-
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"!
ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
- Thread starter JJScorpio
- Start date
- Status
...and you really think in this economy every city will turn down the chance to bring millions of dollars of revenue to their community while removing the costs associated with LE having to go after marijuana busts? You may think so, but common sense proves otherwise:
OK, so your tax argument is proven bogus and debunked... What else do you have up your sleeve to fear monger the vote?
Last edited:
Dizzle.. READ THE FUCKING THREAD!
We already discussed this... exact.. piece of data you are posting up. In the last 2 pages! READ THE FUCKING THREAD BEFORE YOU REGURGITATE BULLSHIT.
Oh and BTW - you don't have to vote for these taxation measures in Rancho Cordova in order to vote YES on Prop 19.... They are SEPARATE and NOT INCLUSIVE.
Fuck prop 19 until they get some kind of language in it that states exactly what the taxes are, how they're collected, etc.
The supporters of this prop can call it a beginning or whatever you to fluff it up as. Until the there is comprehensive language in the prop itself there will be plenty of cities/counties coming up with bullshit like Rancho Cordova is. Since many of the cities and counties in the state are broke, just like the state, you can expect to see a lot more cities, counties and probably the state attempting to collect wind fall taxes of the cultivation of marijuana.
Nowhere could I find if this proposed tax ($72,900 per year for my flower room alone) is only applicable to recreational growing or if in fact it includes medical grows as well.
LINK
The supporters of this prop can call it a beginning or whatever you to fluff it up as. Until the there is comprehensive language in the prop itself there will be plenty of cities/counties coming up with bullshit like Rancho Cordova is. Since many of the cities and counties in the state are broke, just like the state, you can expect to see a lot more cities, counties and probably the state attempting to collect wind fall taxes of the cultivation of marijuana.
Nowhere could I find if this proposed tax ($72,900 per year for my flower room alone) is only applicable to recreational growing or if in fact it includes medical grows as well.
LINK
When you manage to do that, let me know.
Well, as has already been pointed out: they'll have a hard time passing the taxation of personal growers.
If they tax SELLERS... that would just make marijuana a legitimate commodity like anything else.
This proposed tax is only in Rancho Cordova and only if it passes. They have two items besides prop 19 they are trying to pass. One would tax the sale of herb in their city and the other would potentially tax the home grower.. however in their own agenda they admit that this second one will be: difficult to enforce and not likely to get voted in.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/weed-wars/2...ies-measure-to-tax-marijuana-cultivators.html
I suggest you consider moving from Rancho Cordova if they manage to pass these regulations. (Or keep your head down and likely escape without paying any taxes.)
Passing Prop 19 will NOT cause Rancho Cordova's taxation regulations to pass. You have to be a registered voter in Rancho Cordova and vote YES for each of these two proposed regulations for them to take effect.
http://blogs.sacbee.com/weed-wars/2...ies-measure-to-tax-marijuana-cultivators.html
what is that all about? i thought the 25 sf were for personal use not for sale, so where is the taxable event? is this even true? that's a pretty hefty tax to levy on what's supposed to be personal use. and even med users have to pay it? where do you get that kind of cash to spare as a med users sticking to the rules? i can't believe this thing will pass, it would like force some people to sell part of their crops just to pay hefty tax? just shows how much legalese i know, i thought 19 was giving cities the right to tax the industrial side ie sales and cultivation for sale with a license?
what is that all about? i thought the 25 sf were for personal use not for sale, so where is the taxable event? is this even true? that's a pretty hefty tax to levy on what's supposed to be personal use. and even med users have to pay it? where do you get that kind of cash to spare as a med users sticking to the rules? i can't believe this thing will pass, it would like force some people to sell part of their crops just to pay hefty tax? just shows how much legalese i know, i thought 19 was giving cities the right to tax the industrial side ie sales and cultivation for sale with a license?
mods affecting the reputation of users over political disputes = not cool
So I guess you're of the mindset to pass something and see what's in it or how it will be implicated down the road? I'll pass on that as I've lived here too many years and know how that works out.
there is another thread that this is being discussed on: https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=184166
from what i've seen posted, it sounds like they're trying create or boost a tax based on police/emergency services
rationale seems to be pot growers are criminals(whether it is legal or not be damned)
they might be a able to make some argument for increased use of these services(taking the devil's side), but the rates they are proposing are complete bullshit
those likely won't stand as is
...and you really think in this economy every city will tax it so significantly to run growers and sellers out of town, thus turning down the chance to bring millions of dollars of revenue to their community while removing the costs associated with LE having to go after marijuana busts? You may think so, but common sense proves otherwise:
OK, so your tax argument is proven bogus and debunked... What else do you have up your sleeve to fear monger the vote?
hmmm
hmmm
Do you say that because a mod gave you rep in this thread ? Since when cant a mod give out rep like any other member ?
hmmm
Do you say that because a mod gave you rep in this thread ? Since when cant a mod give out rep like any other member ?
