I'm not suggesting it personally or advocating it through MGAC (we're more focused on defending home grows and rights of cultivation in general). But after extensive talks with the attorney that wrote Q4 he convinced me that the increased tax is a necessity. I wouldn't take my reporting what I consider a foregone conclusion a reason to not support the MGAC.
I'm just a plainspoken attorney so I present what I know. I'd certainly much prefer a lower tax as it was implemented. But if you think about the logistics of getting local municipal support in individual towns/cities being able to offer them a more significant kickback from tax revenue is a very strong way to motivate them to be more open to marijuana.
The alternative is that towns like Peabody, Ashland, etc will vote for moratoriums and there will be no implementation of Q4 in those towns... I'd rather see taxes go up enough to convince anti-towns to buy in than see Q4 implemented in a checkerboard style based on the towns/counties that supported it... Furthermore, towns that voted approvingly will still have significant hurdles with local reps trying to create hurdles/obstructions through zoning. All of those issues are dramatically less if the towns are in support. That is why the tax will go up. There's just no better way to get broadbased local government support of Q4 without a larger kickback than the current tax structure allows.
But again, this is me telling you what to prepare and considering it a lost (and probably rightly so) battle. The MGAC is focused on a much different tack and I do not speak for our Director/Lobbyist. I'm just a realist and I agree that given the local municipal environment a tax increase will be the easiest means to broadbased implementation on the local level.
