This Republican's Marijuana Legalization Bill Aims To Build Bipartisan Support for Repealing Federal Prohibition
Rep. Nancy Mace is touting "a framework which allows states to make their own decisions on cannabis."

When Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) unveiled a "discussion draft" of a marijuana legalization bill last July, he said he wanted to start a conversation that would eventually produce legislation resolving the longstanding conflict between the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and state laws that allow medical or recreational use of cannabis. But his 163-page Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act was full of unnecessarily contentious provisions that seemed likely to alienate potential Republican allies. A bill unveiled today by Rep. Nancy Mace (R–S.C.) tries to address that problem by outlining a simpler and less burdensome approach that entails less federal involvement, lower taxes, and greater deference to state policy choices.
Mace's bill, the States Reform Act, has five initial co-sponsors: Reps. Tom McClintock (R–Calif.), Peter Meijer (R–Mich.), Don Young (R–Alaska), Kenneth Buck (R–Colo.), and Brian Mast (R–Fla.). It is endorsed by Americans for Prosperity, the Cannabis Freedom Alliance, and the Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce.
Mace says the bill is designed to accommodate state marijuana policies, which range from complete prohibition to general legalization for adult use. "Every state is different," Mace says in a press release, noting that her own state, South Carolina, has gone no further than allowing medical use of the nonpsychoactive cannabinoid CBD, while "California and others" allow commercial production and distribution of marijuana for recreational use. "Cannabis reform at the federal level must take all of this into account. And it's past time federal law codifies this reality."
Thirty-six states have legalized marijuana for medical use, while 18 states, accounting for more than two-fifths of the U.S. population, also allow recreational use. The latest Gallup poll found that 68 percent of American adults favor legalization, which matches last year's record level of support. "Washington needs to provide a framework which allows states to make their own decisions on cannabis moving forward," Mace says. "This bill does that."
Geoffrey Lawrence, director of drug policy at Reason Foundation (which publishes this website), provided model language for the bill and technical feedback on Mace's drafts. He hopes the States Reform Act will prove more appealing to Republicans than Schumer's bill, which so far has not attracted any GOP support, and the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which the Democrat-controlled House approved last December with support from just a handful of Republicans. "The States Reform Act is a relatively simple bill that gets to the heart of what most people can agree on when it comes to legalizing cannabis at the federal level," Lawrence says.
At 131 pages, Mace's bill is just 20 percent shorter than Schumer's, and it includes several similar provisions. Both bills would remove cannabis from the CSA's schedules of controlled substances, and both would establish a nationwide minimum purchase age of 21. Both would require automatic expungement of federal criminal records related to nonviolent marijuana offenses, bar the Small Business Administration (SBA) from discriminating against state-licensed cannabusinesses, and allow Veterans Health Administration doctors to recommend medical marijuana. Both would leave states free to ban marijuana but would bar interference with shipments between jurisdictions where cannabis is legal.
One big difference is the level of federal taxation. Schumer's bill would impose a federal excise tax on marijuana starting at 10 percent and rising to 25 percent by the fifth year, which would be in addition to frequently hefty state and local taxes. The tax would be based on either the wholesale price per ounce or, for "any THC-measurable cannabis product," the price per gram of THC. Mace's bill, by contrast, would impose a straightforward 3 percent excise tax, which would remain at that level for at least 10 years.
According to Mace's summary of the bill, the 10-year moratorium on raising the excise tax is meant to "ensure competitive footing in the market." In other words, a relatively low tax rate will help legal marijuana businesses compete with black-market dealers, who do not collect taxes.
Schumer's bill would use revenue from the marijuana tax to create three new grant programs aimed at helping "economically disadvantaged individuals" and "individuals adversely affected by the War on Drugs." Mace's bill would create a Law Enforcement Retraining and Successful Second Chances Fund, which would funnel marijuana tax money to three existing programs: the Crisis Stabilization and Community Reentry Grant Program, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and the Community-Oriented Policing Services Program. Some of the money also would be assigned to "veterans' mental health," "state opioid epidemic responses," "preventing underage use of cannabis," and the SBA "for supporting newly licensed small [marijuana] businesses through its various programs."
