Voice For Liberty

Category: Kansas state government

  • Medical marijuana testimony presented in Kansas House committee

    This week the Kansas House of Representatives Health and Human Services Committee held an informational hearing on HB 2610. This bill would legalize the use of medical marijuana for certain debilitating medical conditions. Representative Gail Finney, a Democrat who represents parts of east Wichita, introduced the bill.

    An informational hearing means that the committee would take no action on the bill, so there would be no vote taken and no possibility that the bill would advance out of the committee to be considered by the entire House.

    There were two bills on the committee’s agenda before the marijuana measure. After these were dispatched, Representative Brenda Landwehr, a Wichita Republican and committee chairman, announced that she had to testify at another committee. Representative David Crum, the committee’s vice-char and an Augusta Republican, also had to attend a different committee meeting. In their absence, Representative Geraldine Flaharty, a Wichita Democrat, presided over the proceedings.

    Leading off the testimony, a woman from Augusta who suffers from multiple sclerosis said she wished for other drugs besides oxycodone and morphine to relieve her pain. In the past, marijuana gave her relief, she said, but now that she stopped using the drug, she has become worse, now barely able to walk. “But I’m too old to break the law,” she said.

    David Mulford of Hutchinson said he has suffered from both chronic pain and muscle spasms for 20 years. He said he has long-term experience with Marinol (a prescription pill form of the main psychoactive substance found in marijuana) and medicinal herbal cannabis.

    He quoted John Walters, former director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, who said in 2002 that “The Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research is currently conducting scientific studies to determine the efficacy of marijuana in treating various ailments. Until that research is concluded, however, most of what the public hears from marijuana activists is little more than a compilation of anecdotes.”

    Mulford said that this research is now available, referring to a recent report from the Center for Medical Cannabis Research at the University of California. He said that this study found that herbal cannabis has benefits for individuals that do not respond well to current therapies. Medicinal cannabis was found to safe and effective, he said the study found.

    Marinol, while an important part of his treatment plan, does not provide the same benefits as herbal cannabis. He said he finds it difficult to believe that anyone would consider him a “faker,” using his illness as an excuse to get high. He said he needs to manage his health, and only that. “We must place patients above politics,” he added.

    Anthony Buckland told of how in the days before his daughter died from cancer at the age of 16, there were no non-narcotic drugs available for her to use. Cannabis, he said, would have helped control her nausea and increase her appetite, as well as controlling pain. The daughter did not want to break the law, which would have been necessary in order to use cannabis.

    Brian Leininger, an attorney from Overland Park who has experience as a district attorney and city prosecutor, spoke on behalf of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of former and current law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges who at one time had fought the war on drugs, but are now opposed to the prohibition of drugs. He said that marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 drug, meaning that it has no medical benefit, which he said is not true. Many far more dangerous and harmful drugs are not classified as schedule 1 drugs, and are prescribed regularly.

    He said that 14 states have approved cannabis for medical purposes. He urged the committee members to take a fair look at this legislation and vote for it when the times comes. “It’s the compassionate thing to do,” he added.

    Dan Dawdy presented information on the scientific aspects of cannabis and Marinol, the pill form of synthetic THC. One difference, he said, as that Marinol contains just one compound, while medical cannabis in herbal form contains 60 naturally-occurring cannabinoids. He told the committee that the fact that Marinol is ingested orally is a problem too, according to experts. Of the many cannabinoids in natural cannabis, several have been found to be medically useful.

    Dawdy explained: “We do not stop at one headache medicine or one cholesterol-lowering drug. Why not? It’s simple: one medicine doesn’t work for everyone, it doesn’t work in every situation, or for every need. … Even the best drugs don’t work for everyone.” He added that “I used to believe that cannabis was not medicine — it just made people not mind being sick.” But after seeing the medicine in action, he came to realize that medical cannabis has the ability to help many ill people improve their lives.

