[SG1]

That will be a good use of high grade trim.
The bill doesn't specify that the 2% has to be top shelf bud.

I hate entitlement, I hate that those who choose the easy path to nothingness, then expect their hands and faces to stay full for free.
With 1/3 of americans on welfare/govment cheese, seems to be trending.

So just like taxes, if you gotta pay, you gotta pay.
So if I had to give away 2% to keep a business license, I'd do it.
I'd be handing out fat sacks of frosty shake, and then watching their un-grateful faces sour.
Hell I'll hand out 5%, being a generous fella.

Ah yes, entitlement, God Bless!!!!!!!!!

[Growcephus]

Originally Posted by Bud Green Sr.

Legislating charity is NOT what charity is all about....

You don't force people to be charitable....

Forced charity was popular back in the day, but they didn't call it that, they called it SLAVERY. But I guess as long as it's for "the poor", slavery is fine, right?

No.

It's not.

Ever.

Not even if it's for "only" 2% of your product.

[KGB47]

There's an easier solution that hasn't been discussed. Move out of Berkley.

[Ichabod Crane]

Originally Posted by KGB47

There's an easier solution that hasn't been discussed. Move out of Berkley.

Then who does that help. No one it just makes it unavailable for everyone.

The problem comes when there is no place to move to. Then it becomes a black market again. Just like cigarettes in New York. Taxes so high it creates crime syndicates. But hey the people who want to give away your stuff with out your consent don't care right. Heartless bastards would have people go with out as long as they look like the good big hearted guys today. All the while making you a slave to the government that created the problem in the first place.

[Bud Green Sr.]

If the gov't., be it local, state, or federal, is gonna FORCE these dispensaries to be charitable, at LEAST call it by the proper name:

Taxes, Fees, Tolls, Levies or Tariffs.....

[Space Toker]

whether you realize it, there are those that are theoretically able-bodied but in reality it is not that simple and black and white. What if someone was physically able but had mental issues and forcing them to "work" caused then to shoot up the office from the stress, whereas society pays a lesser price by letting them stay home and avoid judgmental people that look down on them and cause them to snap? What if someone has medical issues and going to work causes them to lose benefits and they can't get equal or better medical insurance to cover their costs and can't afford their meds? My mom on cancer could not work, she could barely maintain consciousness. I could not work, I was like 8 then you honestly think I could have done any better? I'm sure someone can tell me a story about how their grandpa worked in a sweatshop in the 30's and was 8, but no one should be subjected to that!

so although I agree forced charity isn't really charity, come on you can't spare 2%? Undoubtedly, there are some that have no issues whatsoever and out to exploit the system, whether the majority of those that get aid or the minority I do not know. But there are plenty that need aid, would you have denied my late mom and her kids the right to live? Where is your compassion, that is supposed to freely flow among us in the cannabis community right?

"entitlement" is an evil word that automatically suggests those that have nothing are not deserving and it is thought they are able, but are exploiting the system and that further most assistance receivers are like that, I highly doubt it and know there are plenty with nowhere else to turn. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, if you can't donate or be forced to give at least 2% to help those in need, there is something seriously wrong with you! (hell I had nothing but change in my pocket and often gave like 25% regularly to the homeless) And to suggest those who are in need deserve only scraps is also beyond arrogance, yes they should not EXPECT top shelf but I think you could spare a little! I admire those who said they freely gave generously, but how many would do that? maybe 8% of the population? Is that enough to make up for the "entitlements"? If you don't want to give things away or be taxed for "entitlements", would you be willing to give triple or more to permanently fix the problem by curing people of their mental illnesses or substance abuse, retraining them and paying for schooling so they can find a good job and in turn pay back into society? I didn't think so, so like the stupid but apt old saying goes "you can't have your cake and eat it too". Pick the lesser of 2 "evils", or the more expensive but more permanent one, but "niether" is not an option in a 1st world country such as ours.

[Ichabod Crane]

I say 2% is not enough. The bible asks for 10%. Maybe we should give 20% to be fair. Or hell lets just give it all so the government can decide how much of our own work we deserve.

I to was poor at one time. I ate out of dumpsters or off wild plants that I found. One year I didn't get a jacket till the middle of december. Only because some one gave it to me because I was going to school in the snow in a sweater.

Because of this I give and give often. That said I do not feel I have the right to force someone else to give up what is theirs.

Your story is sad. That said I would have helped you and your family if I could. But I can not steal from one person to help another no matter what the need. It is theft. Changing the meaning of entitlement does not change what it is.

As a matter of fact I know a person with mental illness who now grows. I taught him how to and now he pays his bills by growing. I also gave him most of the equipment he now uses to grow. And all this with out the government coming in with a gun and stealing what I own.

[stoned-trout]

at the prices they charge and the salaries the board guys make they should give more than 2% anyhow......sick med peeps shouldn't be paying those prices so ya ...you got taxed biotch be glad it wasn't more.....compassion my ass... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$