For those TRAITORS who think cannabis should be taxed

[ForestBuds]

Black and White and Gray

Black and White and Gray

Now it has become another freedom issue. Here is what I think and I welcome constructive criticisms.I've always thought about that ever since because "money makes the world go around" I believe that we have to reform the system and society to "cannabis makes the world go around." It might not be in our lifetime but we should deeply thank Jack Herer for what he did and countless others including FF. It will happen eventually if we raise awareness about our personal liberty and prosperity of a nation.

I believe that the federal income tax is already unconstitutional. We have a government that taxes us maybe over 40 percent and look at what they use it for! Death and destruction domestically and foreign with intent of controlling us more. over us. So we need to keep them at bay. Remember we should not be afraid of them but the opposite. I think that 50 dollars per tax for an ounce is unrealistic... it should have the same percentage as other commodities. Just a way to profit handsomely to control its citizen more.

I believe that usage of cannabis in any way for personal or medical usage should never be taxed or restricted. If the product is to be brought over state line then yes it should be taxed.

If it the grower wants to sell it for profit at a designated marketplace in his or her own state then tax might or might not be paid. *Up to the grower, local city, county and the state I guess?*

I know taxes are important. Isn't it more important that we make sure that they are being spent productively! It's all about prosperity. We need more Americans to be self reliant. We need to depend on ourselves. We need to make sure that our government has the best interest for us.

Cannabis is what will propel us to the horizon and beyond. It is up to us to share the message through any means.

Something for all to read down below dotted lines. C/P from a web page that doesn't exist anymore. Not written by me. Very insightful.

I don't believe in god myself but the word has been used in our written documents to state an example. I consider our god to be our mind and environment combined in one as an unique sovereignty entity into the physical realm with equal inalienable common right.

There are some paragraph that really runs on. Sorry about that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since I can remember, I have heard that paying taxes is something that we all have to do, and it is something that has always been around in society. When I read people like John Calvin on taxes, he says that we are to pay them. I wonder though, what is a tax?

In Mathew 22, when Jesus says "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and render unto God what is God's" He is talking about honor, not taxation. Most people that I hear talk about this verse always assume that Christ is endorsing Ceasar's tax, but if that was the fact, then Christ would have played into the Pharisees trick question.

The dasarius was one of the currencies at the time of Christ, and it was taxed by Ceasar, and on the back of the coin it read "Son of God". This created a great issue with the temple goers on weather or not to use Ceasar's money since it claimed ownership by Ceasar as God.

Calvin says that in Mathew 22, Christ was saying that you cannot give honor to both Ceasar and God at the same time. Calvin even writes that the people were worshiping a false God without even knowing it, by using the disarius. Christ was saying that the people should have been using the schekle.


THE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE (DOLLAR)

In our system, we use the dollar. It was created by the federal reserve system in 1913. Prior to 1933, the note was backed by silver, and it was in some regards an actual currency.

In the same years of the creation of the FED, the 16th amendment was created to tax incomes. This amendment was created to tax plus gains on corporations, which is constitutional. Why and when did it start applying to us, the people?

If you look at your driver license, you will notice that your name is spelled in capital letters, the same with your social security card. Both forms of I.D do not apply to anyone who is "We the people". Anytime that your name is spelled in all caps, it is identifying you as a corporation, and in turn making your taxable.

This is why you see so many people losing in court against the IRS. They have no clue of the laws that separate corporations from "We the people". A corporation is a man made creation, and is not soveriegn, and it is mere property, and property has no rights.

"We are slaves and own absolutely nothing not even what we think are our children" (Tillman v. Roberts, 108 So. 62, Van Koten v. Van Koten, 154.E. 146, Senate Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People, 13 N.R. REP 378, 481)

CONCLUSION

I wonder what Jesus would have said about a currency and I.D cards that we accept that claims we are not creatures of God. How can we go into church every Sunday and give money that claims that we are owned by the state, rather than God? Are we not in the same situation as the people in the temple in Mathew 22? What would Christ tell us?

Our driver license and our social security cards that we carry in our pockets swear allegiance to the state, and it gives away are rights that were given by God, and it also shows that we admit that we are nothing but fictions. If we are fictions to the state, then God is a fiction. How do we fight against this? We must start to identify the issues in our time and resist it.