Under Schumer's bill, state-licensed marijuana businesses, which already are regulated by state and local governments, would also be supervised by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Treasury Department's Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB), and the Justice Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Mace's bill likewise imagines roles for all of those agencies, but it says the FDA "shall have the same authorities with respect to cannabis products that it has with respect to alcohol," such as label regulation for certain beverages, "and no more."
According to the summary, that provision "ensures that cannabis products in interstate commerce will be treated like alcohol and that the regulatory issues harming the industrial hemp-derived CBD industry will not be repeated in the cannabis space." The bill also "grandfathers 'designated state medical cannabis products,'" including "those produced consistent with state law," to ensure "continued access" for patients. The FDA "may still prescribe serving sizes, certify designated state medical cannabis products as a ministerial duty, and authorize new drugs or approved new uses of drug applications to create new pharmaceutical grade products, but may not prohibit the use of cannabis or its derivates in non-drug applications, such as in designated state medical cannabis products, dietary supplements, foods, beverages, non-drug topical solutions, or cosmetics."
Continuing the analogy to alcohol, the TTB "will be the primary regulator of cannabis products in interstate commerce," while the ATF "will serve as the primary law enforcement agency supporting the TTB's work, exactly as it does in the alcohol space." The Department of Agriculture would regulate cannabis crops in the same way it regulates raw materials for alcoholic beverages, such as grain and hops. The bill "applies to cannabis the same recordkeeping, liability, reporting, packaging, and labeling requirement[s]" that apply to the alcohol industry under the Internal Revenue Code. The bill would prohibit cannabis advertising that is false, misleading, or aimed at minors.
Mace is playing up the aspects of the States Reform Act that should appeal to her fellow Republicans without alienating Democrats. A poster she used at today's press conference says the bill, in addition to descheduling marijuana and regulating it "like alcohol," imposes a low excise tax, "protects kids," "protects veterans," "protects each state's unique laws & reforms," and implements "safe criminal justice reform."
Mace's bill summary elaborates on that last point, noting that the States Reform Act "provides opportunities for reentry for non-violent, non-DUI cannabis offenders who had no relation to a foreign drug cartel and pose no further threat to society, consistent with the policies of the Department of Justice under President Trump for clemency for non-violent cannabis offenders." Mace also could have noted that Trump supported drug sentencing reform and, unlike his successor, said he favored reconciling state and federal marijuana laws.
"The States Reform Act completely removes federal prohibition and allows states to compete and decide how they wish to treat cannabis," Lawrence notes. "It removes federal tax penalties against marijuana companies and opens up banking. It recognizes that legal markets must compete with black markets on price and therefore charges only a 3 percent excise tax, along with licensing fees not to exceed $10,000. Finally, it extends these changes back in time by expunging the records of those who have been arrested for nonviolent federal cannabis crimes."
Rather than "going too far in any direction by including elements that splinter the realm of agreement," Lawrence says, "the beauty of the States Reform Act is that it's both simple and reasonably comprehensive. Enacting major social change requires broad, bipartisan agreement, and the States Reform Act checks that box."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Would
red. no ring. can make Leather & Mace jokes with name. in.
Leather & Mace
Not a club that I would go to, but you be you.
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FGh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW
money generating way, the best way of 2021 to earns even more than $15,000 every month online. start receiving more than $15k from this easy online job. i joined this 3 months ago and in my first month i made $12749 simply doing work for 2 hrs a day. join this right now by follow instructions mentioned on this web.
===>>.......... Visit Here
Die
This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company AQb now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.
For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH
>>Not a club that I would go to, but you be you.
turns out she's a surfer too. Sex Wax & Leather & Mace
It might be some S&M kinky fun to get Maced and then feel your way around the dungeon. Perhaps mistress will offer some milk to relieve the submissive's eyes.