    Tom Ballard, who said he is a long-time resident of Kansas, spoke on the issue of cannabis dependency. He told the committee that “cannabis lacks the physical and psychological dependence liabilities associated with most other substances.” He said that only ten percent of those why try cannabis meet the clinical criteria for drug dependency, which is less than the 15 percent associated with alcohol use. He said that the majority of cannabis users who are in treatment programs are there as a condition of their probation, not their choice. “Prohibitionists disingenuously argue that these admissions to treatment justify the need to maintain cannabis’ illegal status when in reality it appears to be the policy and not the use that results in the commitment of cannabis users to treatment centers.”

    Ballard also addressed the effect of cannabis use on driving, saying that its effect on the ability to drive — compared to the effect of alcohol — is mild.

    Tyler Feeney said that we should be having hearings on this matter, not an informational session where the leadership of the committee — referring to Representatives Landwehr and Crum — is not present, saying that they “obviously don’t care.” The audience expressed its approval of this sentiment with applause and cheers. He said it’s a disconnect when legislators take money from the pharmaceutical industry, cigarette makers, and people who sell booze, but panic at the idea of marijuana. “14 other states have done this, and the apocalypse hasn’t hit yet.”

    He promoted medical marijuana as a way to help solve the state’s budget problem by earning revenue through its sale.

    Feeney urged the committee to hold a real hearing instead of this informational hearing, which he characterized as a waste of time. He thanked the committee members who were still present, as by this time, many committee members had left the room. Chairman Flaharty said that some members had other appointments, and that’s why they had left.

    Patrick Wilbur, Executive Director of Drug Policy Forum of Kansas, said it’s obvious that for some patients, cannabis is the best answer for them. Also, this bill does not endorse or legalize the recreational use of cannabis. He cited an ABC News/Washington Post poll that found that 81% of Americans endorsed the legalization of medical marijuana. “This is not a fringe issue. This is mainstream,” he said. The approval numbers are not as high in Kansas, he said, but there is still a solid majority of Kansans that support this.

    Cheryl Riley, founder and director of the Kansas Medical Cannabis Network, spoke about the evidence supporting the medical use of cannabis, stating: “Four decades of intensive research and clinical trials in Israel and elsewhere has proved beyond any doubt to rational minds that medical cannabis is indeed effective therapy for a wide array of medical conditions.” She noted that the American Medical Association has asked the DEA to reschedule cannabis so that clinical studies could be conducted.

    She also told the committee that many religious organizations have announced support for medical cannabis as a matter of human compassion.

    In written testimony supplied to the committee, Dr. Jon Hauxwell, a retired physician living in Hays, wrote: “Cannabis denialists rely on a derisive catch phrase, ‘medical excuse marijuana.’ Apparently we are to believe that the tens of thousands of people who can attest to the unique benefits of cannabis therapy when other drugs have failed, are simply deluded, or faking. This is cruel and cynical. One wonders how many of these patients the denialists have actually interviewed, and by what criteria they dismissed these affirmations as crazy or deceitful. These patients deserve compassion, not derision.”

    On the potential for abuse if Kansas legalizes medical cannabis, Hauxwell wrote to the committee: “As a licensed physician, I could legally prescribe or administer methamphetamine, cocaine, morphine, Oxy-Contin, and barbiturates. There are indeed some people who seek to divert these drugs for abuse. Doctors must be vigilant, and sometimes we get fooled. But we as a society have made a commitment: The abusers don’t get to call the shots. They will not be allowed to deprive legitimate patients of the right to the treatment they need.”

    Concluding his written testimony, Dr. Hauxwell explained that cannabis is safe, provides proven benefits, and is a valuable and necessary option for treatment:

    It is biologically plausible — and demonstrable — that cannabis safely offers a wide variety of benefits for health, benefits which have already been discovered and applied by patients across the world, and over centuries.

    Denialists maintain that even if cannabis does treat a variety of medical conditions, it is unnecessary because these conditions can be treated with currently available drugs.

    However, these drugs often have side-effects more disabling than cannabis, or don’t work well for some individuals. If these drugs are already adequate, we could make at least two predictions: One, no other new drugs will ever be introduced to treat the conditions cannabis can treat, because they too would be “unnecessary.” And two, no cancer patient will ever again tell her oncologist “I’m not going to take any more radiation and chemo. I know what that means, but I’d rather die than go through that again.”

