-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
Ammiano to Introduce Legislation Monday to Allow Pot -- and Tax It
- Thread starter RaptorJesus
- Start date
That fucking sucks. Because there are already taxation provisions in existing California law for Cannabis sales. Just means that the rate of taxes and the end cost go up... Tom is cool and was instrumental (with Leno) in getting MMJ in California, but he needs to quit while we are ahead.
they need to do this !!!
then the whole country can follow suit
tax the fuck out of it i don't care, i have no plans to pay taxes :wink:
then the whole country can follow suit
tax the fuck out of it i don't care, i have no plans to pay taxes :wink:
budchopper
Active member
good idea
good idea
$50.oo per OZ??? is that cost of OZ or tax on each OZ???
and how about un-locking up all the nonviolent small time offenders???
good idea
$50.oo per OZ??? is that cost of OZ or tax on each OZ???
and how about un-locking up all the nonviolent small time offenders???
ounces for $50 is their price plan
not of what we grow here maybe mexi schwag for 50 a Z but not whats in my garden. if i gift and am tipped for it, it's 250 a Z.
but hell yea go for it cali
They are estimating taxing 1.25 million pounds of pot per year. That sure sounds like a lot of MJ.
As far as taxes go, $50 per ounce sounds pretty reasonable. The MJ can be taxed one time at the point of sale, saving growers a whole lot of paperwork.
On top of the tax collected, there would be significant savings to law enforcement, the courts and the prison system - not to mention the fact that tourism would probably increase significantly. Hell, Needles might even turn into a popular tourist destination. LOL
...I wonder if the Feds would then erect check points at all the hiways leaving the state?
Just an FYI - California prisons are overcrowded. A federal judge has ordered Cal to either build more prisons or release 40,000 prisoners. The state can't build the prison$, so the judge has ordered that Cal release the 40,000 pretty much in the very near future. Regardless of the outcome or the legalization effort, there is going to be early release for a lot of prisoners. I wrote a letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger suggesting that he consider releasing non-violent marijuana offenders as a first priority; not only because of changing attitudes but also because they posed the least threat to society. Anyone who has time to drop the Gov a letter, it might help get some of our own out of prison.
PC
As far as taxes go, $50 per ounce sounds pretty reasonable. The MJ can be taxed one time at the point of sale, saving growers a whole lot of paperwork.
On top of the tax collected, there would be significant savings to law enforcement, the courts and the prison system - not to mention the fact that tourism would probably increase significantly. Hell, Needles might even turn into a popular tourist destination. LOL
...I wonder if the Feds would then erect check points at all the hiways leaving the state?
Just an FYI - California prisons are overcrowded. A federal judge has ordered Cal to either build more prisons or release 40,000 prisoners. The state can't build the prison$, so the judge has ordered that Cal release the 40,000 pretty much in the very near future. Regardless of the outcome or the legalization effort, there is going to be early release for a lot of prisoners. I wrote a letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger suggesting that he consider releasing non-violent marijuana offenders as a first priority; not only because of changing attitudes but also because they posed the least threat to society. Anyone who has time to drop the Gov a letter, it might help get some of our own out of prison.
PC
The first two points make sense. But a $50 an ounce tax? That only drives the cost up. There is already a provision for taxing mj, just read the California attorney generals guidelines for medical marijuana. If you are a legit medical producer you have to get a sellers permit (just like any business that sells anything in California) so you can pay sales tax. I think extra taxes are unnecessary because of those tax provisions that allready exist. With the way taxes work. The growers will have to pay $50 per ounce, and then anyone reselling it will probably also have to pay $50 per ounce tax. Thats an extra $100 an ounce by the time it gets to the consumer.
Great info Pharma! I have been following this story too and wondered what the govenator would do now that he cant ship prisoners out of the state. That should be done immediately for marijuana offenders for sure if that is how they are gonna proceed.
HindukushMaster
Active member
When will they be voting on this prop, today or in the near future? my coworker has been buggin the shit outta me all day askin
http://www.sacbee.com/breaking/story/1646399.html
Bill would legalize, tax marijuana
ShareThis
By Jim Sanders
jsanders@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Feb. 23, 2009 - 10:32 am
Last Modified: Monday, Feb. 23, 2009 - 11:59 am
California may be going to pot - literally.