-"A driver is an employee" -Blacks Law dictionary 1st - 4th addition

-"The 16th amendment gave no new power of taxation" -Supreme court 1916

-"A corporation has no rights"

-"A resident cannot own property, look at the deed to your house"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

America's Top 20 Facts of Law Believe it or Not


The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the IMF (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS, et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I.; Public Law 94-564; Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967; Reorganization Plan No. 26; Public Law 102-391.)

The IMF is an Agency of the UN. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, Page 816)
The U.S. has not had a Treasury since 1921 (41 Stat., Chapter 214, page. 654)


There are no judicial courts in America and there has not been since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive Administrators enforce Statutes and codes (FRC. V. GE, 281 US 464, Keller v. PE, 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)

There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have just been Administrators. (FRC v. GE, 281 US 464, Keller v PE 261 US 428 1Stat. 138-178)

New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United Nations. Rudolph Giuliani stated on C-Span that "New York City was the capitol of the world" and he was correct. (20 C.F.R. chapter 111, subpart B 422.103 (b)(2)(2) (also check out Rev. 14 in reference to what happened on 9/11)
You own no property, slaves can't own property. Read the Deed to the property that you think is yours. You are listed as a Tenant. (Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session)

You cannot use the Constitution to defend yourself because you are not a party to it. (Padelford Fay & Co. v. The mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Georgia 438, 520)

The King of England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary war. (Treaty at Versailles July 15, 1782, Treat of Peace, 8 Stat 80)

America is a British Colony. (THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION, NOT A LAND MASS AND IT EXISTED BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND THE BRITISH TROOPS DID NOT LEAVE UNTIL 1796). Republican v. Sweers, 1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce, 8 Stat 116, The society for Propagating the Gospel & c. v. New Haven, 8 Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace, 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association, October 20, 1774.

Britain is owed by the Vatican. (see Treaty of 1213).
The Pope can abolish any law in the United States (elements of Ecclesiastical Law, Vol. 1 53-54)

We are slaves and own absolutely, nothing not even what we think are our children (Tillman v. Roberts, 108 So. 62, Van Koten v. Van Koten, 154.E. 146, Senate Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st Session, Wynehammer v. People, 13 N.R. REP 378, 481)

"The People" does not include you and me. (Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243)

It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sapp v. Tallahasse, 348 So. 2nd 363; Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F. Supp. 1262; Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

Everything in the "United States" is for sale: roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, water, prisons, airports, etc. One wonders who bought Klamath Lake? Did anyone take the time to check? (Executive Order 12803)
We are Human capital (Executive Order 13037)

The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were never a part of the United States government. Even though the "US government" held shares of stock in the various Agencies. (U.S. v. Strang, 254 US 491, Lewis v. U.S., 680 F. 2d, 1239)

A Form 1040 is for tribute paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209 IMF decoding manual)

We are enemies of the State (Trading with the Enemy Act 1933, Act of 1917 & 1933) Trading with the Enemy Act 1933, Act of 1917 & 1933 (People declared the Enemy) Oct. 6, 1917, under the Trading with the Enemy Act, Section 2 subdivision (c) Chapter 106 – Enemy defined "other than citizens of the United States…" March 9, 1933, Chapter 106, Section 5, subdivision (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act of Oct. 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) amended as follows: "…any person within the United States." See H.R. 1491 Public No. 1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So far on this blog I have shown how we are constitutionally the sovereign in America, and I have used court cases to back up my statements. I then wonder why we as a people do not speak out for what is right. Our courts have said time and time again that we are the authority in the land, and we have remained silent. I have tried for the past week to stay silent on any theological stance that pertains to government, but my conscience again has brought me back to this call to speak out against the state.

I am not trying to say that we have to decide weather we are theonomist or natural law types. All I am saying is that when we see our neighbor being robbed, or when we are forced to use a currency that is false worship of God, we are naturally to speak out. This is when persecution fallows.

In out constitution, it says that we are to only use gold and silver (honesty). Now the people in the government say that we will be thrown in jail if we use anything but the dollar. The dollar is false worship of God, and until I hear the church make a statement against the use of the dollar, I will still wonder about their claims to Christ.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

We the people, Sovereign over the state
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." George Orwell

As a man, I am sovereign and am not GOVERNED or under the power or guardianship of another or any government.

