Feds reply to Cali Prop 19

[zenoonez]

I would have said "standing together against", but as I said we are different people. +R

Jed

I guess it all depends on how you look at things. I am 1 man, 1 vote. I must stand against that which I oppose and the system only works appropriately when we all do this. Again, oranges and navel oranges.

 

[mean mr.mustard]

I must stand against that which I oppose and the system only works appropriately when we all do this.

I suppose I could have done away with a hundred posts if I only would have stated this so plainly.

I think it's good to have a discussion as a WHOLE and not dividing everyone just because we live under the same system.

 

[K1ndBudz]

this is just hypothetical....but what if the politicians were involved with the largest operation of all, and they just want to keep prohibition going so the price doesn't drop drastically.

 

[zen_trikester]

this is just hypothetical....but what if the politicians were involved with the largest operation of all, and they just want to keep prohibition going so the price doesn't drop drastically.

I think that is only true with coke, but who knows?

 

[kmk420kali]

I suppose I could have done away with a hundred posts if I only would have stated this so plainly.

I think it's good to have a discussion as a WHOLE and not dividing everyone just because we live under the same system.

Bro..those who do not live in Cali, don't know how easy it would be to just utilize 215, and ignore this whole thing--
But it is bigger than that-- It is not the same System...it is about helping the average smoker now...and hope to change the rules for the Growers and Sellers later...but first thing is first-- Getting the initial Prop passed--

 

[Lazyman]

Just saw that Eric Holder is now saying that any business that collects taxes from pot sales is committing a federal felony. Many cities that were considering such taxes are removing their bills from the ballot. So if growing large amounts of recreational weed gets you busted, and selling weed gets you busted, California wont make any extra money off 19 directly, will they?

 

[Baba Ku]

Name one institution that the US government controls and show me where it is efficient.
I can name one...and it is not near as efficient as it could be, and that is the Military.
Most everything they touch turns to a bureaucratic boondoggle of shyte.

I think we may just be wishing too hard. I cringe at the thought of the US government screwing up cannabis even worse that it has been.
And surely we can see the administration posturing for a battle?

Oh, and how about the fight the all mighty administration is making for the cannabis community? Lots of hope for change there, yes? (shaking head)
Much better than the mean old Republicans and their redneck stances, aye?
I hope some of you enjoy seeing Obama, Holder, et al doing the good work you once thought they would do. They were going to be the messiahs, yes? pfft....
IMO, they could give a ripe fuck about you and me.

My biggest fear is that this does reach the SC at this time. They are trying to hang hat on the commerce clause in the health care battle, and that same clause will come into play with cannabis. We need to be very careful what we wish for.

 

[zen_trikester]

Just saw that Eric Holder is now saying that any business that collects taxes from pot sales is committing a federal felony. Many cities that were considering such taxes are removing their bills from the ballot. So if growing large amounts of recreational weed gets you busted, and selling weed gets you busted, California wont make any extra money off 19 directly, will they?

Yeah, they are winding up their shitstorm. This still needs to pass even if this position takes the wind out of taxed commercial sales for a while. That should make all the small growers out there happy!
Somebody is going to have the balls to let this one go to court! These are scare tactics folks, and there will be more over the next couple weeks. If their only way of finding out who the "evil dooers" are is to look at the tax rolls, then maybe it is as simple as people not paying federal taxes on their cannabusineses, IDK. I'm certainly no tax expert.

Jed

 

[zen_trikester]

This should be interesting http://www.britannica.com/blogs/201...osition-19-and-the-legalization-of-marijuana/

RSS Britannica Blog via RSS RSS Posts by admin via RSS print Print
Point and Counterpoint: A Forum on Proposition 19 and the Legalization of Marijuana
October 22nd, 2010

California is America’s democratic laboratory, one that often reverberates far beyond the state’s borders. And, despite the state’s liberal leanings in statewide elections, ballot propositions often have confirmed a conservative streak among California’s voters.