Marijuana would be grown and sold openly to adults 21 and older under legislation introduced this morning by a San Francisco lawmaker.
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said the cash-starved state could generate more than a billion dollars by taxing pot growers and sellers.
Ammiano predicted that the public would support loosening marijuana laws that require substantial public funds to enforce.
"I think there's a mentality throughout the state and the country that this isn't the highest priority," he said. "And that maybe we should start to reassess."
Before California could legalize marijuana, however, it also might have to persuade the federal government to alter its prohibition on cannabis.
Ammiano said federal officials may be receptive to such changes under the administration of President Barack Obama.
"We may be on a parallel track here," said Ammiano, a freshman legislator who was sworn into office less than three months ago.
The Drug Policy Alliance, an advocate of loosening pot laws, applauded Ammiano's proposal.
"Marijuana already plays a huge role in the California economy," said Stephen Gutwillig, the group's California state director. "It's a revenue opportunity we literally can't afford to ignore any longer."
Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, said legalizing marijuana would be a bad idea. He said he considers pot a "gateway drug" from which many users graduate to harder and more dangerous substances.
"I don't think we're particularly well served in our society to further accommodate or even encourage something that's going to be unproductive and damaging to the individual -- especially not for the reason of generating revenue," he said.
Ammiano's bill, Assembly Bill 390, would allow marijuana to be sold openly - like alcohol - in retail outlets statewide.
The state would gain by charging sellers a fee of $50 per ounce. Pot growers also would be charged under the measure.
Driving under the influence of marijuana would continue to be illegal.
AB 390 calls for numerous other restrictions, such as banning use near schools or growing cannabis in public view, according to Ammiano aides.
Besides generating new tax revenue, Ammiano said his bill would save money by easing pressure on law enforcement and prisons.
"People in general are supportive," he said.
Ammiano said he hopes that legalizing pot could be a step toward avoiding shortfalls as large as the recent $40 billion projection that prompted months of partisan fighting and, ultimately, tense all-night sessions last week before agreement was reached on a new budget.
"After being locked up with my colleagues for three days, I never want to do that again," Ammiano said, chuckling.
Bill would legalize, tax marijuana
ShareThis
By Jim Sanders
jsanders@sacbee.com
Published: Monday, Feb. 23, 2009 - 10:32 am
Last Modified: Monday, Feb. 23, 2009 - 11:59 am
California may be going to pot - literally.
Marijuana would be grown and sold openly to adults 21 and older under legislation introduced this morning by a San Francisco lawmaker.
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, said the cash-starved state could generate more than a billion dollars by taxing pot growers and sellers.
Ammiano predicted that the public would support loosening marijuana laws that require substantial public funds to enforce.
"I think there's a mentality throughout the state and the country that this isn't the highest priority," he said. "And that maybe we should start to reassess."
Before California could legalize marijuana, however, it also might have to persuade the federal government to alter its prohibition on cannabis.
Ammiano said federal officials may be receptive to such changes under the administration of President Barack Obama.
"We may be on a parallel track here," said Ammiano, a freshman legislator who was sworn into office less than three months ago.
The Drug Policy Alliance, an advocate of loosening pot laws, applauded Ammiano's proposal.
"Marijuana already plays a huge role in the California economy," said Stephen Gutwillig, the group's California state director. "It's a revenue opportunity we literally can't afford to ignore any longer."
Assemblyman Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, said legalizing marijuana would be a bad idea. He said he considers pot a "gateway drug" from which many users graduate to harder and more dangerous substances.
"I don't think we're particularly well served in our society to further accommodate or even encourage something that's going to be unproductive and damaging to the individual -- especially not for the reason of generating revenue," he said.
Ammiano's bill, Assembly Bill 390, would allow marijuana to be sold openly - like alcohol - in retail outlets statewide.
The state would gain by charging sellers a fee of $50 per ounce. Pot growers also would be charged under the measure.
Driving under the influence of marijuana would continue to be illegal.
AB 390 calls for numerous other restrictions, such as banning use near schools or growing cannabis in public view, according to Ammiano aides.
Besides generating new tax revenue, Ammiano said his bill would save money by easing pressure on law enforcement and prisons.
"People in general are supportive," he said.
Ammiano said he hopes that legalizing pot could be a step toward avoiding shortfalls as large as the recent $40 billion projection that prompted months of partisan fighting and, ultimately, tense all-night sessions last week before agreement was reached on a new budget.