"In the United States, Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the Constitution." Chisholm v. State of Georgia , 2 US 419 (Dall.), 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall 54, 93; McCullock v. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316, 404, 405; Yick Yo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370.

"History is clear that the first ten amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common law rights of the people, against invasion by the Federal Government." Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp., 813, 816 (1947) U.S.D.C. -- So. Dist. CA.

It should be noted that no rights are ever "granted" to a man, rather that mankind possess all of their rights. These are not "constitutional rights" but are rather rights possessed by all people. Documents do not grant rights, but simply state what rights are already possessed by mankind. No constitution or other document creates rights, but only state them so as to prevent governments or people from infringing upon those rights. The Constitution for the United States of America states many rights possessed by mankind, but I claim no rights emanating from any constitution or other document. It should be further noted that mankind are the natural people, as mentioned in the Constitution for the United States of America. A man is distinctly different from a "person*."


"in all acts hereafter passed... the word `person' may extend and be applied to bodies politic and corporate... unless the context shows that such words were intended to be used in a more limited sense." Act of Feb. 25, 1871, 2, 16 Stat. 431.


Are not all "persons" protected by the 4th and 5th Amendments? No! Corporations, which are legally "persons," are not protected, as explained by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Hale v. Henkel , 201 U.S. 43, 74, that court said:

"If, whenever an officer or employee of a corporation were summoned before a grand jury as a witness he could refuse to produce the books and documents of such corporation, upon the ground that they would incriminate the corporation itself, it would result in the failure of a large number of cases where the illegal combination was determinable only upon the examination of such papers. Conceding that the witness was an officer of the corporation under investigation, and that he was entitled to assert the rights of corporation with respect to the production of its books and papers, we are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation , and that the latter has no Right to refuse to submit its books and papers for an examination at suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his constitutional [sic] {guaranteed} Rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His Rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him, by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under a warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their Rights. (Emphasis added) Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to [201 U.S. 43, 75] act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that a state, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not, in the exercise of its sovereignty, inquire how these franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of the corporate books and papers for that purpose. The defense amounts to this: That an officer of a corporation which is charged with a criminal violation of the statute, may plead the criminality of such corporation as a refusal to produce its books. To state this proposition is to answer it. While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, it does not follow that a corporation, vested with special privileges and franchises, may refuse to show its hand when charged with an abuse of such privileges."

Barely was the ink dry upon our Constitution, in 1789, when the State of Georgia announced that "the STATE was Sovereign, and was going to hang a man named CHISHOLM, for the CRIME OF SUING the State! Mr. Chisholm appealed to the United States Supreme Court, see: Chisholm v. State of Georgia , 2 U.S. 419, (Dall.) 455 (1793) and the United States Supreme Court said this:

"States and Governments were made for man; and, at the same time, how true it is, that his creatures and servants have first deceived, next vilified, and, at last, oppressed their master and maker. ...Let a State be considered as subordinate to the People. The State of Georgia is NOT Sovereign, Mr. Chisholm IS."

"People of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative." Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89. This "prerogative" amounts to the "rights reserved unto ourselves" which was stated as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* Rights."

*unalienable* means that it is incapable of being aliened, given away, signed away, taken away, sold, stolen or transferred! If it could be aliened, given away, signed away, taken away, sold, stolen or transferred, then it would not be unalienable. Something unalienable can't be made foreign, or kept afar!

"The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state." In re Merriam, 36 NE 505, affirmed United States v. Perkins , 163 U.S. 625.

The government does business on business terms and its no different than any other corporation doing business. Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen, where private corporate commercial paper and securities is concerned.
See: Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States , 318 U.S. 363, 371 (1943).

"If we will not be governed by God,
then we will be ruled by tyrants."
- William Penn

Paraphrased: Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance. U.S. v. Minker , 350 US 179 at 187.

Freedom and Privacy Restoration Act of 1999. This act forbids the federal government from establishing any national ID cards or establishing any identifiers for the purpose of investigating, monitoring, overseeing, or regulating private transactions between American citizens. This legislation also explicitly repeals those sections of the 1996 Immigration Act that established federal standards for state drivers' licenses and those sections of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 that require the Department of Health and Human Services to establish a uniform standard health identifier.