Oop, Mistress. Always have to capitalize that to avoid a lashing.
She's both single, and younger than me. Man. Now I feel old.
She's definitely welcome to join the hawt party.
She is already wearing a pearl necklace.
A pair would be better.
It will take a pair to giver her a pair.
I'd love to be one of that pair.
Sadly, she's just down the road in South Carolina and they barely believe in roads, even though they've charged more gas taxes for them the past five years. Talk about a cock-block!
My buddy's sister makes $95/hr on the pc. She has been out of work for eight months but vcv last month her pay check was $25450 merely working on the pc, pop over here..... http://Www.EarnCash1.com
Not sure if I would hold my breath for something better.
Or this, if I’m being honest.
Wanna bet there will be some vote from team blue, but just short of passing.
They want to eat their cake and have it too. They say they want to loosen mj laws. What they really want is full credit for doing so, while also enacting layers of other bullshit like tax schemes and regulatory hurdles. hurdles.
Yeap. Bigger black market in California than legal one.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-s-cannabis-black-market-has-eclipsed-its-legal-one-n1053856
You mean taxing things into the ground isn't the way to go? Damn, there goes the D game plan.
WHITE SUPREMACIST!
(That part of the D game plan still intact)
You sure what they really want isn't just to keep the pot boiling? To perpetually have the appearance of being on the right side, while never actually making progress? So they remain necessary?
Agreed
Entry for the beast ice mute list open.
sarcasmic
July.10.2021 at 9:23 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
About the only thing I miss about working in restaurants was access to drugs. There's always a dishwasher slinging weed and a waiter with nose candy.
Sits at a table in Morton's. Waiter comes over, customer says:
"Dude, how 'bout some nose candy?"
DEA agent at next table arrests both.
I wish sarc would've stuck with weed instead of becoming an alcoholic. He would've been a lot less annoying.
Cannabis products are known to be a healthier alternative to tranquilizer use/abuse and therefor a potential threat to pharmaceutical industry profits. Other than to pander to big pharma, which logically loves THC-consumption legal obstacles just fine, there was/is no good reason (morally, ethically or national interest) to maintain THC consumption's criminal status.
But political hypocrisy too often prevails. I recall a then-president Bill Clinton deciding against fully legalizing (i.e. on a federal level) cannabis consumption after having championed it (or, at the very least, its decriminalization) prior to his election. Much worse, as president he greatly ramped up the 'war on drugs' — including against personal users, which needlessly unjustly destroyed lives — at the very same time he made it easier for bankers to become richer. ... But Bill probably still slept/sleeps well at night. (I sure couldn't.
Outside of the commerce clause expansion from Wickard suddenly being overturned, you're not gonna get anything better.
…relatively low tax rate will help legal marijuana businesses compete with black-market dealers, who do not collect taxes.
Starting with a disadvantage, and the disadvantage grows over time.
Lawmakers know nothing about running a business.
The costs of running an illegal business must be much higher than 3% of revenue. You cannot use banks or buy insurance, you cannot call the cops if robbed (and the cops will rob you and put you in a cage if they notice what you're selling), and worst of all, your employees are criminals - far more likely than most people to be late for work, steal from you, and just avoid working whenever you aren't watching.
Guessing you missed the "25%" part of the Schumer tax
>>both simple and reasonably comprehensive.
Congress hates those things.
I bet a single page could remove the federal prohibition on marijuana, with room left over to pardon all past non-violent marijuana convictions.
Just remember that while the idea behind her bill may be simple, that will has to address every time marijuana is mentioned in the US legal code. And that is likely a lot of mentions that need to be looked at and addressed.
No. Just write a new law which says all marijuana laws are repealed or unenforceable. It's only hard when legislators don't want to do it.
They still have to strike the other sections.
Your shortsightedness would amount to an unpleasant reality if you had any power over it.
Don't we bitch about dumb gun laws and other shit and you just think you can make a 10 sentence law and be done? C'mon.
No, it’s “c’mon man!”
You ain't black, fat
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That works.....almost perfectly.
Oh, wait....
Almost any language can be twisted. Every gun-grabber in history wants you to ignore the plainest language "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
It means what it means regardless of their attempts to misdirect.
They'd have to write it in the form, "Notwithstanding all other provisions of this code...." Which legislators do, plenty. I hate "notwithstanding" provisions, because it means you have to read the entire code to be sure of anything, because anything written in one place could be superseded by a "nothwithstanding" somewhere else.
No, you have to explicitly strike out sections of existing law and regulation. Even a bill that stated the federal had absolutely no authority in it still requires each affected code to be modified.
You do not want blanket statements being invisibly applied to other sections - because they won’t be. We have centuries of experience with that.
Haven’t read the bill, but I’d imagine that 100 out of the 130 pages are consumed with conforming provisions, like “Title 45, section 1230a(c)(10) is amended to strike the word ‘cannabis.’”
Also,would.
This. Since the CSA is unconstitutional to begin with, they could start there. Or even just by not making marijuana subject to it.
"All federal laws on the subject of marijuana are repealed." The end.
But Washington has to make everything vastly more complex than necessary, to justify their existence.
"Since it has shown no potential for abuse or addiction, is 100% safe, and has recognized medical uses, Marijuana is no longer subject to the CSA."
Don't they have to amendment CSA to explicitly exclude it since they already delegated to the e executive?
I should think so, yes, but I would think in a sane world my language as that amendment would be peachy.
"Since it has shown no potential for abuse or addiction, is 100% safe, and has recognized medical uses"
Fuck that noise.
No explanation or justification is necessary when eliminating undue and plainly unconstitutional legislative overreach.
Beyond that basic libertarian principle also consider that nothing on this planet is "100% safe." That statement is plain stupid.
Do not encourage legislative stupidity.
Can't do that. How will future lawyers be able to sue "BIG POT" for billions and billions in reparations.
"Hello, We are the Lawyers from the Future. Have you or a loved one been harmed by the adverse effects of Marijuana? Are you an addicted obese Cheeto freak? Let us help you help us get the compensation we deserve"
Nachos. With all the toppings you can pile on top.
Mace's bill is a lot better than Schumer's.
We still need more GOP support for legalizing weed (at the local, state and federal levels), which appears to be increasing.
Question is why are they not pushing this bill and others and are instead more hung up on CRT and socialism?
Socialism and racism are the life blood of the left.
That’s why.
^ This.
agreed. getting references to slavery and past civil rights conflicts mostly erased cleanly from history books will be a major blow to a lot of the left's recruitment narrative today. That's a higher priority than minor efforts to increase personal liberty like here. Control the books, control the tribal recruitment.
Fuck off mendacious troll.
Sure.....
More like Republicans know they can rile up the rubes with bullshit talking arguments (CRT) and label anything the government does as bad (socialism.)
At least the poor defenseless government has you to protect it.
....and correctly label anything the government does as bad
talking arguments
Is this as opposed to whistling arguments?
"Not wanting your kids to be taught reworked Nazi racial theories is bullshit"
Okay, Tony.
‘Rubes’…..
Bitch, please, democrats are usually the dumbest, least educated shitweasels anywhere. Like those three geniuses in Kenosha who got taken out amd down by a line 17 year old when at least one of them was armed and had a whole violent mob to back them up.
This is why you retarded faggots nominated and elected and installed a ChiCom shill like Joe Biden in the White House.
They should put an immediate 25% tax on the teaching of CRT and a 100% tax on socialism.
Wait a minute...Isn't a tax on CRT discriminatory? And isn't a tax on Socialism in itself Socialistic?
Except possibly for Raquel Welch, these taxes are like all the taxes proposed on Monty Python's Flying Circus
https://dai.ly/x2ogsqu
Thingy?
Just make teaching CRT and every other form of Marxism a capital offense.
How YOU doin'?
How about a one page bill directing all federal departments to obey existing law and get a certain product with proven medical use off a list reserved for things with no proven medical use?
Oh, wait. They aren't legalizing the devil weed, they are passing a new tax bill aimed at people who make less than $400,000.00 a year.
^
"proven medical use" is not the path to freedom or liberty. You are simply exchanging one form of tyranny for another.
What dog does she have in this fight?
I can't say anything about her dog, but she does have some nice puppies. 🙂
Sullum usually reports new news. But this reads like a wordier 21st Amendment. That's the one politicians offered as same-thing replacement for the economy-wrecking 18th Amendment 12 days before Bert Hoover was booted out of office. All it does is promise to send federal tanks and machine guns to gun down miscreants who dare to scoff at States using the violence of law to make trade and production of light beer into crimes... as of December 1933!
The fact that Republican's are creating Marijuana Legalization Bills must be absolutely destroying your 70-year-old worldview, huh.
He doesn’t like the Gee oh Pee’ very much. I think his biggest problem is that it interferes with his his abortion fetish, which is to the point of paraphilia to him. Kermit Gosnell’s videos of murdering infants third trimester post delivery are porn to him.
Maybe I'm crazy, but isn't that framework the 10th Amendment?
We don't like to talk about that one.
Though it's an admittedly slanted article it seems pretty well and good. Like said above, wouldn't hold out hope for anything better. Now if Republicans cared to work with Democrats it might just have a shot...
If only those poor democrats had a majority, eh?
They need all the help they can get.
Or a President to sign it into law.
Poor Tony, he's stuck with the narrative he bought.
Democrats never hold their own accountable. It will always be someone else’s fault.
I may be wrong but my understanding is that pot isn't expressly banned in law but via rule making by the FDA. That being the case, wouldn't it simply be a matter of an executive order?
If the executive was not in a senility induced coma, yes.
No - it's specifically mentioned in the Controlled Substances Act. This was the reason Obama gave for why he couldn't unilaterally legalize it, and it seems legit.
Although, in fairness, the thing outlawed by the CSA is 'marihuana,' which no one smokes anymore.
True, but he could have had the FDA drop the scheduling from 1 to 4 or 5.
As opposed to "Mari-ju-wanna," which is bad, mmmm-kay?
No, there are a lot of statutory provisions about it.
Statutory vape.
You are wrong. The FDA does not determine where something appears on the Schedules.
Summary. While Democrat Chuck Schumer puts on a media-propped clown-show pretending to eliminate 'federal' puritan-Gun-Power, Republican Nancy Mace actually proposed to eliminate the UN-Constitutional 'federal' puritan-Gun-Power.
"allows states to make their own decisions on cannabis."
Nothing but complete and total federal decriminalization of all recreational drug use and distribution will suffice. That is the Libertarian way!
Complete legalization is what is need if dispensaries are to ever be able to get financing or merchant's accounts from a bank or insurance from an insurance company.
Both banks and insurance companies are under Federal jurisdiction and would be busted for "money laundering" if they provided their services for marijuana dispensaries or other marijuana businesses.
You are dead right, this is just putting the current policy on paper and changes nothing.
Would that not just be ending prohibition?
Or is the idea that once Congress has taken a power away from the states it will never give it back - but now they can ask permission politely and maybe 'Top Men' will let them?
SMDH.
Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this. buy wine online
Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this.california online liquor store
Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this.buy alcohol online
Although Rep. Mace's bill strikes "marihuana" from Schedule 1, it will remain inaccurately defined with the same unnecessary and improper features of racism, duplicity, and circumlocution as it has been for 84 years.
If the bill passes, maybe people will ask, "Why does Congress still define that legal substance that way?".
Congress could reconstruct the definition without those features now, so that it restores and protects the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens to grow cannabis plants for use in commerce, like this:
The term "marijuana" means all parts of the smoke produced by the combustion of the plant Cannabis sativa L., which is, as are the viable seeds of such plant, prohibited to be grown by or sold by any publicly traded corporation or subsidiary company, and such smoke is prohibited to be inhaled by any child or by any person bearing any firearm, as is their intake of any part or any product of such plant containing more than 0.3% THC by weight unless prescribed to such child by an authorized medical practitioner.