Media's Coverage of Report Spurs 'Reefer Madness'
Media's Coverage of Report Spurs 'Reefer Madness'
MEDIA'S COVERAGE OF REPORT SPURS 'REEFER MADNESS'
The media's take-away message from the recent Rand Institute report on regulating marijuana in California was this: Legalizing pot would lead to a decline in price, followed by an increase in consumption. Rand's actual conclusions, however, were far less newsworthy.
A careful reading of the Rand study finds that its authors were uncertain of how significantly, or insignificantly, pot's retail prices or consumption would be impacted by legalization. Under the passage of Proposition 19 - the marijuana initiative before voters in November - the most likely answer is: not much.
Let's be clear about what Proposition 19 would do. Its immediate effect would be to end the practice of arresting and prosecuting adults in California for the private use of a substance that is objectively less harmful, to both the user and to society, than alcohol.
Doing so will unburden the courts, save millions in taxpayers' dollars, and allow law enforcement to reallocate their resources to focus on targeting more serious crimes.
The long-term effect of this initiative will be to allow communities to explore policies to remove the commercial cultivation and distribution of marijuana away from criminal entrepreneurs and into the hands of licensed, regulated business people.
Doing so will create new jobs and new revenue. As a society we don't tax and regulate alcohol because it's innocuous. We do so because we recognize that booze temporarily alters mood and behavior and thus should be regulated accordingly.
There's no reason why this same principle shouldn't also apply to cannabis. Legalization, coupled with sensible regulations and age restrictions, will limit youth access to pot and better protect public safety.
Would the advent of a legal market for cannabis production and sale lower the product's cost to the consumer, as Rand predicts? Yes, but likely not substantially. After all, cannabis has been legally sold for medical purposes in California for well over a decade, but this legality has caused only a minor decrease in the product's price.
Further, even after the passage of Proposition 19, producers and sellers would still live under the threat of federal prosecution. This "risk premium" will continue to artificially inflate the market value of marijuana for the foreseeable future.
Finally, there will be new, ancillary costs under legalization - such as sales tax, excise taxes, and increased overhead to pay for small business liabilities such as insurance and employee benefits - that would also keep prices elevated.
Rand's concern about skyrocketing consumption also appears specious. Right now virtually anyone in California who wishes to obtain or consume marijuana can do so already, and it is hard to believe that adults who presently abstain from pot would no longer do so simply because certain restrictions on its prohibition were lifted or because its price fluctuated.
Finally, it ought to be noted that unlike alcohol, cannabis is incapable of causing lethal overdose, is relatively nontoxic to healthy cells and organs, and its use is not typically associated with violent, aggressive, or reckless behavior. So then why are we so worried about adults consuming it in the privacy of their own home?
Ultimately, however, quibbling over Rand's suppositions should not cause us to lose sight of the big picture. California lawmakers criminalized the possession and use of marijuana in 1913 - a full 24 years before the federal government enacted prohibition.
Yet, right now in California, the federal government reports that approximately one out of 10 people annually consume about 1.2 million pounds of marijuana. Self-evidently cannabis is here to stay.
Let's address this reality and stop conceding control of this market to unregulated, untaxed criminal enterprises, and put it in the hands of licensed businesses. Proposition 19 is a first step in this direction.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n634/a01.html
Source: Ventura County Star (CA)
Author: Paul Armentano
Media's Coverage of Report Spurs 'Reefer Madness'
MEDIA'S COVERAGE OF REPORT SPURS 'REEFER MADNESS'
The media's take-away message from the recent Rand Institute report on regulating marijuana in California was this: Legalizing pot would lead to a decline in price, followed by an increase in consumption. Rand's actual conclusions, however, were far less newsworthy.
A careful reading of the Rand study finds that its authors were uncertain of how significantly, or insignificantly, pot's retail prices or consumption would be impacted by legalization. Under the passage of Proposition 19 - the marijuana initiative before voters in November - the most likely answer is: not much.