    Written testimony presented at this hearing is available at Informational Presentations on Kansas Medical Marijuana Act. A USA Today article that references Representative Finney and the Kansas bill is Slowly, states are lessening limits on marijuana. A recent poll that shows support for medical marijuana in Kansas is Survey USA News Poll #16266.

  • Kansas sugar tax testimony heard, bill doesn’t advance

    Wednesday’s meeting of the Kansas Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee heard testimony on SB 567, which would increase taxes on drinks sweetened with sugar. At the next day’s meeting, the bill didn’t advance out of committee.

    Several hundred employees of soft drink companies, many wearing clothes with logos of their companies, were in the statehouse, and many attended the hearing.

    In his opening remarks, Senator Les Donovan, a Wichita Republican, said that his intent is to revise the bill so that the tax is four-tenths of a cent per teaspoon of sugar instead of one cent, saying that to the audience of soft drink company employees “that should relieve 60% of your anxiety.”

    He added, as he has said in other recent meetings of this committee, that he doesn’t want to have to ask people for more taxes. But he contended that the budget has been “slashed” many times, and that more tax revenue is required.

    Proponents of the bill generally cited two reasons for their support: First, it would raise more revenue for the state. Second, it would improve the health of Kansans, a claim that some opponents of the bill disputed.

    Kathy Cook, Executive Director of Kansas Families for Education Foundation, said the state’s children, disabled, and elderly can’t afford any more cuts. It’s more than a political decision, she said, it’s really now a moral decision. Her written testimony suggested increasing income taxes on those making over $100,000 per year.

    Jason Eberhart-Phillips, the Kansas State Health Officer, said that sugar-sweetened beverages are “not a necessary part of anyone’s diet.” The drinks generally deliver many calories but few nutritional benefit.

    Opponents of the bill raised the cross-border shopping issue. Written testimony from the Kansas Chamber of Commerce noted that “Our peer states are already salivating at the prospects of both a sales tax and a tobacco tax increase. You can now add the proposed doubling of the liquor gallonage tax and this bill to the list of tax increases our competitor states would like to see Kansas enact.”

    The Kansas Beverage Association in its written testimony noted that the bill is not really about fighting obesity, as no money from the proposed tax is earmarked for obesity programs. (A California bill that is the model for this legislation places all the tax revenue collected in a fund for improving the health of children.)

    The Association also said in its testimony that the American Beverage Association has set voluntary standards for beverages sold in schools, and that in three years, the number of calories from beverages sold in schools has been reduced by 90%. The testimony added that kids in schools are still eating pizza, cheeseburgers, candy bars, and ice cream.

    The owner of a restaurant and bar in Olathe said that the competitive nature of the restaurant combined with the recession means that the ability to earn money on food sales is reduced, meaning that the beverage side of the business becomes more important. He said that this tax increase might drive him to reduce his employee count.

    Some opponents noted the large number of businesses that would be affected by this tax, and the job losses that the tax would cause.

    The fiscal note the accompanies the bill notes some difficulties in enforcing the tax: There are many distributors of the products to be taxed, and some don’t have a business location in Kansas. There are very small companies producing products that will have to be taxes, and there are private label products that are shipped directly to companies in Kansas. The note estimated that there could be 500 to 600 products that would be subject to this tax, and that ensuring compliance with the law may be difficult.

    Senator Karin Brownlee, an Olathe Republican, said that the link between sugar pop and obesity is not clear. Taking issue with Chairman Donovan’s contention that revenues must be raised, she said that some legislators realize that spending is the problem. There were four years in a row, she said, where spending increased by 9 percent. “Until the state gets a handle on our spending, we don’t need to be talking about new taxes.” She asked that when businesses are not making money, how do we take more from them?

    Donovan, who owns an automobile dealership, interjected that he will have to charge customers an additional three or four hundred dollars if the Kansas sales tax — based on his actions — is raised. “It’s not good for me, it’s not good for my business, but we are out of options, the way I see it.” He said he didn’t disagree with the claim of government bloat and that government spending has gone up faster than income lately, but the state has cut billions in taxes for both. business and individuals.

