ICMAG Administration endorses The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

[215forLife]

that's quite a leap of judgement, any particulars on how that would work?
i'd be curious how 19 being voted down would have any effect on an attempted tax applied to a separate legal issue

Actually they CAN'T LEGALLY ENFORCE TAXATION OF POT with prop 215.

FISCAL EFFECT
Because the measure specifies that growing and possessing marijuana is restricted to medical uses when recommended by a physician, and does not change other legal prohibitions on marijuana, this measure would probably have no significant state or local fiscal effect.

Can't tax medicine and thats how it was voted on in 1996.

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.

You know that case people v kelly. It was about that one line there. With prop 215 we can grow as much as we want without government bullshit and we don't have to pay taxes.



Prop 19 totally takes that away from the people and hands over our boutique cottage industry over to the few people who are connected enough and financed well enough to get really expensive permits from their cities.

 

[JJScorpio]

Bro...even tho I am Yes leaning now, I have, through all of this, had serious reservations about this-- Not as many have insisted here, by Greed...but because of the Bastardization that is soon to follow-- This is a prime example--
There will be serious backlash to this...Loopholes work both ways--
I just hope, like I have said from the beginning....that this does not bite us in the ass--

Here is the entire wording of the Bill regarding personal cultivation and use.

Section 3: Lawful Activities Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read: Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to: (i) Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale. (ii) Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property. Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands. (iii) Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption. (iv) Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection. (b) “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301. (c) “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis: (i) possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301; (ii) consumption in public or in a public place; (iii) consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator; (iv) smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present."

There is nothing contained in that section that gives Municipalities any right to tax or charge permits excpt for commercial sales. Based on the wording of this Bill it would be against the Law for any Municipality to tax anyone who chooses to grow within the 25 sq ft that's stated.

It's obvious there's going to be taxes charged and permits sold for commercial sales. My concern would be that it's being left up to each Municipality. The term "reasonable fee" should have been added, if not the cost of the permits. They will not be able to exceed the current sales tax rate, but god knows what it may cost for permits.

 

[StoneElemental]

Sorry thats laughable because if you have a felony sized grow already it would easily show thru in your taxes somehow or another. Lobby your municipality for change and as long as enough people agree with you, you'll get your way eventually. Theres also a possibility of amending or replacing the bill at the state level. This bill is already flexible make it bend your way. Felony sized grow? they don't really have probable cause anymore anyway? and even if they do? you're screwed anyway for a felony grow...

-S.E.

they probably wont be searching around for collecting taxes on grows...not like they are gonna hire IRS agents to come measure your grows and collect taxes. but when they raid you they are gonna ask.."so were you paying taxes on this" and then BOOM they hit you with a tax evasion charge on top of felony cultivation.

 

[igrowone]

Point taken but I was attempting to help erase any fear or ill notions over it. Also municipalities aren't going to tax what you grow in your house unless you're trying to distribute or sell it, the idea that they would is reasonable but for the idea of them getting away with it is severe paranoia.

-S.E.

that's where things got strange, that's exactly what they are trying to do, tax your own personal grow
utterly bogus, hopefully their ass will be handed to them on a plate at the first stage of the court process

 

[215forLife]

There is no wording within the Bill giving Municipalities the right to tax personal growers. I'd love to talk with whoever wrote that article.

Now, on the flipside, there is authorization within the Bill that does allow them to tax Commercial growers. That's going to be up to each municipality.

Well you might want to consult the city of Rancho Cordova and speak to their city council as it's their idea and they voted it in. The guy that wrote that articles name is Peter Hecht he is the McClatchy papers weedwars news guy. He gets publised in several daily papers at least once every week. His number is at the end of the article. I encourage you to call him JJ.

 

[215forLife]

And JJ thanks for pointing out how Cannabis consumption in public will be illegal under prop 19. Currently I can smoke up at the state capital w/o worry or fear. Prop 19 will turn that into a crime.

 

[igrowone]

Actually they CAN'T LEGALLY ENFORCE TAXATION OF POT with prop 215.



Can't tax medicine and thats how it was voted on in 1996.



[/font]


You know that case people v kelly. It was about that one line there. With prop 215 we can grow as much as we want without government bullshit and we don't have to pay taxes.



Prop 19 totally takes that away from the people and hands over our boutique cottage industry over to the few people who are connected enough and financed well enough to get really expensive permits from their cities.

i actually agree with that, RC's tax ploy is bogus through and through
i doubt it will be any be more effective with prop 19(if it passes)
point was, prop 19's defeat won't change 215's status, one way or the other

 

[215forLife]

i actually agree with that, RC's tax ploy is bogus through and through
i doubt it will be any be more effective with prop 19(if it passes)
point was, prop 19's defeat won't change 215's status, one way or the other

This is what a REAL LAWYER WHO ACTUALLY FIGHTS REAL CASES IN REAL CALIFORNIA COURTROOMS HAS TO SAY...

http://www.rhdefense.com/blog/marijuana-law/blowing-smoke-proposition-19-medical-marijuana/][/B]

the problem isn’t with Proposition 19′s proposed addition of section 11300 to the Health & Safety Code. There is potentially a significant problem, however, with Proposition 19′s proposed addition of section 11301. Ironically, the reason is that same “notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law” phrase in the proposed language. The entire relevant portion says:

Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following….
​

Remembering the meaning of “notwithstanding any other provision of state…law,” this means “in spite of what the medical marijuana laws say, a local government may” potentially adopt restrictive rules as pertains to certain activities. The listed activities are all the activities one needs to carry out in order to obtain, or grow, or consume medical marijuana.
Right now — at least the way I read the law — local governments cannot effectively eliminate the protections of the medical marijuana laws by passing local ordinances that “control” or “regulate” them. If they did, I think many such ordinances would arguably constitute impermissible amendments to the Compassionate Use Act passed by the People via the initiative process — something no California government can do.2 Thus, rules that some counties are passing in an attempted end-run around medical marijuana laws are probably unenforceable because they are contrary to the Compassionate Use Act, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, or both.3
Tulare County, for example, has passed such limiting ordinances. Some of these ordinances have not yet been tested in court, but other portions of the Tulare County ordinances are already illegal and thus unenforceable. For example, the ordinances include limitations on quantities of marijuana which may be possessed or cultivated. But the California Supreme Court has already determined that this constitutes an impermissible amendment to the Compassionate Use Act.4
Proposition 19, however, will allow local governments to do what the Compassionate Use Act currently forbids them from doing. Why? Because the Compassionate Use Act was enacted into the law by initiative: Proposition 215. Initiatives can only be changed by the government if the initiative itself either expressly permits that, or if the Constitution is changed in some way as to alter the initiative process. Thus, any California government is, by law,

powerless to act on its own to amend an initiative statute. Any change in this authority must come in the form of a constitutional revision or amendment to article II, section 10, subdivision (c).5
​

However, amendments to statutes implemented via an initiative can also be amended, or even overruled, by initiatives.6 Well, guess what? Proposition 19 is an initiative, also! So Proposition 19 can amend, or even abolish, part, or all, of the medical marijuana laws, including the Compassionate Use Act voted into place by Proposition 215.

 

[igrowone]

This is what a REAL LAWYER WHO ACTUALLY FIGHTS REAL CASES IN REAL CALIFORNIA COURTROOMS HAS TO SAY...

[/i]

that's a stretch, not with what the lawyer says
but municipal tax law is another beast in itself
municipalities are much constrained in how they can levy municipal taxes
the lawyer opinion would likely be more relevant to other tax regimes

 

[johnnyla]

And JJ thanks for pointing out how Cannabis consumption in public will be illegal under prop 19. Currently I can smoke up at the state capital w/o worry or fear. Prop 19 will turn that into a crime.

quit crying like a little girl. how many times have you smoked up in from of the capital or cops? i bet not once.

P.S. what about people who have been hiding in the alleys like junkies to smoke a J while cigarette smokers had a field day. 100 million died from Cigarette and nicotine related deaths in the 20th century and i've been sneaking a J like a fucking junkie outcast for 20 years.

 

[215forLife]

you are in New York... do you know about California's prop 13? Have you actually read our states Tax code? Have you ever dealt with our states two main tax agencies, Board of Equalization and Franchise Tax board? Have you ever done the taxes and had them accepted by the IRS for a legitimate weed business?

Dude I'm sorry but your outta your fucking element and don't understand how things actually work in California.

 

[215forLife]

quit crying like a little girl. how many times have you smoked up in from of the capital or cops? i bet not once.

I have the pic to prove it! and will post if admin says it's cool. Hell I got a vid on youtube of me toking in front of a fed courthouse while I explain how weed is legal on the federal level now.

I'm not trying to advertise, but I can back up my shit.

 

[215forLife]

What makes the pic so awesome is that it's me smoking in front of a fed cop (K-9 unit) acutally in front of the state capital during the Agriculture stuff they put on for the legislature once a year.

 

[localhero]

215 i dont see why it wouldnt be ok to post that. i wanna see.

 

[igrowone]

you are in New York... do you know about California's prop 13? Have you actually read our states Tax code? Have you ever dealt with our states two main tax agencies, Board of Equalization and Franchise Tax board? Have you ever done the taxes and had them accepted by the IRS for a legitimate weed business?

Dude I'm sorry but your outta your fucking element and don't understand how things actually work in California.

actually i have read the Cali State Municipal Law, certainly not an expert
but the law from state to state have more similarities than differences, NY and Cali aren't as different as you might think(Prop 13 is an exception though)
the point is municipalities can't just make up taxes, they are much restricted, especially on personal activities in one's home
commercial activity is another story of course
educate us on how you think the RC law would proceed if it passes, from what i've seen so far, the originators don't think it has much of a chance

 

[215forLife]

215 i dont see why it wouldnt be ok to post that. i wanna see.

 

[StoneElemental]

Hmm, I would understand that California is amongst the top ten lax and liberal states in the union. I also do understand if there were ever a tax passed on personal growers it would happen in the east of the country before it would ever even fly over there. Also 215 isn't replaced or over-taken by 19 in any measure. To say that it could or would be simply would be neglect on part of the people. In which case you may deserve it for not utilizing your civil duty as a citizen. Please guys stop pushing these underthought ideas and making others worry for much of nothing.

-S.E.

 

[215forLife]

Also 215 isn't replaced or over-taken by 19 in any measure.

Author of Prop 215, and REAL Lawyers say it is.

 

[StoneElemental]

And simply that makes it true? fact even? Weren't some in this thread earlier discussing what liars lawyers are? Lawyers are paid to do something they do it. Hypothetically I could pay a lawyer to refute everything that lawyer said and make it seem sound tho being full of it. Don't believe everything that is just said or even hearsay (yes legal jargon for you).

-S.E.

Author of Prop 215, and REAL Lawyers say it is.

 

[kmk420kali]

I have the pic to prove it! and will post if admin says it's cool. Hell I got a vid on youtube of me toking in front of a fed courthouse while I explain how weed is legal on the federal level now.

I'm not trying to advertise, but I can back up my shit.

Yeah bro, we are not all hiding--