Missouri Could Legalize Medical Marijuana and Tax it 15% to Fund Medical Research
Vote to see how others feel about this issue
What the Initiative Does
Missouri Amendment 3 would legalize marijuana for medical purposes, allowing state-licensed physicians to recommend marijuana use to patients with 10 qualifying conditions. Patients would be allowed to buy no more than three ounces of dried marijuana or its equivalent in a 30-day period.
Medical marijuana sales would be taxed at a 15% rate. The tax revenue from legal medical marijuana sales would be spent to establish and fund a Biomedical Research and Drug Development Institute, which would research cures for cancer and other diseases and oversee Missouri’s medical marijuana program.
This ballot measure would also enact cultivation taxes on marijuana flowers ($9.25/ounce) and marijuana leaves ($2.75/ounce). Finally, it’d authorize no less than two dispensaries per 20,000 residents in counties and cities.
Argument in Favor
Medical marijuana can benefit many patients, who deserve to be able to access this treatment. Using tax revenue from legalizing medical marijuana to fund biomedical research could also benefit even more people.
Argument Against
This is the first step to legalizing all marijuana use, which Missouri may not be ready for. The cancer research at the proposed Biomedical Research and Drug Development Institute, while admirable, wouldn’t address Missourians’ immediate needs, such as public services funding.
In-Depth
Find the Cures (FRC), which is largely funded by physician Brad Bradshaw, is leading the campaign in support of Amendment 3. Dr. Bradshaw, who wrote Amendment 3, says in support of this ballot measure:
“Imagine going back to when alcohol was legalized, and these people are making a fortune. Putting a tax on this to find a cure for cancer — and we can find a cure for cancer — I think that is not unreasonable.”
Citizens for SAFE Medicine and Patients Against Bradshaw Amendment are opposed to Amendment 3.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which prefers Amendment 2 over this ballot measure, takes issue with multiple aspects of Amendment 3:
“Between Amendment 2 and Amendment 3, we prefer the earmarked use of the money in Amendment 2, which will go for veteran health services, a tangible benefit to the state. Amendment 3 would use its proceeds to create and fund a cancer research institute — a goal no one would denigrate, but one that shouldn’t take precedence over Missourians’ more immediate needs. More than that, it’s discomforting that the person who promoted and primarily funded the effort to get Amendment 3 on the ballot — Springfield trial lawyer and physician Brad Bradshaw — is the same person who would be in charge of that cancer institute. He would personally appoint the board that would regulate the medical marijuana. That would hand over to a non-elected private citizen enormous power over public policy and substantial tax revenue. The unusual sight of an individual’s name in the language of a ballot referendum should, in itself, give pause.”
This proposal is estimated to generate annual taxes and fees of $66 million. Initial implementation costs are estimated to be $186,000, and annual operating costs for the state would increase by $500,000.
There are three ballot measures on medical marijuana before Missouri voters this year, each with slightly different programmatic guidelines and revenue generation potential. If more than one of these ballot measures passes, the question of which one becomes law will likely be referred to the courts, as there’s conflict over what state laws say about this possibility. The state constitution says that when conflicting measures are approved, the one with the most votes wins. However, another statute provides separate rules for approved statutes and amendments, raising questions about what would happen if Proposition C and one, or both, of the proposed amendments passes.
Dr. Bradshaw has sued to dismiss the other two ballot measures, Amendment 2 and Proposition C, in from the ballot. One of the lawsuits has been dismissed, and the other is still pending.
Summary by Lorelei Yang
(Photo Credit: iStockphoto.com / LPETTET)
The Latest
-
SCOTUS Hears Arguments of Abortion Pill Mifepristone CaseUpdated March 27, 2024, 12:30 p.m. EST On Tuesday, March 26, the Supreme Court heard arguments about the mifepristone case, read more... Women's Health
-
IT: ⛑️ It's American Red Cross Giving Day, and... How will you give back today?Welcome to Wednesday, March 27th, philanthropists and entrepreneurs... It's American Red Cross Giving Day - a time to ensure the read more...
-
Moscow Concert Hall, Russia’s Deadliest Attack in DecadesOn Friday, March 22, at least four men fired automatic weapons into a sold-out show at the Crocus City Hall auditorium in read more... Public Safety
-
Discover Gravvy — A New Way to Support What Matters MostDiscover Gravvy — A New Way to Support What Matters Most Are you ready to optimize your giving? read more...