    Brownlee said that it appears the majority is headed towards tax increases, but this should not be the first response to the budget problem.

    The committee took action on this bill and other proposed tax bills on Thursday. As reported in Kansas Reporter and Kansas Liberty (Senate Committee says no to new taxes, House, Senate committees take a stand against increasing taxes) the tax bills did not advance out of committee.

  • Tax law imported to Kansas from California

    As states struggle to generate revenue to fund expansive spending programs, they look to impose more and higher taxes. Now a Kansas senator is importing California tax law in an effort to solve the Kansas budget problem by raising revenue instead of controlling spending.

    The legislation being imported is California SB 1210, which imposes a tax on sweetened beverages like soda pop. In Kansas, SB 567 contains large sections of statutory language taken word-for-word from the California bill.

    There’s not a spoonful of sugar large enough to sweeten the bitter fact that Kansas is becoming more like California with its out of control spending and taxation.

    No senator’s name appears on the Kansas bill, but sources tell me it is the handiwork of John Vratil, a Leawood Republican who is Vice-President of the Senate.

  • Kansas tax simplification desired, but opportunity forgone

    Two Kansas lawmakers expressed their desire for simplification of the Kansas tax system, but failed to put these desires into practice when given the opportunity to do so.

    Yesterday the Kansas House of Representatives gave initial passage to SB 430. This bill, which I testified against in the House Taxation Committee when in a different form, expands several tax credit programs. These programs spend money through the tax system, and are an example of how Kansas tax law becomes more complicated.

    If the legislature wants to give money to people for any reason, it could simply pass laws that establish grants. Instead, lawmakers created a complicated system that is difficult to understand, is not efficient, and is not tracked anywhere near accurately, according to a legislative study. In effect, legislators are using the tax system for appropriations, thereby avoiding the usual scrutiny that accompanies state expenditures — as such scrutiny exists.

    Shortly after the passage of this bill Richard Carlson, a Republican from St. Marys who is chairman of the tax committee, took to the floor of the House of Representatives to speak in favor of a different bill. He advocated for tax simplification, saying that “we have a convoluted tax system in Kansas.” He added that we need to move to simplify the tax system.

    As chairman of the tax committee, however, he passed tax credit legislation that works against these goals. He could have stopped it. The chair has such power.

    The tax committee also introduced a bill to create a committee to “study, make recommendations, and introduce legislation for a simplified state tax structure.” This bill, HB 2462, gained initial passage through the House yesterday.

    The bill was sponsored by Olathe Republican Arlen Siegfreid. According to his news release, he testified in favor of this bill in committee, saying “Kansas tax policy is too complicated.” Siegfreid, however, as a member of the taxation committee amended the tax credit legislation to make it even more complicated, and was strongly in favor of the tax credit process.

  • Kansas Representative Joe Patton on Kansas school spending

    Following is a press release from Kansas Representative Joe Patton, a Republican who represents parts of southwest Topeka and Shawnee County. He touches on a wide range of Kansas school finance topics, including the level of spending, the amount of taxes Kansas businesses pay, the cost of a tax increase, and the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse in the system.

    Recently I received an email from a concerned young mother of grade school children about education. I called her and asked if I could sit down with her and her husband to listen to their concerns. I spent several hours one Sunday afternoon at their home as they shared their concerns about their children’s education. I listened and shared with them the budget facts we have to deal with this session. With this letter I invite you to become part of our conversation.

    I’m sure you have heard media accounts about the “budget crisis”. I want to provide you the very best information I can so I can get your input. I’m sure together we can get through these stormy waters. I fought to cut my own pay 10%, the final law cut it 5%. Still legislative cuts are part of the solution. I believe in working together in a reasonable way to solve these problems with bipartisan solutions. As your State Representative, I want to make sure everyone — parents, grandparents, teachers, principals, superintendents and school board members — are in the loop when it comes to the latest and most accurate budget information we have concerning the schools.

    (more…)

  • Tax on beer, liquor subject of Kansas Senate committee hearing

    Today’s meeting of the Kansas Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee heard testimony on SB 569, which would increase taxes on beer, wine, and liquor. The tone of the meeting was set in chairman Les Donovan‘s opening remarks, when he said “If you drink, you’re going to have to pay.”

