Submitted
Dear Editor,
For better or worse, Missouri voters legalized the sale of marijuana in November. The ballot initiative gave Missouri cities and counties authority to establish a local 3% tax on the sale of marijuana, subject to voter approval. This decision faces many Missouri voters in April.
When consumption of a product is known to impose an unusual cost on society, a tax like the one voters are considering can serve three purposes: it can reduce consumption of the good through higher prices, it can generate funds to be used to address the harm done by use of the product, or it can simply be used to increase local tax revenue.
Those who oppose the tax may be generally critical of new taxes or worried by the effects of the price increases. Both concerns are valid. The first could be addressed by a plan whereby this tax replaces a more economically harmful one rather than simply adding to local coffers. Taxes will never go away, but we could demand more accountability in how and to what extent the government taxes us.
Those concerned about the effect of the tax on the price of marijuana should remember that the sale of alcohol and cigarettes also have a special tax that aims to mitigate the risks associated with their use. These taxes can provide extra support to law enforcement or health care providers who will have to deal with the inevitable negative consequences for consumers who now have easy access to the good.
Ultimately, the decision rests in the hands of voters, who should weigh the pros and cons of the tax relative to the circumstances of their own community and vote on what they deem best in April.
Maria Rivero and
David Stokes
Show-Me Institute
* * *
Dear Editor,
In February, the Missouri Department of Public Safety was awarded a $5.4 million grant from the U.S. Dept. of Justice as part of a crisis intervention program.
Missouri’s Crisis Intervention Advisory Board will allocate the funds to state, county and local courts, law enforcement, supervision agencies, prosecutors, public defenders, and behavioral health organizations in their effort to prevent or reduce crime and violence with a particular focus on gun violence. It will fund programs that target the risk factors that lead to gun violence and would enhance Missouri’s red flag laws. Red flag gun law is a gun violence law that permits police and family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms of a person who may present a danger to the public or themselves.
And yet, the MO GOP wants to undercut the funding by trying to pass legislation that eliminates our red flag laws. The legislation will also eliminate an abused or victimized Missourian’s ability to get a gun violence restraining order. In the same breath, they're trying to place the blame on the high rate of gun deaths by presenting legislation that would allow the governor to replace a duly elected prosecutor if homicides are too high within their jurisdiction. Think about it - the MO GOP is blaming prosecutor(s) for the high percentage of homicides by gun violence even though they passed legislation that hamstrings the effectiveness of the prosecutor's office.
Folks… Missouri has gone from having the 14th highest rate of gun deaths in 2020 to having the 4th highest, in the nation. My family, along with 77 percent of my fellow Missourians of every stripe, demographic and political affiliation - support our 2nd Amendment right but also support common-sense gun laws. It turns out that, when it comes to the gun debate, two things can actually be true at the same time. We are not as divided as politicians would have us believe.
Jacqueline Farr
Chair
Benton County Democratic Party
