• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Taxing pot could become a political toking point

marduc

marduc

don't panic
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
5,954
Reaction score
4,503
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Taxing pot could become a political toking point - Los Angeles Times

An assemblyman from San Francisco announced legislation Monday to do just that: make California the first state in the nation to tax and regulate recreational marijuana in the same manner as alcohol.
Click to expand...

another quote from Ammiano on the issue, albeit from a different source (one that is admittedly biased, but at the front lines on the issue, and its the quote that is of note):

NORML Blog Blog Archive NORML Breaking News: California Assemblyman Introduces Legislation To Tax And Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol

“With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes”, Assemblyman Ammiano said. “California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana.”
Click to expand...

Yes it really is common sense, public opinion in CA is in favor of legalization of marijuana, question is is the state legislature ready for it, could California's financial woes be the impetus for a state finally adopting realistic Marijuana legislation??

I think Ammiano is my new hero.. Kudos!
 
Good, in addition it will save the state money in police, prison and court resources but I hope this man is up to the task in fighting to Drug Warriors. They are a powerful bunch.
 
More on the issue:

San Francisco - The Snitch - Get Up, Stand Up: Ammiano Introduces Marijuana Legalization Bill to the Press

This is from a press conference, where along with Ammiano a recently retired Orange Count Judge spoke out:

But the morning's most forceful speaker was Judge James P. Gray, who retired from his 25-year post on the Orange County Superior Court six weeks ago...

..."I served 25 years on the bench and I've seen the results of this attempted prohibition. It doesn't make marijuana less available, but it does clog the court system," said the judge.

"The stronger we get on marijuana, the softer we get with regard to all other prosecutions because we have only so many resources. And we at this moment, have thousands of people in state prison right this minute who did nothing but smoke marijuana."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
Taxing pot could become a political toking point - Los Angeles Times



another quote from Ammiano on the issue, albeit from a different source (one that is admittedly biased, but at the front lines on the issue, and its the quote that is of note):

NORML Blog Blog Archive NORML Breaking News: California Assemblyman Introduces Legislation To Tax And Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol



Yes it really is common sense, public opinion in CA is in favor of legalization of marijuana, question is is the state legislature ready for it, could California's financial woes be the impetus for a state finally adopting realistic Marijuana legislation??

I think Ammiano is my new hero.. Kudos!
Click to expand...

The federal government wouldn't allow them to do that even though it's completely a State issue.
 
Ikari said:
The federal government wouldn't allow them to do that even though it's completely a State issue.
Click to expand...

Considering drugs are regulated under the CDER(FDA) then I fail to see how this is a State's issue.
 
The idea seems prudent, logical and makes too much sense. The federal government will surely not allow it. :rofl
 
Ikari said:
The federal government wouldn't allow them to do that even though it's completely a State issue.
Click to expand...

Just as the federal Government does not currently allow medical marijuana. Aside from a few token busts, the DEA and federal government does not have the resources to harp pester and pursue the millions of people at the user end of the spectrum. For the most part the millions and millions of people who are incarcerated, or carry misdemeanor priors are a result of prosecution at the state level.

California police officials are constitutionally obligated (state) to uphold STATE laws, not federal.

IF the DEA and the federal government started interfering on a large scale and started meddling in the affairs of recreational users, and a few small time growers who are state sanctioned there will be a MASSIVE public outcry over this issue, the public is become more and more aware that the federal laws and scheduling is archaic and senseless, this is a crack in the foundation towards eroding those archaic laws, and if they intervene in a large scale fashion this will become a VERY inflammatory issue, VERY quickly.
 
marduc said:
California police officials are constitutionally obligated (state) to uphold STATE laws, not federal.
Click to expand...

Not true. Cause in Colorado we passed laws that essentially decriminalized weed. We were tired of arrests and wasting money on it. We were told that we will keep it illegal and we will keep policing it. Look at the California case that went to the SCOTUS and they used interstate commerce on a completely in-state issue to force the federal law onto the State. The federal government will do anything it can to make sure it's top dog; lie, steal, and cheat it doesn't matter. Don't think that if you make this legal and taxable that you won't call down the federal government. It's not that I'd disagree with CA and maybe they could win in the end (I would certainly hope so, open the door for the entire dissolution of the War on Drugs...waste of time and money that it is). It's that I think the federal government hates not being listened to and they get all huffy and puffy about it. Don't trust those bastards for a second.
 
