Supply and demand may leave medical marijuana patients without medication

Two local marijuana industry experts are drawing a line against Amendment 3, a vote for recreational adult-use marijuana on the Nov. 8 ballot.

Dr. Lisa Roark, owner of the Cassville Dispensary, and Charlea Estes-Jones, general manager of the Dispensary, said there are pros and cons to the proposal, but the cons greatly outweigh the pros.

If approved, the amendment would alter the Missouri Constitution to legalize the purchase, possession, consumption, use, delivery, manufacturing, and sale of marijuana for personal use for adults over the age of 21; allow individuals convicted of non-violent marijuana-related offenses to petition to be released from incarceration and/or have their records expunged; and enact a 6 percent tax on the sale of marijuana.

Barry County would also have an option to enact a sales tax of up to 3 percent without a vote.

“The pros of this are that medical card-holder would only have to renew every three years, so it’s less of a financial burden on the patients,” Roark said. “It also will be less expensive to cultivate. But, this will create a program where current dispensaries have to meet the demand of medical and recreational sales in Missouri and from neighboring states.”

Estes-Jones said the Dispensary in Cassville sees about 100 patients per day, and if Amendment 3 is passed, she expects that number to fly up to 500 per day.

“Prices have been going down with more available and more time for growers to become operational,” she said. “It was a slow process, but we’ve settled to a place in the market where patients can get what they need on their own budgets. Supply will become an issue because of the increase in demand, and that will hurt medical patients.”

Estes-Jones said she is also wary of the expunging process, as it is not automatic.

“People have to apply, and it’s based on funding,” she said. “The legislature will have to pass $6.5 million to give the civil courts enough staff to process everything.”

Proceeds from the sales taxes from recreational marijuana would go partially to the Department of Health and Human Services, then next to expunging charges. The remainder will be split three ways between healthcare for veterans and their families, grants for drug treatment and counseling and to the public defender’s office for assisting low-income individuals in the state.

Tax-wise, Estes-Jones said medical patients who buy at the Dispensary currently pay a 10.225 percent sales tax rate, but recreational users would be more in the 15 percent range depending on what the county would choose as a sales tax figure.

The amendment also provides an opportunity for a microbusiness licenses, but Estes-Jones does not see those happening locally.

An applicant for a marijuana microbusiness license must meet at least one of the following qualifications:

• Have a net worth of less than $250,000 and have an income below 250 percent of the federal poverty level

• Have a valid service- connected disability card issued by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

• Be a person who has been or a person whose parent/guardian/spouse has been arrested, prosecuted or convicted for a non-violent marijuana offense

• Reside in a ZIP code where 30 percent or more of the population lives below federal poverty level, the rate of unemployment is 50 percent or higher than the state average, or the historic rate of incarceration for marijuana- related offenses is 50 percent higher than the rate for the entire state.

• Graduated from a school district that was unaccredited “Those will come on very slowly and will be limited by congressional district,” she said. “I don’t anticipate anyone meeting the parameters in Barry County.”

Estes-Jones said, ultimately, she was surprised to be taking a stance against recreational marijuana.

“We are not upset about the competition because there’s room for everyone,” she said. “We want more chances for others to come online and patients to have more choices and better prices, because we are here to take care of our patients. This is set up to make everyone in the industry very successful, but for me, I can’t get on board with it because it will hurt patients. They will get a higher allotment, which is great for people who need high doses, like cancer patients; patients will only have to renew every three years; and it will provide some employer protections and protect people on probation and parole from reoffending.

“Those things are great, but it’s not enough. This also puts civil fines and punishments in the state Constitution, and I do not believe that is appropriate. If the federal government legalizes or changes Marijuana’s placement on the drug schedule, this program would be very hard to change. I’m shocked I’m not in favor of an adult-use bill, but I just don’t think this one is the right one. We can do better for our patients and for the state of Missouri.”

Roark agreed.

“This locks us into a restrictive recreational program that if the federal laws change, we will be stuck with what we have,” she said. “We are on the verge of federal legislation, and if we vote this in before then, it would hurt the program or a long time, maybe forever. It will also create an even larger monopoly, and I do not advocate a handful of people should get rich on the backs of patients.”

This week, the Missouri Republican Party’s Executive Committee released a statement against the Amendment.

“The recommendation from the executive committee urges Missouri voters to vote against Amendment 3 citing that the amendment is opposed by law enforcement organizations, drug counselors, the medical community, agriculture groups, and religious organizations; other states that have legalized marijuana have seen increases in addiction, mental health problems, traffic deaths, and rising rates of marijuana consumption among youth; legalizing marijuana through the Constitution would make it nearly impossible for local governments to change any aspect of the law; and no industry has ever been given a Constitutional right to sell their product in the state of Missouri,” it said.

The Missouri Democratic Party’s state committee said in a statement it is not taking a position on the amendment, citing concerns with the wording of the plan.

While it generally supports legalization, the committee concluded Amendment 3 may negatively impact minorities, people of color, and low-income earning Missourians.