The Pennsylvania State Capitol is seen in Harrisburg earlier this month. For this special report, the Times Leader asked members of the region’s state legislative delegation to tell us where they stand on potential legalization of adult-use marijuana in Pennsylvania.
                                 Roger DuPuis | Times Leader

The Pennsylvania State Capitol is seen in Harrisburg earlier this month. For this special report, the Times Leader asked members of the region’s state legislative delegation to tell us where they stand on potential legalization of adult-use marijuana in Pennsylvania.

Roger DuPuis | Times Leader

Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.
<p>Ryncavage</p>

Ryncavage

<p>Kaufer</p>

Kaufer

<p>Cabell</p>

Cabell

<p>Pashinski</p>

Pashinski

<p>Haddock</p>

Haddock

<p>Baker</p>

Baker

We asked members of the region’s state legislative delegation to tell us where they stand on potential legalization of adult-use marijuana in Pennsylvania.

But first, here are some of the key points of Senate Bill 846:

Adult use: Cannabis that can be purchased and consumed by an individual 21 years of age and older. Use or possession by younger people remains illegal.

Smoking cannabis “shall be permitted anywhere cigarette smoking is permitted, but an establishment cannot be forced to allow use on their property.

Cannabis Reglatory Control Board (CRCB): Seven members, two appointed by the governor (one from the cannabis industry), one each appointed by the senate president pro tem, senate minority leader, speaker of the house and minority leader of the house, and one public member (appointed by the governor) with “substantial and demonstrable experience” in one of four community service areas outlined in the bill.

Seed to sale tracking: A system designated by the board to “capture everything that happens to a cannabis plant, including cultivation, harvest, manufacturing and testing, to final sale.

Possession limits: 30 grams of cannabis flower, no more than 1,000 milligrams of THS in cannabis-infused edible or non-edible products, five grams of cannabis concentrate.

Excise Tax: 5% imposed on each adult-use dispensary, going into the Cannabis Regulation Fund (CRF): 2 percent of the gross goes to CRB for operations. $3 million goes to a Cannabis Business Development fund. The rest goes into the state general fund “to provide economic relief to this commonwealth “

Cannabis sales tax (8%): 10% of revenue from all taxes goes to municipalities in which cannabis busienss in located, in proportion to the number of cannabis business in the municipality; 10% to counties with cannabis business locations in unincorporated parts of the county, also proportionally. 80% to the CRF.

WHAT LAWMAKERS SAY

Ryncavage

State Rep. Alec Ryncavage this week said his political philosophy has always been rooted in the principle of “live and let live.”

“I believe in empowering individuals to make choices about their own lives, as long as those choices do not harm others,” said Ryncavage, R-Plymouth. “The legalization of recreational marijuana aligns with this philosophy, as it respects the autonomy of responsible adults to decide whether or not to use this substance in a safe and regulated manner.

“However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the legalization of recreational marijuana (would be) a significant step for our state, and we must proceed thoughtfully and responsibly.”

Ryncavage added that one of the key aspects of this process is ensuring the establishment of a robust framework for law enforcement.

“By working collaboratively with law enforcement and industry experts, we can create a regulatory system that addresses concerns related to public safety, impaired driving, and underage access,” Ryncavage said. “This approach will also enable us to generate tax revenue that can be reinvested in our communities, supporting property tax relief, infrastructure repairs, education, healthcare, and other vital services.”

Pashinski

Rep. Eddie Day Pashinski, D-Wilkes-Barre, said historic evidence compiled relating to habitual use of products or activities has demonstrated that legalizing marijuana is no different than legalizing alcohol or gambling.

“When the government-regulated oversight is appropriately designed and enforced, the advantages of legalizing marijuana will easily overcome any negative effects,” Pashinski said.

Pashinski said that in 2004, the Pennsylvania government finally realized, if they legalized gambling, all Pennsylvanians would benefit.

“Pennsylvania money would stay in Pennsylvania and create economic development, employment, and a desirable return on their dollar,” Pashinski said. “The initiation of Pennsylvania casinos has succeeded in contributing back to the people of Pennsylvania over $2 billion and provides a continuous stream of hundreds of millions of dollars every year to benefit all Pennsylvanians.”