Let's be clear about what Proposition 19 would do. Its immediate effect would be to end the practice of arresting and prosecuting adults in California for the private use of a substance that is objectively less harmful, to both the user and to society, than alcohol.
Doing so will unburden the courts, save millions in taxpayers' dollars, and allow law enforcement to reallocate their resources to focus on targeting more serious crimes.
The long-term effect of this initiative will be to allow communities to explore policies to remove the commercial cultivation and distribution of marijuana away from criminal entrepreneurs and into the hands of licensed, regulated business people.
Doing so will create new jobs and new revenue. As a society we don't tax and regulate alcohol because it's innocuous. We do so because we recognize that booze temporarily alters mood and behavior and thus should be regulated accordingly.
There's no reason why this same principle shouldn't also apply to cannabis. Legalization, coupled with sensible regulations and age restrictions, will limit youth access to pot and better protect public safety.
Would the advent of a legal market for cannabis production and sale lower the product's cost to the consumer, as Rand predicts? Yes, but likely not substantially. After all, cannabis has been legally sold for medical purposes in California for well over a decade, but this legality has caused only a minor decrease in the product's price.
Further, even after the passage of Proposition 19, producers and sellers would still live under the threat of federal prosecution. This "risk premium" will continue to artificially inflate the market value of marijuana for the foreseeable future.
Finally, there will be new, ancillary costs under legalization - such as sales tax, excise taxes, and increased overhead to pay for small business liabilities such as insurance and employee benefits - that would also keep prices elevated.
Rand's concern about skyrocketing consumption also appears specious. Right now virtually anyone in California who wishes to obtain or consume marijuana can do so already, and it is hard to believe that adults who presently abstain from pot would no longer do so simply because certain restrictions on its prohibition were lifted or because its price fluctuated.
Finally, it ought to be noted that unlike alcohol, cannabis is incapable of causing lethal overdose, is relatively nontoxic to healthy cells and organs, and its use is not typically associated with violent, aggressive, or reckless behavior. So then why are we so worried about adults consuming it in the privacy of their own home?
Ultimately, however, quibbling over Rand's suppositions should not cause us to lose sight of the big picture. California lawmakers criminalized the possession and use of marijuana in 1913 - a full 24 years before the federal government enacted prohibition.
Yet, right now in California, the federal government reports that approximately one out of 10 people annually consume about 1.2 million pounds of marijuana. Self-evidently cannabis is here to stay.
Let's address this reality and stop conceding control of this market to unregulated, untaxed criminal enterprises, and put it in the hands of licensed businesses. Proposition 19 is a first step in this direction.
URL: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v10/n634/a01.html
Source: Ventura County Star (CA)
Author: Paul Armentano
And which direction have you seen taxes go in Cali? Down?
IMO this prop needs to be rewritten before it will get a yes vote from me. And this comes from someone who went to prison for 4 years for cultivation in Cali
its pretty degrading to attack someone's reputation just because you don't agree with them... its fair amongst users but you guys should be enforcing rules more than POV. If you're going to argue a POV why not log in under a regular user ACCT and argue like the rest of us.
Are you referring to me or something else?
And which direction have you seen taxes go in Cali? Down?
IMO this prop needs to be rewritten before it will get a yes vote from me. And this comes from someone who went to prison for 4 years for cultivation in Cali
Honestly, I couldnt give a fuck about the taxes. This is not an anti-tax movement, this is a legalization movement. Im guessing if you got 4 years in PRISON rather than county, you were probably growing more than just for yourself....
This is not about richard lee. This is not about taxes. This is not about big biz or any of the other shit you try to make it out to be.
This is for the little guy. This is for your average joe who just wants to have a smoke and maybe throw his hand at growing a few plants.
Did you really expect legalization to be a no tax no regulation free for all? Get real....
as for those fucks at rc
http://www.cityofranchocordova.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5802
as always truth and education always defeat prohibitionists.
dizzle you said if 19 passes you cant feed your fam....why not?
is your gear not up to snuff?
http://www.cityofranchocordova.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5802
as always truth and education always defeat prohibitionists.
dizzle you said if 19 passes you cant feed your fam....why not?
is your gear not up to snuff?
Mods have the right to post their opinions as well as any other members. Your words are what determine your true rep here on ICmag. Want to have a good rep... then think before you spew. Most the time a well thought out response will be excepted by both pro and con.
- Status