Ikari said:
Not true. Cause in Colorado we passed laws that essentially decriminalized weed. We were tired of arrests and wasting money on it. We were told that we will keep it illegal and we will keep policing it. Look at the California case that went to the SCOTUS and they used interstate commerce on a completely in-state issue to force the federal law onto the State. The federal government will do anything it can to make sure it's top dog; lie, steal, and cheat it doesn't matter. Don't think that if you make this legal and taxable that you won't call down the federal government. It's not that I'd disagree with CA and maybe they could win in the end (I would certainly hope so, open the door for the entire dissolution of the War on Drugs...waste of time and money that it is). It's that I think the federal government hates not being listened to and they get all huffy and puffy about it. Don't trust those bastards for a second.
Click to expand...

Yet if zero cannabis arrests were made by state officials, along with a lack of cooperation in investigations, it would undoubtedly overwhelm the California DEA. Every DEA agent attempting to shut down a medi-pot dispensary is one less agent investigating fentanyl laced heroin deaths. Or how about crooked doctors who prescribe opiates, barbiturates, and amphetamines for anyone?

Give them one year of true legalization, and watch other states follow. Jail populations will fall, drug arrests will fall, gang shootings over cannabis will fall, and best of all: black market profits for drug dealers will lower the price considerably while dramatically increasing supply.

Call it an Economic Stimulus Package for Pot Smokers
 
Ikari said:
Not true. Cause in Colorado we passed laws that essentially decriminalized weed. We were tired of arrests and wasting money on it. We were told that we will keep it illegal and we will keep policing it. Look at the California case that went to the SCOTUS and they used interstate commerce on a completely in-state issue to force the federal law onto the State. The federal government will do anything it can to make sure it's top dog; lie, steal, and cheat it doesn't matter. Don't think that if you make this legal and taxable that you won't call down the federal government. It's not that I'd disagree with CA and maybe they could win in the end (I would certainly hope so, open the door for the entire dissolution of the War on Drugs...waste of time and money that it is). It's that I think the federal government hates not being listened to and they get all huffy and puffy about it. Don't trust those bastards for a second.
Click to expand...

I don't trust those bastards, never have.

I am not saying that there won't be issues on the federal level, all this does is clears state officials from the burden of pursuit and enforcement. I am aware of Colorado's decriminalization, and it is also the same in other states AK notably. The fed. allows states to police their own states.

Under our federalist system of government, the states, rather than the federal government, are entrusted to exercise a general police power for the benefit of their citizens. Due to this constitutional division of authority between the federal government and the states, the State of California may elect to decriminalize conduct, such as medical marijuana activity, which remains illegal under federal law.
Click to expand...

ASA*:*Federal Marijuana Law

Under California's medical marijuana laws, patients and caregivers are exempt from prosecution by the State of California, notwithstanding contrary federal law.
Click to expand...

this will be the same if this bill gets passed.

In People v. Kelly (1869), it was determined that "State tribunals have no power to punish crimes against the laws of the United States as such. The same act may, in some instances, be an offense against the laws of both, and it is only an offense against the State laws that it can be punished by the State, in any event."
Click to expand...

States are still allowed to enact their own laws on matters into their own legislation independant of Federal law. Will it still be illegal to use marijuana in California? yes. Will California do anything about it?? aside form collecting $50/ OZ. from the cultivators, no.

Will the Fed be up in arms?? yes

Will they be able to anything about Californias right to put its own laws on its own books? no

Will California courts be bound to uphold Federal laws?? unless a 140 year old ruling is suddenly overturned, NO, just the state laws as is should be the case.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Yet if zero cannabis arrests were made by state officials, along with a lack of cooperation in investigations, it would undoubtedly overwhelm the California DEA. Every DEA agent attempting to shut down a medi-pot dispensary is one less agent investigating fentanyl laced heroin deaths. Or how about crooked doctors who prescribe opiates, barbiturates, and amphetamines for anyone?

Give them one year of true legalization, and watch other states follow. Jail populations will fall, drug arrests will fall, gang shootings over cannabis will fall, and best of all: black market profits for drug dealers will lower the price considerably while dramatically increasing supply.

Call it an Economic Stimulus Package for Pot Smokers
Click to expand...

There are lots of net positive, neutral things which come from pot legalization. I'm not arguing against it. I'm saying the State will enforce the law of the federal government tells them they have to enforce the law. This isn't just about law enforcement being physically out there. Yeah in that case the whole of the CA law enforcement could leave it to federal officials and they wouldn't have the manpower to do it. But this is also about the money, the federal government is not above blackmail. Why is the drinking age 21? The age is a State issue. It's that way because the federal government says "it will be 21, or you aren't getting this federal highway money". They control a hell of a lot more than federal highway money, they control a lot of money that goes to the State and they are not afraid to play that card. You make it legal and refuse to acknowledge the federal government as the sovereign, and you're cut off. Never mind that the money is the People's and that we want to government to use it for certain things like roads and police and stuff. They'll take our money and use it any way that benefits them.

