Montana HB - 462: Worth your time Marijuana Taxes & Access

[Ben Lamb]

I'm confused here Ben. Is Hopkins saying that we're essentially crying over spilt milk because of HB701? I just skimmed all of 701 and it still shows 20% to habitat. Help understand because he seems almost to be saying what's done is done with regard to changes in the marijuana laws (laws being obviously different from the appropriations).

Hopkins is saying that the "will of the voters" was already changed under HB 701 and that he doesn't find that particular talking point as effective because of those changes. The original allocation was close to 40%, which was cut to 20% by HB 701. So we're going from 40% to zero in 3 years after the voters have decided how they wanted that spent.

The other point that he is making is that the legislature changes the law all the time, even laws that voter decide at the ballot.

 

[sacountry]

Hopkins is saying that the "will of the voters" was already changed under HB 701 and that he doesn't find that particular talking point as effective because of those changes. The original allocation was close to 40%, which was cut to 20% by HB 701. So we're going from 40% to zero in 3 years after the voters have decided how they wanted that spent.

The other point that he is making is that the legislature changes the law all the time, even laws that voter decide at the ballot.

In the world of constructive input, is raising the tax an option vs reappropriating the funds?

 

[Gerald Martin]

In the world of constructive input, is raising the tax an option vs reappropriating the funds?

Pot smokers everywhere will be calling you a liberal leftist for the idea of raising taxes…

 

[Nameless Range]

It’s strange, though not surprising, to hear so-called conservatives argue their version of “Government Knows Best”.

 

[sacountry]

Pot smokers everywhere will be calling you a liberal leftist for the idea of raising taxes…

 

[sacountry]

Pot smokers everywhere will be calling you a liberal leftist for the idea of raising taxes…

What are you doing on HT? Shouldn't you be editing hunting videos?

 

[Ben Lamb]

In the world of constructive input, is raising the tax an option vs reappropriating the funds?

commie.

Kidding. With over $2 billion in the bank, it is unlikely to raise taxes anywhere.

 

[sacountry]

[QUOTE

commie.

Kidding. With over $2 billion in the bank, it is unlikely to raise taxes anywhere.

It was a little tongue and cheek, but it is honestly more palatable to increase the tax regardless of the budget clinate than it is to hood wink the voters.....at least that's how my remedial mind sees it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

[QUOTE
It was a little tongue and cheek, but it is honestly more palatable to increase the tax regardless of the budget clinate than it is to hood wink the voters.....at least that's how my remedial mind sees it.

My understanding that the weed industry would fight that pretty heavily. They currently are MIA on this issue as well.

 

[sacountry]

My understanding that the weed industry would fight that pretty heavily. They currently are MIA on this issue as well.

I'm sure. This is yet another prime example of loss in trust whether it be with FWP or the entire legislature.

We have to get some agreement on numbers, both on the elk population and the uses for the $170M. I was thinking an argument could be made to keep the 20% for Habitat Montana as a vital protection for tourism revenue....but someone will say "we have an excess elk population so tourism is fine"...or there's the "Habitat Montana doesn't need this money because FWP is flush with cash".

It's all crap.

One number I haven't looked at in awhile....harvest percentages. Do we know what the deer and elk percentages are? Not total harvest, I see that in the paper every year. With the increase in pressure, and the herd migrations towards sanctuaries, I would think our harvest % would be down. That would impact tourism.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's all crap.

 

[Rhinocesaurus]

Have they decided on this yet?

 

[mtnkid85]

Have they decided on this yet?

Not yet, its still coming up.

House Appropriations

House Appropriations - Video

sg001-harmony.sliq.net

 

[mtnkid85]

It is up right now.

 

[Rhinocesaurus]

Not yet, its still coming up.

House Appropriations

House Appropriations - Video

sg001-harmony.sliq.net

Thanks for the link!!!

 

[Luke_with_a_lab]

It is up right now.

Howd it shake out?

 

[Dakotakid]

Still going

 

[Jock Conyngham]

Still going

And not going particularly well

 

[sacountry]

It's painful. The opponents got it right. The one representative who asked about how many people voted to approve the legalization based on conservation missed the point. The point needed to made that the voter approval was narrow. Remove Habitat Montana, and the legalization doesn't pass. Credit the people who drafted the initiative to disperse proceeds across so many groups.

 

[Jock Conyngham]

The intent for ~half of the revenues to go to conservation (37.1% Habitat Montana, 12.4% the other three programs) truly was a major part of its profile as communicated to the voters.