the chairs on the Titanic?

California governor moves to simplify marijuana regulatory, tax systems

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration on Friday announced plans to simplify the state’s cannabis regulatory and tax systems, which have been blamed for enabling an illicit market to continue to thrive.

The proposed changes, which will be in Newsom’s state budget proposal, come in the wake of recommendations by an independent agency that the state overhaul its cannabis tax regime.

Newsom’s plan include consolidating the current three licensing entities – the Bureau of Cannabis Control, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Department of Public Health – into a single Department of Cannabis Control by July 2021.

His administration also proposed changes designed to reduce the tax-collection burden on the cannabis industry and simplify the tax-collection process.

Those changes would include moving the responsibility for the cultivation excise tax from the final distributor to the first and the retail excise tax from the distributor to the retailer.

Newsom’s administration said that, in consultation with the industry and stakeholders, it also will consider changes to the existing cannabis tax rates and the number of taxes.

The United Cannabis Business Association (UCBA) praised the move.

“Since legalization, the California cannabis industry and its consumers have struggled to navigate an increasingly complex regulatory landscape – a situation that contributed to the growth of the illicit market and the current accessibility of untested products, as well as an increased cost of compliance to license holders,” the UCBA said.

“Today’s announcement from the governor marks a turning of the tide, and we are encouraged by the efforts outlined to streamline the industry’s regulatory framework and simplify licensing and taxation.”
 

Baron23

Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter to the consumer WTF the taxes are collected....what matters is HOW MUCH TAX and CA is just bolstering the black market with it budgetary greed.



Gov. Newsom’s budget calls for changing how California regulates its cannabis industry

Governor proposes new Department of Cannabis Control, tweaks to tax collections.

Gov. Gavin Newsom is recommending a major overhaul to how California regulates its multibillion-dollar cannabis industry, with changes aimed at streamlining oversight and tax collection included in the proposed state budget he released Friday morning.
Industry leaders are applauding the proposals, which are expected to ultimately make things easier for licensed businesses to navigate the legal market and compete with illicit operators.
“Today’s announcement from the governor marks a turning of the tide,” said Jerred Kiloh, board president for the Los Angeles-based United Cannabis Business Association trade group.
But there’s also concern about a rocky transition that could pose problems for businesses already struggling to hang on amid burdensome regulations and a thriving illicit market.
“This next year is going to be very critical in seeing how quickly we can course correct and how quickly we can start to see the impacts of these changes,” said Josh Drayton, spokesman for the Sacramento-based California Cannabis Industry Association. “We have to see who survives.”
Newsom’s draft 2020-21 budget calls for collapsing the three state departments that currently oversee the marijuana industry – the Bureau of Cannabis Control for retailers, distributors and testing labs; the Department of Food and Agriculture for cultivators; and the Department of Public Health for product manufacturers – into one new Department of Cannabis Control by July 2021. That will give businesses, which often deal with multiple parts of the supply chain, one point of contact.
It’s not yet clear whether the Bureau of Cannabis Control – which is run by Chief Lori Ajax, a former alcohol regulator assigned by former Gov. Jerry Brown – will step into the lead role in the new department or if it will be rebuilt under new leadership. Newsom’s administration is expected to release details on the consolidation plan this spring.
Newsom’s budget also calls for collecting taxes directly from retailers rather than the current practice of having distributors collect and pay up. It’s a move backed by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office in a December report.
Industry advocates were encouraged by a note Newsom included in the budget that says his administration will “consider other changes to the existing cannabis tax structure,” including a potential rate adjustment. Drayton said they hope to push – either in upcoming revisions to Newsom’s budget or through legislation – for the state to eliminate its marijuana cultivation tax and at least temporarily reduce the retail tax.
As it stands, Newsom is budgeting for a 15% increase to marijuana tax revenue, from $479 million this fiscal year to $550 million in the 2020-21 year. That will give the state more money for causes mandated by the 2016 legalization measure, Proposition 64.
Along with $60.3 million for child care, Newsom’s budget calls for spending nearly $200 million in cannabis taxes on programs that support youth substance disorder treatment and school retention. An estimated $66.6 million will be directed to clean up environmental damage from illegal cannabis cultivation. And another $66.6 million will go to public safety-related activities.
 

ClearBlueLou

Well-Known Member
Doesn’t seem to me like they have ANY interest in cannabis at all: hefty taxes are their game, and I think they’d tax SAND instead if they could come up with a rationale.... I wish they’d focus on the legalization and let the taxes take care of themselves - but that’s not a CA-specific matter: the problem is in every state currently blinded by HUGE NEW TAXES
 

Sponsored by

PuffItUp Dynavap VGoodiez
Top