Do not trust those bastards for a second. All they want is their power and their control and they'll use any means to get it. The federal government will not let California do this. Not without consequence. It's like defying the Don.
 
Ikari said:
There are lots of net positive, neutral things which come from pot legalization. I'm not arguing against it. I'm saying the State will enforce the law of the federal government tells them they have to enforce the law. This isn't just about law enforcement being physically out there. Yeah in that case the whole of the CA law enforcement could leave it to federal officials and they wouldn't have the manpower to do it. But this is also about the money, the federal government is not above blackmail. Why is the drinking age 21? The age is a State issue. It's that way because the federal government says "it will be 21, or you aren't getting this federal highway money". They control a hell of a lot more than federal highway money, they control a lot of money that goes to the State and they are not afraid to play that card. You make it legal and refuse to acknowledge the federal government as the sovereign, and you're cut off. Never mind that the money is the People's and that we want to government to use it for certain things like roads and police and stuff. They'll take our money and use it any way that benefits them.

Do not trust those bastards for a second. All they want is their power and their control and they'll use any means to get it. The federal government will not let California do this. Not without consequence. It's like defying the Don.
Click to expand...

They have to find a way to get revenues, otherwise the Fed Gov will have to step in. Once they open that can of worms, every state will be lining up.

Currently, the state and local police do not raid dispensaries ,while the DEA makes their presence known. The issue is much less encompassing given our current state of affairs.
 
Hatuey said:
Considering drugs are regulated under the CDER(FDA) then I fail to see how this is a State's issue.
Click to expand...

Hatuey: I never chalenge you on anything you say because you`re always right :doh ...NOT. On this point you are incorrect. Weed is a weed,an herb, a vegitable, a textile, and probably a few more things could be said about it,but it is not a drug. They,(the federalies) have resisted the temptation to classify it as a drug because people would be a big step closer to the MEDICINAL CLASSIFICATION and that would mess it up for the eliments in our government that want to keep it off the list of herbal medicines... Or some such nonsense as that. Of this I am sure you will agree. :mrgreen: It makes a great cigarette,...not the smoothest of smokes but rightious anyway. :cool:
 
Rodney said:
Hatuey: I never chalenge you on anything you say because you`re always right :doh ...NOT. On this point you are incorrect. Weed is a weed,an herb, a vegitable, a textile, and probably a few more things could be said about it,but it is not a drug. They,(the federalies) have resisted the temptation to classify it as a drug because people would be a big step closer to the MEDICINAL CLASSIFICATION and that would mess it up for the eliments in our government that want to keep it off the list of herbal medicines... Or some such nonsense as that. Of this I am sure you will agree. :mrgreen: It makes a great cigarette,...not the smoothest of smokes but rightious anyway. :cool:
Click to expand...

You're telling hatuey this?

You ever hear that old phrase...

poster_02_preaching.jpg
 
Goldenboy219 said:
They have to find a way to get revenues, otherwise the Fed Gov will have to step in. Once they open that can of worms, every state will be lining up.

Currently, the state and local police do not raid dispensaries ,while the DEA makes their presence known. The issue is much less encompassing given our current state of affairs.
Click to expand...

Well I wish them luck then. I definitely think this is 100% within the State's ability to do. I just don't trust the federal government to keep its nose to its own damned business.
 
Captain America said:
The idea seems prudent, logical and makes too much sense. The federal government will surely not allow it. :rofl
Click to expand...

IIRC the specifics of Ammiano's proposal is that each ounce of pot be taxed $50.

A tax of $50/oz.

And that they'd hope to raise $1.5 Billion in revenue.
 
bhkad said:
IIRC the specifics of Ammiano's proposal is that each ounce of pot be taxed $50.

A tax of $50/oz.

And that they'd hope to raise $1.5 Billion in revenue.
Click to expand...

Is that daily? :shock:

Seriously though, annually?
 
bhkad said:
$50 each oz to get $1.5 Billion annually.

They say.

The tax seems high and the revenue seems low.
Click to expand...
I agree. Although, if legalized, I wouldn't purchase it. I would grow it. Maybe they are taking that into account.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
I agree. Although, if legalized, I wouldn't purchase it. I would grow it. Maybe they are taking that into account.
Click to expand...

Too bad for the rest of the pot loving population the proposal would affect only residents of California.
 
bhkad said:
Too bad for the rest of the pot loving population the proposal would affect only residents of California.
Click to expand...

It has to start somewhere.
 