"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams - Father of the American Revolution

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a sovereign you are not subject to any law besides that of common law. I realize that this idea is totally foreign to most of you, as we have been erroneously taught all of our lives that we are subject to laws passed by the legislature or those in the lesser bodies of government. In United States Supreme Court decision of Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356 in 1886 the Supreme Court agreed with the fact that flesh and blood people are sovereigns in their own right, not subject to legislative or administrative law. This United States Supreme Court decision was handed down before our legal system became nearly as corrupt as it is today in America.

The case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins takes place in the late 1800's and is about Yick Wo, an immigrant Chinese laundry owner in San Francisco who was fined and then jailed for failure to obey a local ordinance passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors requiring all laundry owners to relocate laundries housed in wooden structures to brick or stone structures or to close down their businesses. The case is most often cited as a civil rights case because the all white San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Hopkins selectively enforced the newly passed ordinance along racial lines.

The white laundry owned laundries were mostly housed in brick or stone structures, and the few white owned laundries located in wooden structures were all given a free pass, while not one of the immigrant Chinese laundry owners were exempted from the ordinance. Most of the immigrant Chinese laundry owners were poor and could not afford to relocate their laundries to brick or stone structures. The Chinese laundry owners, like Yick Wo who continued to operate their laundries located in wooden structures in defiance of the order were fined and then jailed when they didn't pay their fines.

On August 24, 1885, Yick Wo petitioned the supreme court of California for the writ of habeas corpus, claiming he was illegally deprived of his personal liberty by the defendant Sheriff Hopkins, the sheriff of San Francisco County.

Justice Matthews states in the U. S. Supreme Court decision in favor of Yick Wo: "Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts."

Justice Matthews makes a very profound statement in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins; clearly stating that we (you and I) are 'sovereigns', not subject to law. Justice Matthews did not just dream up the concept that we are sovereigns and as a sovereign we are not subject to law. Of course not, he had very sound bases for his profound proclamation, which was based upon his knowledge and belief that God created man and decreed man to be a sovereign. Justice Matthews also based his opinion upon the knowledge and belief that our nation's founding fathers strongly held this same belief and incorporated it into the fabric of our constitution.

Justice Matthews reminds us; while, yes it is true that our government has sovereignty delegated to it by the people, the people are the creators of the government and of the administrative law and we the creators or sovereigns are not subject to the law as its creators.

Remember and teach your children well that you and they are the true sovereigns. Your place is above government and never beneath the feet of government. God is the Sovereign Creator of our universe, we serve God and never does God serve His creation; man. Man is the sovereign of his domain and created government to serve him within his domain. An axiom of truth decrees that; the creator never serves his creation. Ask yourself who is serving whom today? How did it get to this point? The true responsibility and blame lies with us and all Americans who preceded us following the Civil War.

Will you be the master or will you continue to be the slave? The choice of slave has already been made for you and your children unless you have the will and courage to change it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Jack Herer wrote to me on "The Emeperor Wears No Clothes" inside front page.

To XxxxX XxX,

Hemp History
Hemp Knowledge
Hemp Forever...
...ever...ever...!

Jack Herer
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Savor and enjoy the taste, smell, sight of freedom for what we live in an extraordinary times

It is between you and cannabis only. No government entity should get involved unless it is for commerce purpose! ?

 

[Blue Dot]

Can you like, break that down to a sentence or two?

No offense but I don't have the attention span I once had.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

^this is all fine and dandy, but control is all in your head. they dont control me because i do not limit my actions to human law. I live by a moral code, of the golden rule (do unto others as you would have done unto you), no religion or law or government model is going to change that. Doesnt matter where I live. Study american transcendentalism, you guys will love it.

 

[lvmcgoo]

The U.S government is a gigantic oxy moron they make money and recognize marinol wich insur. will cover but prosecute growers ,why? I think lack of control...... ONLY IF WE GREW TO PUT IN PILL FORM. It's a commi. world

 

[SmokinSHO]

...

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

Edit: the ideas presented in the Declaration of Independence probably support a revolution now more than they did when the damn thing was written but unlike back then the rich white people have allied with the government rather than tried to escape it.

