properallocation

[properallocation]

Stakeholder, Anthony Johnson: Chief Petitioner of Oregon Measurement 110: Interviewing the curator of Measurement 110 was an absolutely joy of mine. In this meeting, both and I touched on countless elements and prospects of Portland Cannabis Tax, Measurement 110 as a response, other stakeholders, and the prospective impacts of reallocation of taxation.

[properallocation]

This post by Dr. Rachel Knox could be related to many aspects of the Social Change Model, depending on how one looks at it. From my perspective, it would seem that she is calling for a community wide self-reflection. This would correlate to the Consciousness of Self segment of the model. While Knox is speaking to the community, she is demanding that the cannabis tax be allocated to proper communities. She wants cities and states to reflect as a whole, but that starts at the individual level. What businesses will heed her call and draw on mindfulness and self-awareness to aid in the issue at hand. How can we as individuals look at this post and realize that it starts with us? Think, Learn, and Act. Dr. Rachel Knox also provides suggestions to help raise awareness to this issue. See comment below for direct link to her Instagram account. 

[properallocation]

cannabis can be used in more ways than just inhalation or orally! 

[properallocation]

'House Leadership Announces Vote on MORE Act to end Marijuana Prohibition'

 Giving a nod to the Seven C's Model of social change, this tweet gives way to the idea of the collaboration section of the social change model as there are people in action to bring this MORE Act into discussion for the government to ultimately decide.The proposition of getting rid of the Marijuana prohibition has been in debate for many years and has finally begun to be challenged in 2020 with enough people behind the cause getting the attention it deserves. 

[properallocation]

Deliverable #8: Although Portlanders voted for taxation and legalization, their good-faith vote from original legalization did not originally land where they expected it. Public safety, albeit crucial for legalization of any formerly-scheduled substance, received larger numbers of allocation than voters knew. Particuarly from original legislation, public safety constituted police, highway patrol, and Oregon Department of Transportation, the respective groups were recieving 79% of funding from the first two fiscal years.

Meanwhile, in the 2020 Oregon elections, voters approved Measure 110 as an amendment/reassertion of original purpose. Drug rehabilitation/recovery services receiving 5% and small businesses/prohibition effects allocated 16%-- was not something that sat well with Oregonians. Controversy with civility corrected this misallocation, when residents where stirred by the original shock of where money was originally going, and two years of grassroots campaigns brought the formation of Measure 110, and what can now be done with equitable resources for local economies, residents, and medical services that can save lives.

[properallocation]

Academic Perspectives

Due to the fact that Oregon’s cannabis tax is still fairly new, there is not a lot of data surrounding the allocation of tax funds. There are a few articles that go into immense detail of the history of Oregon’s cannabis legalization, the original measure that approved recreational use of marijuana in the state, and the proposed allocations for the tax. Both articles are very extensive, but ultimately state that legal cannabis use and all that it entails is fresh for the state of Oregon and will require more years of legalization to determine the long-term effects.

The first article, “Chasing Green,” by Matthew Levering was an attempt to create a study based on the stakeholder’s views of how Oregon Measure 91 (recreational marijuana use) would unfold. Unfortunately, Levering was only able to create an analysis because the samples in which he emailed surveys to, did not participate as actively as one would hope. Without a successful sampling, Levering committed to distributing knowledge in his peer reviewed article. To understand Measure 91, one must revisit Measure 80 that had been proposed and rejected merely two years earlier, in 2012.

Measure 80 was Oregon’s most recent failed attempt for legalizing recreational marijuana use and was proposed around the same time that Colorado and Washington had success in their measures. According to Levering’s findings, Colorado and Washington were successful because they indicated clear restrictions while Oregon did not. Oregon had “no formal possession limit” nor any “restrictions on personal cultivation” (Levering, 2015). Without any boundaries, the majority of Oregonians could not vote ‘yes’ on such a measure. When Measure 91 came to fruition, policy makers focused on recalibrating the very relaxed mindset in the creation of Measure 80 and looked to the previous states that were able to get a majority vote in favor of recreational marijuana use.

The second article, “Implementation of Oregon's Measure 91 in the State Legislature,” by Ken Helm and Logan Leichtman, tackled very similar points as the previous article, but went into more detail about the advantages and disadvantages of certain groups such as: the relationships between employer and employee, tenant and residential issues, and law enforcement and youth prevention. An interesting point made in this article with regard to Oregon’s cannabis tax is that “Measure 91 contained the preemptive language, ‘No county or city of this state shall impose any fee or tax . . . in connection with the purchase, sale, production, processing, transportation, and delivery of marijuana items’” (Helm, Leichtman, 2015). This caused certain counties to create a tax before the measure got approved, so that they could essentially start a savings account with the tax money. Measure 91 made a few adjustments to counteract this action, by allowing for a 3% tax on cannabis for the community (Helm, Leichtman, 2015).