Proposition 13 (1978) limited property tax rises and helped start the property tax revolt. Proposition 187 (1994) prohibited illegal aliens from partaking in public health care, education, and social services (it was later declared unconstitutional). Proposition 209 (1996) outlawed affirmative action in the decision of public institutions. And, Proposition 8 (2008) overturned a Supreme Court decision that had legalized same-sex marriage.

More liberally, however, in 1996 Californians endorsed Proposition 215, legalizing medicinal cannabis. Marijuana is back on the ballot in 2010 in the form of Proposition 19, which would effective legalize marijuana in the state for those age 21 or older and enable local governments to regulate and tax it. The proposition pits liberals and libertarians against the state’s conservatives, and it takes place within the context of Mexico’s raging drug wars, in which more than 28,000 people have died in the last four years, prompting former Mexican president Vicente Fox (and a conservative) to call for legalization as a way to undermine the power of the narco-gangs, though a recent Rand Corporation study found that legalization in California would make only a small dent in the revenues of Mexico’s drug traffickers.

With just over a week before voters cast their ballots, the result hangs in the balance, though the polls have shown a small but perceptible shift away from legalization. And, to help voters in California make their final evaluations and to help those outside the state make sense of the debate, we at Britannica have brought to together both scientists as well as those on both sides of the debate to make their closing arguments and debunk some myths.

Next Monday and Tuesday, we’ll run the following posts, and we invite vigorous debate among our readers. Here’s the line-up:

Monday, October 25

* Debunking Myths About the Physiological Effects of Marijuana, an interview with Margaret Haney, professor of clinical neuroscience and co-director of the Substance Use Research Center at Columbia University.
* Proposition 19 Will Damage Kids’ Brains, by Carla Lowe, founder and of Citizens Against Legalizing Marijuana
* The Time Has Come For Proposition 19, by Jim Gray, retired judge of the Orange County Superior Court in California, a former federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles, and a criminal defense attorney with U.S. Navy JAG.
* Drug Legalization and the Right to Control Your Body, by David Boaz, Executive Vice President of the Cato Institute.

Tuesday, October 26

* Medical Cannabis, an interview with Mark Ware, assistant professor in family medicine and anesthesia at McGill University.
* The Case Against California’s Proposition 19, by No on Proposition 19, a campaign committee that was established to oppose the California ballot initiative.
* Ending the Prohibition of Marijuana: A Familiar Story, by Sasha Horwitz, New Media Coordinator for Yes on Prop. 19: Control & Tax Cannibas.
* Reefer Madness and the Prohibition of Marijuana in the United States, by David Kopel, Research Director at the Independence Institute, adjunct professor of constitutional at Denver University’s Sturm College of Law, and associate policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

 

[IncredibowlBoss]

I know that here in Colorado, the biggest lobby against legalization comes from big pharma, but the #2 player is the Mexican cartels - the brick weed they ship across the border is their bread and butter. Those are two *pretty* powerful interest groups (certainly moreso than smokers & cultivators as a group), and I believe that a good deal of the feds' reticence to move ahead comes from the pressure applied from them.

 

[vta]

Many cities that were considering such taxes are removing their bills from the ballot.

wow...which ones?

 

[zen_trikester]

I know that here in Colorado, the biggest lobby against legalization comes from big pharma, but the #2 player is the Mexican cartels - the brick weed they ship across the border is their bread and butter. Those are two *pretty* powerful interest groups (certainly moreso than smokers & cultivators as a group), and I believe that a good deal of the feds' reticence to move ahead comes from the pressure applied from them.

the feds need to oppose this to keep their hands clean. Weather they care or not they can't be stagnant. INCB is certainly coming down on them as well as private interest groups. The artical about holders tax comment and cities pulling tax measures down came from the Miami Herrald, so I'm not sure I'm buying it yet. The LA Times also just posted a poll showing yes at 39% and No over 50, but these polls can be manipulated by who you call and it wasn't a big cross section. It is obvious that the LA times is fighting this and they have been since day 1. We are going to be seeing lots of "fuzzy math" over the next couple of weeks!