Last time I checked rich white people are a VERY SMALL minority of people in this country. Infact pot smokers just might be a majority of the overall population. This isn't an issue of social status. It is about our fundamental liberties which is why we should remember our history and take the side of our founding fathers, because it is the right side.

...that we must first give something up to gain something new.

How many of us have already given up our freedoms in the fight for cananbis? Anybody who has been charged with a weed related crime and has had to pay as little as a $100 fine (the current penalty of possesion in California) or as much as life in prison (my friend Bill Bowen got 75-life for having weed and a gun, he never shot anyone) have given up something to help liberate our favorite plant and fight for our freedoms.

Moreover what ideas have you proposed as an alternative to taxation??

Parity with other medicines when it comes to taxation. Also I didn't need to propose an alternative as the VOTERS of the state of California already did when the passed prop 215.

So lets take a look at the official statements made on the 1996 ballot for proposition 215

Proposition 215 requires absolutely no written documentation of any kind to grow or smoke marijuana. It will create legal loopholes that would protect drug dealers and growers from prosecution.

PROPOSITION 215 IS MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION--NOT MEDICINE

Proposition 215 will make it legal for people to smoke marijuana in the workplace . . . or in public places . . . next to your children.

The proponents of this deceptive and poorly written initiative want to exploit public compassion for the sick in order to legalize and legitimatize the widespread use of marijuana in California.

Proposition 215 does not require a written prescription. Anyone with the ''oral recommendation or approval by a physician" can grow, possess or smoke marijuana. No medical examination is required.

THERE IS NO AGE RESTRICTION. Even children can be legally permitted to grow, possess and use marijuana . . . without parental consent.

This initiative makes marijuana available to the public without FDA approval or regulation. Quality, purity and strength of the drug would be unregulated. There are no rules restricting the amount a person can smoke or how often they can smoke it.

This initiative allows unlimited quantities of marijuana to be grown anywhere . . . in backyards or near schoolyards without any regulation or restrictions. This is not responsible medicine. It is marijuana legalization.

Adoption of this measure would probably have no significant fiscal impact on state and local governments.

We voted for legalization without taxes back in 1996! So I don't need to propose another idea. Just protect the freedoms we already have.

Just because you lack understanding doesn't give you cause to criticize.

Really I lack understanding how is that? My day job, is President of California Cannabis Incorporated. We have an IRS EIN, California BOE Sellers Permit, and City of Sacramento Business Operations Tax Permit. And these all are for a marijuana specific corporation. Yes I founded a weed corporation, that is as legal as you can possibly be given the current political/legal climate in the USA. The man behind prop 215 is the same person who taught me how to roll a joint. I have personally known some of the people that also had to give their lives in the fight for prop 215.

So infact there are only probably about 1000 other people in the state who actually understand this issue as indepth as I do.

Perhaps in time you will see that we are stronger together than we are alone, and that your tactics here within this very thread serve to divide yourself from those who share you ideals.

Then why are people turning their backs against the best weed law in the Western World? I am not the one who is dividing. It is those who propose excise taxes on our medicine. The law as approved by the voters of California in 1996 said NO TAXES. Recreational use is still medicinal use. Marijuana is the oldest medicine known to man. People recreationally use Morphine and Oxycotin too, but they still remain free from excise taxes.

{Bangs head on wall}

Look,in ANY country,if simple taxation means "legitimacy",then I think none of you should fucking complain.

We are already legit. We don't need taxation for legitamacy. For 13 years now people in California been freely smoking/growing/selling w/o fear from state and local governement.

If it's taxed,and you don't agree,it's simple: DON'T PAY. (DUH!!)

Then go to prison for not paying. Why should we pass NEW laws that WILL be used to send people to prison? I don't advocate breaking the law, but I will defend to my best ability the passing of any new law which could send people to prison for anything remotely weed related.

Most of you,worldwide,if you even fucking file,already cheat on your fucking taxes-So,enough with the fucked-up,crybaby-ass whining.

Really Jack Herer is "fucked-up,crybaby-ass whining"???? I don't think so. He is so passionate about this issue it caused his fucking heart to explode. Do you get it, the concept is that dispicable that those who have fought the hardest and done the most to get us where we are in California are the ones who are having their work and sacrifce flushed down the toilette.

ALL cash crops are taxed-thinkthefuckaboutit,huh?

Name a single medicine that you have to see a doctor to get in California that is taxable by law? None, while the Board of Equalization argues that Medical Weed is subject to sales tax, the ballot said the opposite. I know someone who is in court fighting this issue right now

This is about Medicine not cash crops.

You Cali boys go right ahead and slam the fucking door shut,right when there's the biggest foot in it,since Jimmy Carter was in office.

That is precisely the problem. Those proposing so called "legalization" initiatives in California are going to be slamming the door in our faces. Obama has stated that he supports MEDICAL marijuana but is against all out legalization. Here in California through our MEDICAL laws we have a backdoor to defacto legalization, and it was approved by the PEOPLE not the politicians. If these so called "legalization" initiatives get passed you can bet everything that you and your whole family owns that the DEA will be back here 10 times harder than they were in the Clinton/Bush years. That sounds like a plan first disaster. We don't need to incite the feds to fuck with us. Because if it passes the DEA won't discriminate based on "medical" or "legal recreational". So yeah lets circulate petitions to invite the DEA back to California.....

The Only Reason ANY government will legalize pot is for money.

(See: The Dutch Experiment for examples)

Honestly I know very little of the specifics of Dutch cannabis law. Do they have excise taxes on Cannabis there?

Anyhow,I hate taxation as much or more than any of you,but if the worldwide "legitimizing" of marijuana means I have to pay taxes on it to grow it,

I'll be happy enough to write the first fucking check.
~RD~

Nice to see that you disagree with concept of taxation. But instead of advocating taxation as a reason for legalizing we should use the savings that governments will realize from not have to spend money on the prohibition of weed.

When you have to write those checks you won't be so happy, trust me.

It's never going to happen. If weed is legalized and untaxed, then the Govt would have to remove taxes from Alcohol, gas, oil, cigs, clothes and everything else.

It has already happened,... And why should be compare Cannabis the most beneficial substance known to man with Alcohol which is the most destructive? There are specific cannabis receptors in the brain. However alcohol has been proven to cause Brain damage with regular use, not just a bit of memory loss and lethargy, but fucking retardation.

You Cali people need to worry about getting the bud legalized and then worry about fighting the taxes later.... You can fight taxes another day..... Get that precedent set and get legalization on the books....

Done, and that is actually currently in progess. Hence the problem. People want to fuck up the best thing going around the world when it comes to weed.

Have you signed the petition yet? CCI!!

Nope he isn't from California like most of the posters in the thread.

i dont under stand FF........if it would help to make it legal they why wouldn't you pay taxes on it...i mean you pay taxes on everything....why not pot? you pay taxes on the nutrients to the internet that you use to post stuff like this...i love the passion but no the logic my friend.....i would gladly pay a growers tax every year...

Because Morphine, Vicodin, Lithium, Viagra, Oxycotin, Ritalin and other medicines are not taxed and the law was passed by the voters with the understanding that weed wouldn't be subject to excise taxes. Furthermore taxes get paid for everything else that goes into the production of the medicine. Also food isn't taxed and cannabis is clearly edible and does contain calories

Also because the tax money will just allow the beast to contiune on its path of destruction. They say they are making it legal, when really they are just finding a way to take us rebels to the system and chain us up to the system while having smiles on our faces.

Swing and a miss. Yah . . . the crime would be tax related, thus having nothing to do with the legality of the possession/cultivation of that which you failed to pay tax on . . . . . . .]

You remind me of the umpire that used to plague my little league baseball team. You clearly need some glasses. The "crime" would have everything to do with the growing/selling/buying of weed because it would be specific to it.

Really, that's your position? I don't think any of us came to the table saying, "Gee, how can we get this legalized so that we can pay taxes on it" but it certainly seems to be a bargaining chip that we can use to make headway.

See the flaw in that logic is that we are winning the war against the prohibition of weed. We don't need that bargaining chip, particularly in California in which the voters already decided differently. So yes it is people saying "Gee, how can we get this legalized so that we can pay taxes on it" hence why all the so called "legalization" measures include the word TAX in their title, and is their purpose. Especially the CCI initiative while not as bad the the Richard Lee one, it's purpose truely is taxation.

What's the rub here? It's called being realistic. Politicians aren't going to legalize marijuana based solely on the idea that the majority of voters want it.