    The fiscal note for this bill is not available at the legislature’s website, but Donovan said that he intends to moderate the tax so that it raises $30 million in revenue per year, down from the $80 million he said the bill would raise if left in its present form.

    Advocates for the disabled presented both oral and written testimony in favor of the tax increase. Curiously, the school spending lobby, in the form of the Kansas Association of School Boards and the teachers union, did not speak.

    There were a number of opponents. Testifying on behalf of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, Whitney Damron supplied these facts: 1) Of the purchase price of the typical bottle of spirits purchased in Kansas, 47% is a tax of some type. 2) The higher taxes in this bill are projected to reduce retail sales by $55 million, which would result in 800 jobs being lost. 3) Kansas taxes are higher than those in Missouri and Oklahoma, which lead to lost sales to those states. This bill would make this situation worse.

    Ron Hein, testifying for the Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association, said that the businesses he represents are facing large increases in unemployment insurance taxes, and that the smoking ban will hurt, too.

    In written testimony, Tom Palace of the Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association of Kansas noted that the stores he represents are facing possible increases in cigarette and tobacco taxes, sales tax, gasoline tax, soda pop tax, and now beer tax.

    The bill contains a provision that on July 1, a tax must be paid on the inventory of a distributor or retailer. In written testimony, a liquor store owner from Wichita said that his store would have to pay $5,000 in tax on that day.

    Perhaps the most compelling testimony was offered by Marshall Rimann, who with his wife owns two liquor stores, one in Lenexa, the other in Prairie Village, which is right on the Kansas-Missouri border. He said that Kansas City, Missouri has much lower taxes on alcohol than Kansas.

    As an example, he said that a 30-pack of Bud Light currently costs, with all taxes, $21.05 in his store. After the proposed tax increases, the price would be $23.49. Advertisements in the newspaper indicate that the same product can be purchased in Missouri for $19.33, including all taxes.

    A bottle of wine that sells for $8 would have a price differential of almost $2, he said.

    Surprisingly, some items can be purchased cheaper at retail in Missouri than they can be purchased from a Kansas wholesaler. A bottle of Seagrams 7 Crown that retails for $15.99 in Missouri costs $18.99 from a Kansas wholesaler, for example.

    He said that the July 1 inventory tax for his store would be over $10,000.

    Both Rimann and a liquor store owner from Eudora said that their customers tell them they often shop in Missouri because of the lower prices resulting from Missouri’s lower taxes.

    In questioning, Kansas Senator Chris Steineger, a Democrat from Kansas City, said that in the business world, it’s not possible to raise prices in tough times. Instead, restructuring is required. He said he’s disappointed that the legislature is not restructuring government. “We didn’t consolidate any agencies, we didn’t close any programs — all we’re doing is just making people pay more.” There are other options, he said, and that is to restructure how the states does business.

    Steineger also mentioned the two Quik-Trip convenience stores that moved from Kansas City, Kansas to Missouri because of taxes. One store moved just 100 feet, keeping the same driveway. You enter the store through a driveway located in Kansas, but by the time you walk in the store, you’re in Missouri. Kansas taxes are the reason for this.

    In closing remarks, Donovan said that legislators “absolutely hate” to raise taxes, but that raising revenue is required at this time. He said the committee will take final action on this bill on Thursday.

  • Kansas gasoline tax increases possible

    Americans for Prosperity-Kansas reports on two bills that would increase the cost of gasoline in Kansas:

    There are two bills before the Senate Transportation Committee that would increase the cost of gas in Kansas by an estimated 15 to 20 cents per gallon.

    SB 515 would decrease the motor fuel tax rates by 5 cents starting Jan. 1, 2013. However, at that same time motor fuels would be subject to sales tax. With this change, it’s estimated the bill would result in a 15 cent per-gallon increase in the cost of gas.

    SB 498 would increase motor fuel taxes by 4 cents beginning Jan. 1, 2013 and by an additional 3 cents the following year. Additionally, the bill allows the Director of Taxation to adjust the tax rate based on the percentage change in the average of the consumer price index for the most recent 12-month period.