Ikari said:
There are lots of net positive, neutral things which come from pot legalization. I'm not arguing against it. I'm saying the State will enforce the law of the federal government tells them they have to enforce the law. This isn't just about law enforcement being physically out there. Yeah in that case the whole of the CA law enforcement could leave it to federal officials and they wouldn't have the manpower to do it. But this is also about the money, the federal government is not above blackmail. Why is the drinking age 21? The age is a State issue. It's that way because the federal government says "it will be 21, or you aren't getting this federal highway money". They control a hell of a lot more than federal highway money, they control a lot of money that goes to the State and they are not afraid to play that card. You make it legal and refuse to acknowledge the federal government as the sovereign, and you're cut off. Never mind that the money is the People's and that we want to government to use it for certain things like roads and police and stuff. They'll take our money and use it any way that benefits them.

Do not trust those bastards for a second. All they want is their power and their control and they'll use any means to get it. The federal government will not let California do this. Not without consequence. It's like defying the Don.
Click to expand...

There is something similar in a proposal for the healthcare "solutions" regarding electronic medical records being given over to reveiw by a federal bureacracy. I believe for so many years, doctors are to be given "incentives"(i.e. tax payer money) to join the system that is set up and adhere to it. After so many years, the doctors that are not on board will be penalized.

The federal government has long gotten people to give up rights by dangling a carrot in front of them. And if you don't try to take the carrot, you get beaten.
 
California NORML Report
by Dale Gieringer, Ph.D. - Updated Feb. 2009
Marijuana Legalization Could Yield California Taxpayers Over $1.2 Billion Per Year

Additional Spinoff Benefits Up To $12 -$18 Billion

While California struggles to address the state's swelling budget deficit, the legalization of marijuana looms as an attractive way of raising revenue for the state.

California NORML estimates that a legally regulated market for marijuana could yield the state at least $1.2 billion in tax revenues and reduced enforcement costs. A basic $50/ounce excise tax (roughly $1/joint) would yield about $770 - 900 million per year plus another $240-360 million in sales taxes. In addition, the state would save over $170 million in enforcement costs for arrests, prosecutions and prison. Additional benefits would accrue from increased employment and spinoff industries. Total retail sales of marijuana could be on the order of $3-$5 billion, with total economic impact of $12-$18 billion including spinoff industries such as coffeehouses, tourism, plus industrial hemp.

California NORML's analysis of the benefits of marijuana legalization are as follows:

* An excise tax of $50 per ounce of marijuana would raise about $770 - 900 million per year.

* Retail sales on the legal market would range from $3 - $4.5 billion, generating another $240 - 360 million in sales taxes.

* Legalization would save over $170 million in law enforcement costs for arrest, prosecution, trial and imprisonment of marijuana offenders. Need for CAMP helicopter surveillance would also be eliminated.

* Based on experience with the cigarette tax, total revenues of $1.5 - $2.5 billion might ultiimately be realized.

* Based on experience with the wine industry, the total economic activity generated by legal marijuana could be nearly four times as great as retail sales, around $12 - $18 billion. Amsterdam-style coffeehouses would generate jobs and tourism. If the marijuana industry were just one-third the size of the wine industry, it would generate 50,000 jobs and $1.4 billion in wages, along with additional income and business tax revenues for the state.

* Industrial hemp could also become a major business, comparable to the $3.4 billion cotton industry in California.

Details of California NORML's analysis follow below.

Revenue from Taxation of Legal Marijuana:

(A) Consumption: More than 1.95 million Californians
Click to expand...

Continued at link.

Benefits of Marijuana Legalization in California

The NORML website is here:

NORML Blog Blog Archive NORML Breaking News: California Assemblyman Introduces Legislation To Tax And Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol
 
bhkad said:
$50 each oz to get $1.5 Billion annually.

They say.

The tax seems high and the revenue seems low.
Click to expand...

While I agree that it seems they are taking a conservative estimate at the revenue, the tax seems reasonable to me.

First off, If someone is going to be growing it, chances are it will be excellent genetics. Street value on your typical "dank" is minimum $350/oz here, not so sure about california, but probably still somewhere around that ballpark, possibly a bit cheaper. "regs" say at $100/oz.

Pot is a weed, and does not take all that much outlay to grow. Assuming that the grows will be set up in greenhouses (to avoid cross pollination from the inevitable hemp growing that will occur), the cost outlays would be the land itself, the structure, water supply and purification, pesticides, fertilizer and labor (minimal, for many it will be a labor of love). If done in an indoor grow, add cost of electricity for the lights.

With yields of a couple of ounces per plant, and a plant per square foot, even if the dank sold at reg prices ($100/oz - to eliminate ppl taking the cheap way out with mexican regs) and half the markup went to the grower, and the other half to the retailer, this is a gross revenue of $50/square foot say every 2 months with an efficient turnaround time between harvests. So $25/square foot per month. This would translate to $25,000 gross revenue monthly, for a 1000 square foot grow, or an area roughly the size of a small apartment. I think that will cover the costs for property, a few chemicals, a bit of labor, and still have AMPLE profit margin to spare there.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom