Amanda Taylor has spent the last 5 years of her life advocating for the legalization of medical cannabis. Her conditions include 45 lesions on her brain and spine, Multiple Sclerosis, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Gastroparesis — a chronic nerve condition which slows the stomach’s ability to empty food into the small intestine — among others.
Her body has been resistant to most medications prescribed by her doctors. She found temporary relief from one drug, but the high cost ($2,500 a month with insurance) and the severe side effects from its long-term usage made it an unfeasible option.
After a particularly bad episode that put her in the hospital, a friend convinced her to try a cannabis extract known for its higher than average levels of THC.
Her health turned around and Taylor became an advocate for medical cannabis, now living in her home North Alabama county, Cullman.
In 2021, as a result of her advocacy work, Taylor was invited to attend the signing of the Darren Hall Compassion Act, which legalized medical cannabis in Alabama. Gov. Kay Ivey personally thanked her for the amount of hard work and dedication Taylor had shown in advocating for the bill.
Years later, medical cannabis is still not available in Alabama. Lawsuits from businesses not chosen by the Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission to receive a license have held up the roll out. As disheartening as the delays are to Taylor, it’s a proposed 15 percent additional local sales tax on medical cannabis she finds unconscionable.
If approved, Local Amendment 1 would divide revenue generated from the tax, and would give 33 percent to the Cullman County Delegation “to be used at their discretion on mental health issues,” and 67 percent to the DA’s office “for personnel purposes.”
To be clear, Cullman County is the only Alabama county proposing such a tax on the Nov. 5 ballot. The ballot referendum to decide whether the tax should be implemented was created by a bill carried through the Alabama Legislature in 2023 by the Cullman County Delegation — representatives Corey Harbison, Randall Shedd Tim Wadsworth and Senator Garlan Gudger.
“The DA (Champ Crocker) had been seeking ways to possibly get additional funding for his office to help hire more staff,” Harbison told The Cullman Times in 2023. “At one point, they got a lot from the worthless check unit, but that really isn’t producing much at all, at this point. We agreed as a delegation to let citizens vote for a tax on it, and it is earmarked for the DA’s office and for mental health.”
On Oct. 23, Crocker told The Cullman Times that more personnel is needed in order to help work through the current backlog of criminal cases in the district court system.
“We would hire more prosecutors,” Crocker said. “I don’t think it’s fair or just for victims or their families to wait five, six or seven years to get a case resolved, and I don’t think it’s fair to someone who is accused of crime to wait that long. If you have more prosecutors to move the cases, that time should be reduced.”
We wholeheartedly agree with Cocker that victims and their families shouldn’t have to wait for justice — not in Cullman or any other Alabama county. However, we also do not think it’s fair or just for some of the most vulnerable — cancer patients, children with seizures, people diagnosed with MS and other painful health issues — or their families to be burdened with paying for his office’s prosecutors.
In reality, a tax on a prescribed medication with a very small patient base — less than 1 percent of the state’s population is projected to qualify for medical cannabis — would not provide enough funding for prosecutors to expedite that backlog though the courts. Especially when the additional tax will incentivize patients to send their business elsewhere.
The Compassion Act includes a built-in 9 percent excise tax which is earmarked to fund future medical cannabis research in addition to any relevant local or state sales taxes. If approved, the proposed local tax would increase the cost of medical cannabis sales in Cullman County between 33 and 34 percent more than the gross sales total.
That’s nearly three times the amount of local taxes on hard liquor sales.
At that price, and with insurance not covering any of the cost, why would anyone spend a dime in Cullman County if they’re able to travel a county over where there isn’t an additional tax?
It’s not a stretch to assume those who can’t afford to travel won’t be able to afford the additional money they’d have to spend on their medication in Cullman County. That leaves the option of not getting their medication or the Black Market, which ironically would put them in the cross-hairs of the district attorney’s office.
Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission member Sam Blakemore is a pharmacist who has seen first-hand what can happen when medicine it out of someone’s price range.
“We are always going to be competing against the Black Market. Price sensitivity is real. Inflation is real. People not being able to get their medications because they are too expensive is very real.”
Crocker said his ultimate goal was “to solve the immediate needs of the DA’s office.”
We believe the immediate needs of the sick and financially burdened due to healthcare costs should come first.
It’s those people Blakemore focuses on.
“I grew up in the Baptist Church and they used to call it ‘helping the sick and the shut in.’ That’s what I sit and think about, the people who are needing this medicine the most with this initial roll out, are people who are having hundreds of seizures, cancer or MS. We are talking about some of the sickest people in the state. As a healthcare provider, it’s easy to see that. It’s your duty. But, a lot of it has to do with your day-in and day-out reality. If you aren’t around people who are sick everyday, you might not think it’s a big deal.”
We think it’s a big deal.
We think it’s wrong to tax medication.
We think it’s wrong to burden the sick financially with clearing a DA’s backlog of cases.
The voters of Cullman County should do what is morally right for ‘‘the sick and the shut in” and vote “No” on Local Amendment 1.
