The problem with the pot revenue sharing bill.

from the pro-pot site

The stupidity of so-called "legalized pot" notwithstanding; the lie of a campaign that promised almost $600 million per year in revenue to this state's general fund as a result of passing this idiocy aside, the idea of limiting revenue sharing from the small amount that does... temporarily... come in and limiting it's distribution to communities that allow pot sales is absurd.

On the surface, some obviously believe that those who generate the local revenue should be the ones who share it.

And that might work for some forms of revenue... say, for example, a gas tax.

But this?

Sen. Ann Rivers, R-La Center, is backing the bill and said the proposal is crucial to help local public safety efforts. 

When voters approved Initiative 502, legalizing recreational marijuana, Rivers said, they were told it would decrease crime. 

“We were promised time and time again it was going to be a tremendous savings to public safety,” Rivers said. “Jails would be empty, we wouldn’t have any more marijuana-related crime. We've found quite the opposite.” 

Rivers’ proposal would use money previously earmarked for the State Basic Health Plan, which provided subsidized health care for low-income residents. The program was eliminated under federal health care reforms. 

Rivers would like to redirect the funds, but only towns, cities, and counties that have not banned marijuana producers, processors or retailers would receive the money. 

Vancouver and Battle Ground are the only two Clark County cities that allow marijuana businesses.

That, of course, is not all we were promised by the lie of a campaign.

Rivers would like to redirect the funds, but only towns, cities, and counties that have not banned marijuana producers, processors or retailers would receive the money. 

What makes this problematic is that while these communities have resisted retail sales (As the courts have said is their legal right) the public safety element includes the communities where sales have been outlawed.

That is to say that sales having been outlawed at the retail level does not mean that those people of those communities where sales are prohibited do not go to other communities where this crap is sold.

Thus, the stores allowed by Vancouver and Battle Ground spread the wonderful benefits of their product sales to the communities where they are allowed.  To that end, this bill, on the surface at least, rewards those communities for selling this stuff even though the problems from those sales may overwhelm the surrounding communities that don't want anything to do with it.

I admit it.  I oppose the sale and use of yet another way to get wasted, because there are other efforts coming down the road for other substances.  And my fear remains that those lying to get an initiative passed or to get elected will just view the act of the artful political lie followed by the dutiful legislative cleanup as just another strategy.

Tim "The Liar" Leavitt did it.

Sound Transit did it.

The CRC/Loot Rail Scammers did it.

The pot heads did it.

The Charter scammers did it.

Brandon Vick did it.

Who lies next?  Who lies to get elected?  Who lies to screw the people?  And what will those we trust do about it?

What are they doing now?

Not what I would hope for.