Washington: House Bill Aims To Tax Marijuana Brand Names
- Thread starter axxess
- Start date
This is what happens when you open the pandora's box, they roll out with a heap of new taxes.
greekgardner
Member
typical bullshit
House Bill 1976, as heard by the House Finance Committee, would tax $3.60 per $1,000 of "assessed value" on "all trademarks, trade names, brand names, patents and copyrights related to marijuana," reports Rachel La Corte of The Associated Press.
The bill doesn't specify how those "values" would be determined, and instead says the Department of Revenue can "adopt rules" for determining those amounts. So it sounds suspiciously as if the department could tax almost any amount they wanted, depending on how highly they decide to arbitrarily value the brand names.
well we've all seen how they value weed when they wanna blow up the stats.
The bill doesn't specify how those "values" would be determined, and instead says the Department of Revenue can "adopt rules" for determining those amounts. So it sounds suspiciously as if the department could tax almost any amount they wanted, depending on how highly they decide to arbitrarily value the brand names.
well we've all seen how they value weed when they wanna blow up the stats.
I heard back in the 70's that names were already patented. "Columbian Golds" "Panama Reds" I remember (sorta) discussing it many times whilst dreaming about legalization. Stoner rumors at the time I guess.
This is about State control and excessive revenue capture.
Notice that there is no provision for personal growers. All commercial.
Do you pay a tax of 25% per stage on your tomatoes or celery?
Tax on Sunkist?
States require you to be a business grower, so why not have the exact tax structure as every other commercial farmer in the State has to pay?
What makes cannabis different than any other consumable good?
They're not even bothering to wander down the road they took with tobacco by adding 'sin taxes' as punitive penalties. Just a bit at first, and then?
25% per stage is robbery and they know it.
Does the grower who knows a State Rep. get a license while the other unconnected grower get refused? Who makes that determination?
Without the ability to grow in your back yard like any gardener is plain nonsense.
It's not freedom. It's extortion in disguise.
Wake up Washington. Don't let the vultures spoil the victory.
Notice that there is no provision for personal growers. All commercial.
Do you pay a tax of 25% per stage on your tomatoes or celery?
Tax on Sunkist?
States require you to be a business grower, so why not have the exact tax structure as every other commercial farmer in the State has to pay?
What makes cannabis different than any other consumable good?
They're not even bothering to wander down the road they took with tobacco by adding 'sin taxes' as punitive penalties. Just a bit at first, and then?
25% per stage is robbery and they know it.
Does the grower who knows a State Rep. get a license while the other unconnected grower get refused? Who makes that determination?
Without the ability to grow in your back yard like any gardener is plain nonsense.
It's not freedom. It's extortion in disguise.
Wake up Washington. Don't let the vultures spoil the victory.
M
mugenbao
Patent <> Trademark
Patent <> Trademark
Names are not patentable.
.
Patent <> Trademark
Pretty much stoner rumor, yeah. I see people repeat this quite often though, which is why it's such a persistent idea. Most often the claim is that the government "patented" the names as some sort of repressive tactic.
Names are not patentable.
A quick search of the Trademark database reveals that "Panama Red" has been trademarked. Some examples:
.