There is already "a framework which allows states to make their own decisions on cannabis." It's called the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The federal govt has never been granted the authority to control drug usage. That has always been the domain of the states. Congressional ignorance of the U.S. Constitution is continually on display for all to see. If they would work within the bounds of existing law, most of our fiscal and moral issues, at the federal level, would magically disappear.
This bill sucks!!! Any federal cannabis tax is totally unacceptable.
Is Reason.com a Republican website? How sad. All this time I thought it was libertarian.
I see the Repubs. have a nice sexy PR rep with large breasts to please all the dumbass rural hicks that vote Republican.
You seem to not understand the issue. If you want reform you have to accept a federal tax. Marijuana will be treated just like alcohol and tobacco. This is common sense.
How about we treat it like parsley?
+1
Only because democrats and RINOs salivate over an opportunity to take more off of the citizenry.
See my response to Shitlunches above about the intelligence level of you faggot marxists. You’re the biggest idiots in the world and your master is a senile buggerer of his own children who is medically lobotomized (from his second aneurysm surgery). With his number two being a low IQ incompetent cunt who is so loathsome, even a big portion of your party despises her.
The bill’s definitely not perfect for a libertarian. But it’s miles ahead of the garbage we got from Chuck Schumer.
The difference is a bill that’s better than nothing and one that’s worse than nothing.
The parts that left out of this discussion are that the US has certain international treaty obligations concerning marijuana and hashish that are long-standing and linked to obligations concerning other psychoactive substances. I'm not necessarily opposed to legalization, but our treaty obligations can't be ignored.
That’s a good point. What’s the process of welching on a treaty?
Call me a Puritan, but when it comes to alcohol, drugs, and gambling, I tend to be closer to my long-departed grandmother who belonged to the WCTU and believed that Prohibition just needed another 10 years, than to the libertarian wing of the GOP.
Yes, it makes no sense that someone who is pro-choice and supports same-sex marriage is opposed to marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes. But, personal beliefs need not be consistant.
Call me a Puritan, but when it comes to alcohol, drugs, and gambling, I tend to be closer to my long-departed grandmother who belonged to the WCTU and believed that Prohibition just needed another 10 years, than to the libertarian wing of the GOP.
Yes, it makes no sense that someone who is pro-choice and supports same-sex marriage is opposed to marijuana for recreational and medicinal purposes. But, personal beliefs need not be consistent.
Or rational.
This is just the status quo on paper. Fucking legalize marijuan and at least all the light drugs like molly, shrooms, weed, and peyote. JFCOAPS
All of these federal proposals ultimately gives states the right to decide what to do when the federal prohibition is lifted.
HR1227 - End Federal Prohibition of Marijuana Act 2016-2017 is a very simple law, it states: THIS ACT ENDS THE FEDERAL PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA...That's it! Now it is a states' issue, just like all the other bills. Now those states where it has been already legalized will be able to participate in the banking industry, making the business of doing business a lot safer.
They also need to remove it from ATF form 4473 then.
Because of FEDERAL income tax laws, the bulk of MJ sales will still be off the books, or the revenue will not be fully reported. The IRS forbids the deduction of business expenses for an illegal business.
As far as the feds are concerned, selling MJ is still illegal -- state and local laws notwithstanding. There seems to be little Congressional interest in changing this outdated law.
CONSIDER: An MJ retailer makes $1,000,000 gross sales.
The costs of doing business (primarily buying MJ for resale) total $800,000.
Profit -- $200,000.IRS taxes owed -- $200,000 plus.
Plus state corporate income taxes and all the local taxes.
The ONLY way a legal MJ retailer can remain anywhere near competitive with the black market is to lie about their income. I imagine they all do it -- otherwise they would be out of business.
As it is, they are all lying on their taxes. Heck of a way to promote business activity. The MJ black market is thrilled with this tax law madness. Business as usual.