The politicians don't matter. It is the voters that do. The taxation issues currently being debated that might have any steam will be ballot initiatives, the only thing that matters with those is the voters.

It was the VOTERS that passed prop 215 because the politicians refused to pass medical marijuana laws here in California. The politicians have never done anything for us. The only people that have are the voters. Thats right WE THE PEOPLE!

They want and desire money and are going to get everything out of it that they possibly can when and if they decide to legalize it

If the politicians truely wanted that, then AB 390 would already be law. Even so given that the nature of the government is greedy, why should we willing walk up to them with buckets of money to be spent on sending other nefarious acts of government? It's one thing if they pass and demand, it's another thing to be a Judas.

In this situation you are an ineffective lobbyist for legalizing marijuana..

I'm not a lobbyist. Might be hiring one or two at some point, however I am not. Furthermore as already pointed out on this forum in previous threads and in this post we already have legalization.

because you are asking entirely too much of an entity that thrives on taking as much as possible from its citizens.

Not asking anything from the government, infact I am advocating that we don't volunteer to give to the entity that thrives on leeching off of us. This is about us the people, and our responsibility to not pass initiatives that will set us back 13 years.

It is my opinion that the legalization of marijuana is worth 6-8% sales tax

All of the popular legalization proposals here in California aren't about sales tax. Also you aren't in California because we are paying from 8-10% in sales taxes. This is specially about excise taxes, not the taxes that are already currently required by law. This is about a NEW SPECIFIC TAX.

Excise Tax:
A tax on a specific good or service, often imposed on the quantity purchased rather than the value. Examples are gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, and telecommunications taxes.

See the government says that sickness should not be profitable, in their fight for national healthcare, then to turn around and tax mmj patients. that wont be a hard fight to win. I imagine recreational tax will never disapear.

All Cannabis use is medicinal. some people say they get high to get high? Why? Because they are low, its depression. If they say no it's just for fun. Then it's for threaputic stress relief. If people weren't so stressed out they wouldn't need to use medicine to have "fun".

If you allow taxation then you give them the means to control you,you pay for the next surveillance camera to watch you. You change the law and allow them to come in your house and check on you.you create more people to babysit you. You give up your freedom and legitimize the corporate takeover of cannabis.

Yep! isn't it ironic that a Cannabis corporation is taking a stand against this? Afterall either way it's all good for me. Maybe that should be a clue to people just how bad this is.

from the CCI website

"Requires taxes to be spent on education, healthcare, environmental programs, public works, and state parks."

And the money that is currently being spent on those areas will be shifted to other uses. Most likely prison construction since the state has been ordered by the federal government to release 40,000 prisoners if they can't build new facilities.


*EDIT* if you don't like negative reputation points then don't post some retarded bullshit saying that you would like to pay taxes. Seriously what did you guys expect from someone with a screen name like mine.

 

[yortbogey]

U gotta pay to play.....thatz how the cookie crumbles......
SUR it a g8t idea to have freedom of weed.......
BUT in this Day and AGE....We pay for EVERYTHING........one way or another......at least this way could be legal and keep LEO out my ass......
to me thatz worth EVERY pennie......
I'll take what I can get and wait for the next freedom act.............

@ least this way I'm still smok'in........................

 

[JJScorpio]

And if anyone thinks the Govt isn't making big cash off pain killers you better look at the taxes these big pharma conglomerates are giving the Feds.....

THATS the reason bud isn't legal....

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

And if anyone thinks the Govt isn't making big cash off pain killers you better look at the taxes these big pharma conglomerates are giving the Feds.....

THATS the reason bud isn't legal....

Corporate Income Taxes are not the same as Excise Taxes.
Legally you already have to pay income taxes, this isn't about those. It's about cannabis specific taxation. Here in California, which is where the issue actually has relevance doctor ordered medicine is not subject to taxation. I am pretty sure also that the federal government does not have an excise tax on Viagra.

 

[JackTheGrower]

How can we get it legalized your way?

I'm all for no taxes if possible. I am for not taxing home grown for sure but commercial well that is a fantasy, IMO, that it won't be taxed.

So I guess I'll shower and hit the mall.. I want to beat the 25 I gathered yesterday in a couple three hours..

Hell one guy got 115 in 4 hours yesterday

So traitor or not.. I'm doing something besides calling folks traitors for actually doing something besides typing.

