Of course, what the disingenuous Mr. Salazar is not mentioning are two major problems with the RAND analysis being applied to Proposition 19 that I pointed out in my last post, among other numerous caveats made by the authors of the study themselves and conveniently left out of Mr. Salazar's list of "findings," taken primarily from their page two summaries.
Showing posts with label RAND. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RAND. Show all posts
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Deconstructing the Opposition's Claims About the RAND Taxation Analysis
One of the issues in the recent study by the RAND Corporation that has been seized by opponents of Proposition 19 is that the tax revenue from ending cannabis prohibition will not be as great as projected. Roger Salazar, spokesman for "No on Prop 19" claims the RAND study shows, "...even the local tax revenues could be dramatically lower than the claims made by the proponents. In fact, RAND said there would be a greater financial reward to evade new local taxes on a pound of marijuana than there would be to smuggle a pound of marijuana from Mexico to California."
Of course, what the disingenuous Mr. Salazar is not mentioning are two major problems with the RAND analysis being applied to Proposition 19 that I pointed out in my last post, among other numerous caveats made by the authors of the study themselves and conveniently left out of Mr. Salazar's list of "findings," taken primarily from their page two summaries.
Of course, what the disingenuous Mr. Salazar is not mentioning are two major problems with the RAND analysis being applied to Proposition 19 that I pointed out in my last post, among other numerous caveats made by the authors of the study themselves and conveniently left out of Mr. Salazar's list of "findings," taken primarily from their page two summaries.
RAND Study Should Not Be Taken As Gospel
Anyone citing to the recent RAND Corporation paper, "Altered State? Assessing How Marijuana Legalization in California Could Influence Marijuana Consumption and Public Budgets" should note two things especially:
First, the study targets not just the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act (also known as Proposition 19) but California Assembly Bill 2254 (also known as the Ammiano bill). There are important differences. Proposition 19 is a ballot initiative directly voted on by California residents in November. The Ammiano bill is a state congressional bill which would need to pass both the state Assembly and Senate, and then receive the Governor's signature. Both end cannabis prohibition in California, but they have different provisions (for example, a $50/ounce state tax in the bill, a local tax by county and/or city, amount to be decided by locality for the ballot measure). The study appears to separate the two, but many news articles and various opposition groups do not.
First, the study targets not just the Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act (also known as Proposition 19) but California Assembly Bill 2254 (also known as the Ammiano bill). There are important differences. Proposition 19 is a ballot initiative directly voted on by California residents in November. The Ammiano bill is a state congressional bill which would need to pass both the state Assembly and Senate, and then receive the Governor's signature. Both end cannabis prohibition in California, but they have different provisions (for example, a $50/ounce state tax in the bill, a local tax by county and/or city, amount to be decided by locality for the ballot measure). The study appears to separate the two, but many news articles and various opposition groups do not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)