Jed

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

Name one institution that the US government controls and show me where it is efficient.
I can name one...and it is not near as efficient as it could be, and that is the Military.
Most everything they touch turns to a bureaucratic boondoggle of shyte.

I think we may just be wishing too hard. I cringe at the thought of the US government screwing up cannabis even worse that it has been.
And surely we can see the administration posturing for a battle?

Oh, and how about the fight the all mighty administration is making for the cannabis community? Lots of hope for change there, yes? (shaking head)
Much better than the mean old Republicans and their redneck stances, aye?
I hope some of you enjoy seeing Obama, Holder, et al doing the good work you once thought they would do. They were going to be the messiahs, yes? pfft....
IMO, they could give a ripe fuck about you and me.

My biggest fear is that this does reach the SC at this time. They are trying to hang hat on the commerce clause in the health care battle, and that same clause will come into play with cannabis. We need to be very careful what we wish for.

Wait....do i have a redcoat telling me to vote no on 19? Seriously?

 

[BiG H3rB Tr3E]

XxX

 

[Lazyman]

wow...which ones?

Sacramento primarily, but other cities such as Rancho Cordova, Albany, and Long Beach had similar ballot measures planned. I cant paste links from my phone, but the article is on sacbee.com

 

[zen_trikester]

Sacramento primarily, but other cities such as Rancho Cordova, Albany, and Long Beach had similar ballot measures planned. I cant paste links from my phone, but the article is on sacbee.com

http://localsearch.sacbee.com/sp?eI...-could-dash-cities-hopes-of.html&siteIdType=2

Strange but they make it sound like it is from the same letter. Are they just releasing the details of the letter little by little?

Jed

 

[SCF]

Sacramento primarily, but other cities such as Rancho Cordova, Albany, and Long Beach had similar ballot measures planned. I cant paste links from my phone, but the article is on sacbee.com

eds could dash cities' hopes of taxing retail pot sales under Prop. 19
Share

By Peter Hecht
[email protected]
Published: Friday, Oct. 22, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1A

For months, proponents of California's Proposition 19 marijuana initiative hyped the local tax benefits of legalizing pot for recreational use.

Now, as voters in Sacramento and other cities consider companion ballot measures to impose taxes on the retail pot businesses that could open if Proposition 19 passes, the promised revenues may be in jeopardy.

As Californians vote Nov. 2 on Proposition 19, voters in at least 11 cities will decide 14 local marijuana measures. Suddenly the most controversial of those measures involve attempts by cities to levy a tax on recreational marijuana sales.

While Proposition 19 permits local governments to tax and regulate retail pot sales, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder last week signaled that the Justice Department is unlikely to stand by and let that happen.

In a letter to former drug enforcement administrators, Holder raised the specter that recreational pot businesses that paid taxes on sales would be admitting to a federal crime.

Holder vowed to "vigorously enforce" federal drug laws and target "those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law."

The ballot measures in Sacramento and several other cities also seek to impose or increase taxes on the nonprofit medical marijuana operations that are now legal in California.

In Sacramento, ballot Measure C would allow taxes of up to 4 percent on existing medical marijuana dispensaries. It would permit a 10 percent tax on retail pot shops if Proposition 19 passes and the city allows the businesses.

City Council member Sandy Sheedy, who has championed efforts to regulate the Sacramento pot industry, said the city still hopes to collect taxes on medical dispensaries. But in light of the federal stance, she said, it is now unlikely Sacramento would allow businesses catering to recreational users even if voters approve Proposition 19.

"If it does pass and the federal government says it will vigorously enforce the law, then that part (of Measure C) is moot," Sheedy said. "We are not going to do anything that the federal government is going to come in and oppose."