Both articles have many similarities as well as end on a positive and hopeful note for recreational marijuana use and its sales tax. A somewhat hidden note, within all the technical jargon, is that one of the prominent naysayers for the passing of this measure was the Oregon State Sheriffs Association (Levering, 2015). Which could cause one to think that the recent allocations of those funds to law enforcement, was more of a way to dissipate the criticism within that community. Levering also mentions, “the opposition did not focus on the current amount of dollars spent on cannabis law enforcement, and the possible savings or costs it could produce, but rather made an effort to dismiss the measure on social grounds, leading to the final point of public concern” (2015).

All new laws or measures take time to be implemented fully, but it seems odd that if law enforcement were taking the steps necessary to alleviate arrests due to marijuana possession and releasing people on trumped up charges, that they should see the benefits of those actions fairly quickly. Rather than receiving a large sum of cannabis tax money to back fill their budget. Which is the main issue. Why were people manipulated in their vote, rather than given the true facts? Hopefully, the state can see better allocation of cannabis tax money with the most recently approved Measure 119, where the control and distribution of cannabis tax is given to a new entity, with better intentions.

[properallocation]

In early 2019, Fox 12 News opened the discussion for how cannabis tax is really utilized for the state’s school fund. They questioned whether it was being used for books, lunches, or building upgrades, but found that the allocation is not so clear cut. Many Oregonians believe that they were misinformed by measure 91, which described the allocation of the tax. Apparently, there is an 8.2-billion-dollar budget for the school system, and the tax money meant for schools is only supplementing rather than added on to the budget. This frees up money to be utilized wherever the state deems fit. While in 2018, 40% of the 82 million dollars from cannabis tax was used toward the school budget, seems like a small amount, it still an exceptionally large number. Especially when the cannabis tax will continue to grow as the years progress.

[properallocation]

“we can find out the information

access all the applications

that are hardening positions based on miscommunication”

This song is about many social issues from drug abuse, higher arrests of African Americans due to drug related "crimes," Immigration, political outrage, and how as we modernize, we continue to fail at creating a world that makes sense for our time. 

[properallocation]

As the time of fully understanding the scope of legalization impacts of marijuana, the state and medical physicians are now able to understand the effect of the medicine. While removing the eras’ past classification, and the state’s fiscal benefit from marijuana, the recent Measure 110-- which has now been passed by the people, will utilize taxation from legalization of cannabis towards community-empowered incentives. As described by local, Portland activist, Noelle Crombie, on The Oregonian,

“The measure does some really key things: first, it decriminalizes small amounts of [those] drugs, it also reduces criminal penalties for possession of the drugs-- what was a felony, is now a misdemeanor. Previously what was misdemeanor is now a violation, the same as a traffic ticket. Third effect is that it redirects tax revenue generated from marijuana sales, towards program that support treatment and recovery services.”

As we now enter 2021, Portland has its first glimpse into witnessing what reallocation looks like-- as well as its impacts. Although Measure 110 can provide much-needed assistance for local initiatives, organizations, community members, counselors/therapists to help those enduring addiction. Further utilization of taxation could go even further, helping the houseless, addiction and recovery services, local education funding, housing throughout the state.

[properallocation]

An article, written by Heather Jefferis and Se-ah-dom Edmo, titled “Opinion: Measure 110 Will Take Away Addiction Treatment and is Bad for Kids,” is in opposition to Measure 110 . Together, they state that they are “disappointed” in the support, The Oregonian, has given to Measure 110 and states the reasons for why it is not a valid measure to promote. According to the authors, “The text of Measure 110 reveals that it does not require the creation of any actual inpatient or outpatient treatment services,” (Jefferis & Edmo, 2020). They claim that only a series of screening centers are required to be built, but they offer no actual treatment. Therefore, only fueling our addiction crisis in the state and city of Portland because people will not be getting help. The article also mentions how teenagers and adults, will get a fine for the possession of now decriminalized drugs, but do not have to actually get treatment. Whereas before, in some areas of the state, people caught with illegal drugs are offered “state-funded” treatment. It is interesting to read about a measure meant to do good, but it is reminiscent of the expectations people had when they voted for the tax on cannabis. It was meant for good but has not actually helped yet and people feel betrayed.    

[properallocation]

There are people ecstatic with Measure 110 because it allows for a change in narrative of the “War on Drugs.” By people, that would be the larger part of Oregon, considering the measure was passed in the most recent election. In another The Oregonian article, “Oregon Decriminalizes Possession of Street Drugs, Becoming First in Nation,” the author provides some opposing views, but exhibits a bias toward promotion and acceptance of the measure. Noelle Crombie states, “Supporters believe U.S. drug policy has filled the country’s jails with nonviolent offenders who need treatment instead of incarceration and has disproportionately affected generations of Black people,” (2020). This notion is something that the measure is supposed to rectify as well as using a large portion of our cannabis tax for recovery and rehabilitation. Which is what the Oregon voters wanted to begin with. There is the possibility that nothing really changes with this new measure, BUT there is a greater possibility that money ends up getting utilized in a manner that Portland and the rest of Oregon can be proud of.