    Here is a SB 515. The fiscal note for this bill indicates that beginning in fiscal year 2011, an additional $300 million in revenue would be collected by the state each year.

    Here is SB 498. Its fiscal note indicates that it too will raise $300 million in revenue per year.

  • Kansas tax increases promoted, even by Republicans

    Last week Kansas Senator John Vratil, a Leawood Republican who is Vice-President of the Senate, sent a letter to constituents asking for feedback on how to generate more revenue for Kansas state government.

    The letter states “The Senate Ways and Means Committee has worked hard to cut ‘the fat’ out of state government while striving to hold education harmless.” The letter notes that the Kansas general fund budget is now $5.4 billion, and that education and required social services amount to $4.6 billion of that.

    Vratil promotes the tax on drinks sweetened with sugar, which would add about ten cents to the cost of a 12 ounce can of pop. Vratil says the tax would raise an estimated $90 million in revenue per year.

    The Senate leadership — Vratil being part of that — has already announced plans to push for a tax increase.

    Other Republican senators may be jumping on the tax bandwagon, too. Last week Senator Les Donovan, a Wichita Republican and chairman of the Assessment and Taxation Committee, said during a committee hearing: “We have to do something on the revenue side. … We don’t know if we can cut enough spending.” He said that if we can’t cut spending, “we’re going to do something to raise some revenue, some way.”

    (Today Donovan proposed increasing the state sales tax rate by 0.7 percentage points, removing the sales tax from food in three years. He will also propose increases on taxes for cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and soft drinks sweetened with sugar. The increase in the sales tax is a 13.2% increase in the rate.)

    On a Kansas conservative message board, one poster expressed support for a soda tax, saying that people could avoid the tax by not purchasing soda. Another poster disagreed, calling the soda tax “another area of government encroachment on our decisions,” concluding that “Unfortunately, the senators are not looking out for the health of Kansans as much as looking to get more of the wealth of Kansans.”

    Another poster contended that Vratil’s assertion of Kansas already “cutting the agencies to the bone” is an overstatement of the cuts, and that there’s plenty of slack in state employment and management practices. Specifically,

    The false premise being presented by Sen. Vratil is that all the agencies and departments that are recipients of government money are cut to the “bone.” Really? What these folks consider a “bone” many of us would still see as filet mignon.

    We have to start here. There is no doubt that on any budget your employees are your greatest cost, but the real question is is there a necessity for all those employees? We have layers of bureaucracy that are costing us a fortune. We have managers managing managers and departments created as political payback for years of campaign support. Public service unions are dictating the state budget rather than “best business” practices. Now before I have all the folks who are state employees cursing me, let me stress that my comments are not directed at those who are working hard every day and giving their best to their employers. I am making my assertions on personal information and experience that I have observed for years. The public service unions handcuff managers from releasing poor performers on a daily basis. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that departments could run with 80% less staff and not a single tax payer would know the difference. I am sympathetic to folks losing their jobs, but when did it become the taxpayers responsibility to ensure employment for our neighbors? I would rather ensure that they have job opportunities from the private sector. Those opportunities will continue to diminish with the type of tax-and-spend practices that are currently directing the state budget.

    Another poster wondered how a tax on soda would decrease consumption of what’s deemed an “undesirable” product, while a general sales tax would not produce the same effect on all goods:

    Has anyone ever asked Mr. Morris or Vratil or any other tax hike supporter how they can claim a tax on soda will make us all healthier because we’ll stop buying as much, but then claim an across the board 1% sales tax isn’t supposed to hurt the economy at all? If a tax on soda or cigarettes or alcohol is enough to decrease consumption, doesn’t it stand to reason that an across the board sales tax increase would have the same effect? Have these legislators ever been challenged about this blatant contradiction?

    With moderate and even some conservative Republicans proposing tax increases, it’s going to be a tough battle for senate Republicans to hold the line on taxes.

  • Kansas general fund spending

    Kansas general fund spending per person, in both actual dollars and inflation-adjusted dollars.

    Kansas general fund spending per person