The Oakland "Gang of Four" as they are known are pushing a new measure to ensure that their cannabis businesses will continue to rake in huge profits at the expense of medical marijuana patients.
It seems that the Gang of Four, feeling quite flush with victory after their success in getting Oakland to impose the first city tax on marijuana sales in history, want to go even further. They want to tell all of California how to govern the cannabis industry.
See their website here: http://www.taxcannabis2010.org/
This measure, known as The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, sounds great, after all it will legalize the use of cannabis for all adults. It will generate a lot of desperately needed tax revenue for the state and municipalities.
What is most unfair about this proposal is the fact that medical patients will have to pay whatever taxes the state, county or city decide all cannabis users should pay. They will not be tax exempt as are all prescription drugs in the USA.
Indeed the alternative bill, AB390, by Tom Ammiano does just that. It legalizes marijuana use for all adults, but it exempts medical patients from the $50 an ounce tax.
Another problem is that Tax Cannabis 2010 seeks to "ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal..."
So it would be forcing a tax upon every municipality allowing marijuana sales, and any muncipality can deny it's citizens the right to purchase marijuana if they choose just by not passing a tax for it.
So this bill will hurt medical patients by forcing them to pay an unprecedented tax on their medicine, and also reduce safe access to medicine in areas where politicians decide to not allow sales.
Of course it means greater profits for the remaining dispensaries (including the gang of four) because many others will be forced out of business in restricted areas.
Lastly, they impose a one ounce limit on possession for personal use. That seems an arbitrary and small amount. Likewise it imposes a limit of 25 sq. ft under cultivation at any residence.
From what I have read, AB390 is far better, although there is a lot of good stuff in this new proposal too.
http://www.examiner.com/x-14883-Santa-Cruz-County-Drug-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d29-The-Oaksterdamn-U-tax-marijuana-to-death-act
It seems that the Gang of Four, feeling quite flush with victory after their success in getting Oakland to impose the first city tax on marijuana sales in history, want to go even further. They want to tell all of California how to govern the cannabis industry.
See their website here: http://www.taxcannabis2010.org/
This measure, known as The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, sounds great, after all it will legalize the use of cannabis for all adults. It will generate a lot of desperately needed tax revenue for the state and municipalities.
What is most unfair about this proposal is the fact that medical patients will have to pay whatever taxes the state, county or city decide all cannabis users should pay. They will not be tax exempt as are all prescription drugs in the USA.
Indeed the alternative bill, AB390, by Tom Ammiano does just that. It legalizes marijuana use for all adults, but it exempts medical patients from the $50 an ounce tax.
Another problem is that Tax Cannabis 2010 seeks to "ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal..."
So it would be forcing a tax upon every municipality allowing marijuana sales, and any muncipality can deny it's citizens the right to purchase marijuana if they choose just by not passing a tax for it.
So this bill will hurt medical patients by forcing them to pay an unprecedented tax on their medicine, and also reduce safe access to medicine in areas where politicians decide to not allow sales.
Of course it means greater profits for the remaining dispensaries (including the gang of four) because many others will be forced out of business in restricted areas.
Lastly, they impose a one ounce limit on possession for personal use. That seems an arbitrary and small amount. Likewise it imposes a limit of 25 sq. ft under cultivation at any residence.
From what I have read, AB390 is far better, although there is a lot of good stuff in this new proposal too.
http://www.examiner.com/x-14883-Santa-Cruz-County-Drug-Policy-Examiner~y2009m7d29-The-Oaksterdamn-U-tax-marijuana-to-death-act