Sorry FF but that sounds like an attack on folks like me. I know you so I am not taking it personal.. Just replying in your thread..

Be well friends..

Jack

 

[Grizvok]

Corporate Income Taxes are not the same as Excise Taxes.
Legally you already have to pay income taxes, this isn't about those. It's about cannabis specific taxation. Here in California, which is where the issue actually has relevance doctor ordered medicine is not subject to taxation. I am pretty sure also that the federal government does not have an excise tax on Viagra.

First of all, stop trying to act like people actually care about negative reputation. They're some green blocks on the internet, whoop dee doo. I'm also not sure if you've realized this yet but everybody isn't from California.

Secondly, how would this excise tax be implemented? The definition says "A tax on a specific good or service, often imposed on the quantity purchased rather than the value. Examples are gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, and telecommunications taxes." Does this mean that we would effectively be paying our state sales tax + an excise tax? Sales tax is obviously based on the monetary value of what you purchase, so if I went into a Marijuana-mart and bought an ounce of Sour Diesel I'd be paying 6-8% sales tax along with a certain excise tax on the quantity of one ounce?

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

How can we get it legalized your way?

It's not "my" way. But it allready happened in 1996 with this little unknown thing called Proposition 215.

I'm all for no taxes if possible. I am for not taxing home grown for sure but commercial well that is a fantasy, IMO, that it won't be taxed.

I think the populatal misconception is that the business will still have to pay all the taxes currently required by law. The ones that I pay right now. We just don't need a new specific tax based on the weight of weed.

Sorry FF but that sounds like an attack on folks like me.

Unfortunately I hate to say it, but it is. Don't listen to me, listen to what Dennis Peron and Jack Herer have to say.

I know you so I am not taking it personal.. Just replying in your thread..

Yeah at the end of the day we are all still smokers at heart!

 

[IGROWMYOWN]

.

 

[maxxim]

Bah wrong thread....

 

[SmokinSHO]

...

 

[MarquisBlack]

Thought provoking, Freedom. Great thread.

Way to stick by your guns.

 

[Alienate420]

You believe in karma, eh? Goooooooooooooood...BUH BYE.

 

[FreedomFGHTR]

Do you think tobacco should be taxed? I do because smoking anything shouldn't be 'encouraged' (cheap and easily available) and by your definition it seems that tobacco is always used medicinally.

Can you find a single doctor that will reccomend that you use tobacco for it's health improvement benefits? No you can't so comparing tobacco with Cannabis just because they can both be smoked is an unfair comparison. Why put cannabis proven by modern science to be GOOD for you in the same category as tobacco which is proven to be BAD for you? Furthermore unlike tobacco Cannabis can be eaten and digested to obtain its benefits.

If you don't want to pay the tax, grow your own. If you are too sick to do this, then you shouldn't be smoking anything IMO, and will avoid the tax by not buying actual marijuana.

There are so many different illnesses that marijuana provides relief for. Lets take a cancer patient under going chemo and radiation. Guess what the smoke is harmless compared to the side effects of chemotherapy. Lets take someone like me who has a psychological disorder and has nothing to do with my cardiopulmonary healh. If I am too crazy and disorganized to grow I shouldn't be banned from using the medicine which my doctor says I should use.

How would the marijuana be available in your opinion, various strains of buds cured in glass jars at the local store to anyone with an ID? What about lollipops or baked treats? I think hash should be the preferred (ideally only) method, and the rest of the plant should be used for growing more plants. If people really want to smoke the plant too, you should have to pay a sin tax or grow your own.

Have you ever been to a club/co-op/dispensary/collective in California? It should be free market marijuana. However the consumer wants it. IF they want a seed, sell em a seed. A Clone then sell em a clone. If they want a pound a butter give them a pound of butter. If they want cannabis infused olive oil give it to them. If the consumer wants only the best and dankest purps then sell it.

 

[SmokinSHO]

...

 

[ColBatGuano]

If you look at your driver license, you will notice that your name is spelled in capital letters, the same with your social security card. Both forms of I.D do not apply to anyone who is "We the people". Anytime that your name is spelled in all caps, it is identifying you as a corporation, and in turn making your taxable.

Where do people come up with this horsesh!t?