[properallocation]

Stakeholders

There are many stakeholders in the issue presented. It does not just lie within the hands of our government officials, but those of our community. We cannot establish the budget, but we did vote for where it is allocated. When that vote is not fulfilled, the stakeholders that are directly affected, get hit the worst. Those stakeholders are not the government, or the voters, but the people we voted to help.          

Each stakeholder is affected differently when the tax is abused. Government officials have the authority to utilize the marijuana tax where they see fit. Whether there is community benefit or not. Placing the majority of that money in the category of “Public Safety,” does not help the people in need, and is a sneaky tactic to “pull the wool” over the eyes of the community. Sure, it is arguable that certain areas have more of an expense than others, but why is it that we voted for money to go to, “Public safety investments to reduce impacts of drug and alcohol abuse” (Kinard, 2019), yet we are not seeing those changes. As the stakeholders that made the vote, the tax we agreed on is not getting utilized in the manner we expected. Our patronage is being taken advantage of, and that tax money is not going where we wanted it to. The stakeholders that suffer the most, are the people in our community that would benefit from that tax. The people who are getting shorted drug and alcohol abuse rehabilitation, the police who could be better trained in substance abuse issues, and the minority businesses that could be greatly impacted and supported due to the tax. Our main goal is to connect with stakeholders that have more pull when it comes to OUR marijuana tax and to see what they can and will do to correct the previous discrepancies in the tax allocation.

[properallocation]

Reaction to Cannabis Tax

The cannabis tax dilemma is a new issue because the legalization of recreational marijuana use and sell, is fairly new. Although the history of the Cannabis Tax is rooted firmly in prohibition for legalized marijuana in Oregon, the damage from it was felt before recreational legalization. With only 11 states that have passed current laws to remove recreational use as a felony, communities were impacted in several ways during the era of “the war on drugs” coined by former presidents Nixon, Regan, and Clinton. While the initial motive for Measure 91 in Oregon was to allocate funding for these communities, such as people of colour, those who are houseless, allocation was given to resources that still perpetuate hardship. Currently in Oregon’s local ballot for 2020 is Measure 110, “Which provides addiction recovery centers/services; marijuana taxes partially finance (reduces revenues for other purposes); reclassifies possession of specified drugs, reduces penalties; requires audits.” As mentioned in Oregon’s 2020 Voter’s Pamphlet.

Reallocating of funding would take $26.8mil of $145mil projected taxation to uses towards these expanded services. The extra funding would also go towards drug treatment and recovery services, mental health alcoholism, and drug services, and still towards the Oregon State Police. In further support from local organizations, the American College of Physicians supports Measure 110, mentioning, “… a path forward toward evidence-based, treatment-focused, and compassionate care of people with substance use disorder in our state, and we are proud to join hundreds of other clinicians and health care organizations in supporting this initiative.”

As a part of the City of Portland’s Community and Civic Life sector they have launched a new initiative in 2020 called the Social Equity and Educational Development. In this initiative their goal is to be the “cannabis programs’ vehicle for the single-source monitoring, measuring and reporting on the city’s cannabis tax revenue,” (Portland Cannabis Program on Portlandoregon.gov). Being the first equity program of its kind, it has been supported by an ongoing one million dollars in cannabis tax revenue allocation. In 2016 there was Ballot Measure 26-180 that aligned with the SEED Grant Fund prioritizing BIPOC as well as women led/owned businesses and projects that supports the educational and economic development of communities housing primarily people of color.

While our local community is plagued with issues (that they are attempting to solve) surrounding the allocation of cannabis tax, other states are finding it difficult to keep up with the projected tax income as well as where it is utilized. It is clear across the board, that the cannabis tax should be used for good versus fighting against the very thing that is being taxed. For example, “States use cigarette taxes, for instance, to raise revenue and discourage smoking” (Becker, 2019). The purpose of cannabis tax is not to discourage the utilization of marijuana, but to build up a community. In lesser words, keeping a positive a positive.

The overall problem with this tax is not only that it is not going where constituents would hope, but it is also in individual states promising more than they can deliver. Since the tax started, only five of the eleven states have reached their projected goal or exceeded it. A few of them save the funds in case of an emergency or to have ‘just in case.’ The others like Oregon, are having a problem putting the funds towards what was promised. Becker states, “States will continue to have plenty of questions to grapple with even after they’ve dealt with initial implementation problems, in no small part because the marijuana market is so new and the policy landscape over pot remains uncertain,” (2019). It is a difficult market to predict and according to Becker, states are also fighting against black market sales, which fortunately Oregon has seen the least backlash to. No matter what, this is a learning curve, but a state should not promise something to a community and not deliver. It is neither right nor fair. As far as Portland goes, that cannabis tax could do wonders for our communities, which is evident in the organizations fighting for control of allocation of those funds.

[properallocation]