"After being locked up with my colleagues for three days, I never want to do that again," Ammiano said, chuckling.
George
Active member
Haha oh the irony!!! mr roger neillo says he doesnt think its good to let us use marijuana because its unproductive and damaging to onesself and then adds especially when the whole point is to generate revenue...
let me ask you something mr neillo...so what is alcohol? or ciagarettes? you hypocritic fuck
let me ask you something mr neillo...so what is alcohol? or ciagarettes? you hypocritic fuck
George
Active member
i see what you mean. for some reason i mistook it as meaning state provided marijuana will be 50 an ounce lol. but yea 50 on top of that is a little steep, but then again if everyone can legally grow there own then the consumer can too, or he can reap the benefits of suply and demand. the supply will be sky high and there wont be things like 400 dollar ounces or whatever. i assume so anyways.
if prices are already way above $100
i believe we will NEVER see it lower than that
just not how things work here
it will remain where its at or go even higher
my
i believe we will NEVER see it lower than that
just not how things work here
it will remain where its at or go even higher
my
B
B. Self Reliant
Morally speaking, I don't believe that taxing a plant is a good thing. However, if it is going to be taxed, I'd rather it be a state than the Feds. The Feds already have a bunch of taxes that are unconstitutional and morally corrupt! That having been said, overall I'd say that this would be a good thing if it was passed.
Considering the only stipulation is that it can't be grown in plain sight, I think it would save folks a lot of cash. For example, let's say that a personal grower with a 600 watt lamp produces 1 pound every 2 months. That's a pretty generous estimate considering that most people take breaks or are growing longer flowering strains, or aren't pulling 1 pound per harvest anyways. That would be 6 pounds per year. Now add up electricity, the start-up cost of growing indoors, the stress and sacrifices that one deals with as a grower (medical or not). It's an expensive and life-changing endeavor! Under no fear of legal repercussions, that same grower could produce that same 6 pounds of bud per year in an outdoor garden in one harvest if they were so inclined, and they could do it without electricity bills, legal fears, high start up costs, or worrying about a garden in an "off-limits" part of the house year round. It would certainly change the game quite a bit, but it would open up options to many people. How many folks on this forum alone grow in a fucking cabinet because it's all they can afford to do? That lame-ass shit would end if they could grow on their apartment's balcony or in their backyard or whatever else.
Passing a law and seeing it happen are two different things though. The medical laws that are on the books now aren't respected by many counties or cities, so I'm not sure what would be so different about this. I understand that it would be harder for the DEA to enforce their BS on a state full of growers, whereas they can easily have an impact on a relatively small medical community, but what about counties such as Ventura or San Diego that have never had an ounce of respect for cannabis laws? Who's to say that they will allow this to happen in their communities? I hope reality proves me wrong. . .
Considering the only stipulation is that it can't be grown in plain sight, I think it would save folks a lot of cash. For example, let's say that a personal grower with a 600 watt lamp produces 1 pound every 2 months. That's a pretty generous estimate considering that most people take breaks or are growing longer flowering strains, or aren't pulling 1 pound per harvest anyways. That would be 6 pounds per year. Now add up electricity, the start-up cost of growing indoors, the stress and sacrifices that one deals with as a grower (medical or not). It's an expensive and life-changing endeavor! Under no fear of legal repercussions, that same grower could produce that same 6 pounds of bud per year in an outdoor garden in one harvest if they were so inclined, and they could do it without electricity bills, legal fears, high start up costs, or worrying about a garden in an "off-limits" part of the house year round. It would certainly change the game quite a bit, but it would open up options to many people. How many folks on this forum alone grow in a fucking cabinet because it's all they can afford to do? That lame-ass shit would end if they could grow on their apartment's balcony or in their backyard or whatever else.
Passing a law and seeing it happen are two different things though. The medical laws that are on the books now aren't respected by many counties or cities, so I'm not sure what would be so different about this. I understand that it would be harder for the DEA to enforce their BS on a state full of growers, whereas they can easily have an impact on a relatively small medical community, but what about counties such as Ventura or San Diego that have never had an ounce of respect for cannabis laws? Who's to say that they will allow this to happen in their communities? I hope reality proves me wrong. . .