Pashinski said initiating a similar tax requirement on the sale of recreational marijuana would also produce an enormous amount of new dollars to the advantage of all Pennsylvanians.

“This sales tax could be used to reduce property taxes, fund roadways or fund our schools at the level they should be,” Pashinski said. “As long as the appropriate set of regulation, taxation and oversight is established, I will support the legalization of recreational marijuana.”

Pashinski said there is legislation in the Pennsylvania Senate that would subject recreational marijuana to an 8% sales tax and cannabis retailers would be assessed a 5% excise tax on their sales.

“That money would go to the state general fund, allotting us money to use for programs like property tax relief, school funding and more,” Pashinski said.

Additionally, Pashinski said the legalization of marijuana would add another industry to Pennsylvania that can help stimulate the state’s economy.

“There was a similar outlook about gambling back in the early 2000s as there is to marijuana today,” Pashinski said. “Legislators finally asked themselves why they were letting New Jersey get all the Pennsylvania gambling money when they could legalize gambling and retain that money here in PA. Now, our gaming and casino industry is thriving in Pennsylvania.”

Kaufer

Rep. Aaron Kaufer, R-Kingston, said marijuana legalization is a generational issue, and the policy of marijuana prohibition is not working.

“Our police have much higher law enforcement priorities when it comes to drugs like opioids and fentanyl flooding our streets and killing people by the thousands,” Kaufer said. “We are due for a substantive policy discussion on marijuana decriminalization and legalization so that we can refocus on larger priorities.”

Cabell

Rep. Mike Cabell, R-Butler Township, said he has been watching the impact legalized recreational marijuana has had in other states, and he has not been overly impressed.

“So, if we were to approve its use here in Pennsylvania, I believe we must do it better,” Cabell said. “There would have to be safeguards included for minors, along with an educational component. In addition, the revenue generated by the sale of marijuana should be tied to providing some property tax relief for our seniors, which is a major issue in the region.”

Baker

Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Lehman Township, said there is a significant difference between decriminalizing marijuana and legalizing it.

“I agree with reducing penalties put into law many years ago that have proved disproportionate to the offenses,” Baker said. “However, I do not believe enough consideration has been given to the health and safety consequences of opening the door completely on marijuana use.”

Baker said there does not seem to be much support among local law enforcement for this change.

“It would add another layer of complication, controversy, and cost to law enforcement and other criminal and civil matters,” Baker said. “Some argue that legalization would provide additional revenues for state operations and services. Marijuana would provide additional revenues, but there is at this point no way to calculate all the ancillary costs or impacts.

“At this point, my view remains that the consequences outweigh the benefits.”

Haddock

Rep. Jim Haddock, D-Pittston Township, said he feels the legislation will pass in the future, but not right now.

Haddock listed pros and cons:

Pros

• 7 out of 10 Pennsylvanians polled favor legalization.

• Tax revenues would be raised between $500,000 to $1 billion.

• Jobs would be created and farmers would be saved.

• Money would be saved in the court system from not jailing for possession of marijuana.

• Most neighboring states have already legalized it — New York, New Jersey, Virginia.

Cons

• What are the crimes for driving under the influence and how would police test for impairment?

• Because the drug stays in the system for so long, how do industries that do drug testing handle positive tests?

• Many call marijuana a gateway drug that leads to other drug use.

“Some of the important issues that still need to be discussed include how do we handle the proper distribution of it,” Haddock said. “One plan on the table is using the current state store system to sell, just like alcohol. This would insure proper safe enforcement of sales.”

Haddock said that part of the passing of the bill, he would favor providing adequate funding of educational programs on the side effects of marijuana and a robust funding for treatment of addictions.

“I feel more open debate and education has to go into the legislation on recreational marijuana at this time,” Haddock said.

READ THE FULL REPORT:

Could Pa. become the Keystoned State?

NYS shop owner shares experiences

Rescheduling possible?

NORML findings

DA Sanguedolce’s views

Lawmakers weigh in

Health considerations

WBRE/WYOU TV report

Reach Bill O’Boyle at 570-991-6118 or on Twitter @TLBillOBoyle.