No opposing ballot statement was submitted for the Sacramento measure. City Treasurer Russell Fehr and representatives for police and firefighters unions called for a "yes" vote.

"The city of Sacramento needs this new revenue to keep providing the services you depend on," the ballot argument reads.

California already collects an estimated $100 million in local sales taxes on medical pot shops.

But when it comes to recreational marijuana, legal observers say, years of litigation – and a political evolution – may be necessary before anything flows into local coffers.

"Proposition 19 will not be a revenue raiser at the state and local levels in the short run," said UC Davis law professor Vikram Amar.

"I just would not count on this as a meaningful revenue stream because of the specter of the Drug Enforcement Administration."

In Oakland, construction executive Jeff Wilcox's AgraMed firm has invested more than $20 million in hopes of opening a city-licensed industrial warehouse for medical marijuana cultivation and related businesses.

Oakland's Measure V would raise the city's existing tax on medical pot outlets from 1.8 percent to 5 percent – and would set a 10 percent tax on recreational marijuana.

Despite threats of federal raids, Wilcox said he isn't giving up on expanding into retail operations for recreational pot.

"I believe voters make laws to suit the voters of California," Wilcox said. "It is the state of California. Not the federation of California."

Dale Gieringer, California director for the National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws, said some cities and entrepreneurs may be willing to test the federal government. He said the legal skirmishes – and federal raids – could mirror the aftermath of Proposition 215, the medical marijuana law California voters passed in 1996.

"I guarantee you people are willing and interested in filing to open Amsterdam-style pot clubs," he said. "And anybody who makes a big fanfare and opens up for sale will probably get busted by the feds."

Across California, the local pot measures vary widely.

Rancho Cordova's Measure O seeks a "personal cultivation tax" of $600 to $900 per square foot for anyone growing pot. Albany's Measure Q would impose a 2.5 percent tax on retail marijuana sales. Long Beach's Measure B would set taxes on recreational pot at 15 percent.

At the other end of the spectrum, Measure B-10 in Morro Bay would ban medical pot dispensaries.

UC Berkeley law professor Jonathan Simon said the measures underscore the potentially diverse "patchwork" of regulation if Proposition 19 passes.

"You might have some towns that set a very low tax and very few regulations, seeking to create marijuana commercial zones," Simon said.

But other cities are likely to seek higher taxes, he said, because of "their desire for revenue and opposition to becoming known as a local pot hub."

 

[Baba Ku]

Wait....do i have a redcoat telling me to vote no on 19? Seriously?

I am no "redcoat" as you put it. I am a US citizen.
And I am not telling anyone to vote one way or the other. Do you not think discussion of all the ramifications of such an issue is wise?
Surely you don't think the whole thing is as simple as a yes or no vote in CA?

It's very similar to the patriot who doesn't want to sacrifice his freedoms in exchange for a sense of security.

 

[SCF]

I am no "redcoat" as you put it. I am a US citizen.
And I am not telling anyone to vote one way or the other. Do you not think discussion of all the ramifications of such an issue is wise?
Surely you don't think the whole thing is as simple as a yes or no vote in CA?

It's very similar to the patriot who doesn't want to sacrifice his freedoms in exchange for a sense of security.

Your freedoms have already been sacraficed, for over 60 years...

 

[Baba Ku]

I suppose that could be within ones perception.
There is something to be said for the freedom that we all share at present. Albeit clandestine and subject to severe punishment, it is we...the breeders, growers, and consumers who have control of the genes.

The decriminalization and legalization of cannabis I welcome with open arms and mind. The commercialization and governmental control that is sure to follow is something that is sure to screw the pooch somewhere, as it always does.

It is also a scary thing to think of this going fast track to the supreme court. Such a move could easily happen right after a yes referendum in CA, and it could force things we simply don't want forced. It could possibly be a setback that could take another generation to start to fix again.
Some seem to think it will all iron out in the end, even with votes for bad or lacking legislation. I am not so certain. Like I said, be careful what we wish for.