What's new
  • ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!

Reuters:Colorado voters approve 25 percent taxes on recreational marijuana

Tudo

Troublemaker
Moderator
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Colorado voters approve 25 percent taxes on recreational marijuana
By Keith Coffman
DENVER (Reuters) - A Colorado measure to impose sales and excise taxes of 25 percent on newly legalized recreational marijuana and earmark the first $40 million in revenue for public schools was approved by voters on Tuesday, Governor John Hickenlooper said.
The move showed a willingness on the part of Colorado voters to tax marijuana for the public benefit even as they roundly defeated a broader tax measure that would have increased state income taxes to raise $1 billion for schools.
Colorado and Washington last year became the first U.S. states to legalize marijuana for recreational purposes. But Colorado, whose constitution requires a statewide vote to approve tax increases, left it to voters to decide how to tax the newly legal drug.
"We are grateful voters approved funding that will allow for a strong regulatory environment, just like liquor is regulated," Hickenlooper said as returns showed 65 percent of voters in favor of the tax and 35 percent against with about a quarter of votes counted.
"We will do everything in our power to make sure kids don't smoke pot and that we don't have people driving who are high. This ballot measure gives Colorado the ability to regulate marijuana properly," the Democratic governor said in a statement.
Under the marijuana tax proposal, a combined 15 percent excise and 10 percent sales tax would be imposed on recreational pot sales, with the first $40 million raised to fund school construction projects.
In Denver, a local ballot measure that would tack an additional 3.5 percent city sales tax on pot shops also appeared headed for passage, by a margin of 69 to 31 percent with roughly a third of votes counted.
Even as many proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana supported taxing the drug, some within the pot legalization community opposed the tax.
Rachel Gillette, president of Colorado's chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said before the vote that her organization was not against taxing cannabis sales, but that the state was going too far.
"This is not keeping with the promise to tax marijuana like alcohol," Gillette said. "It's more like regulating the sale of plutonium than alcohol. It looks like a law-enforcement money grab."
BROADER TAS MEASURE FAILS
Backers of a statewide proposal that would have increased the state income tax to raise nearly $1 billion annually for public schools conceded defeat on Tuesday, as returns showed it losing 66 percent to 34 percent with about 25 percent of votes counted.
"Tonight, we know that goal isn't happening as soon as we'd like. But it will happen," said state Senator Mike Johnston, a Democrat from Denver.
The school funding constitutional amendment would have scrapped the state's current 4.63 percent flat income tax rate tied to federal adjusted gross income tax, and replaced it with a two-tiered income tax increase.
Under the proposal, taxpayers who made less than $75,000 would have paid a 5 percent rate and taxpayers who made over $75,000 would have faced a 5.9 percent rate.
Proponents of the measure say Colorado has for years underfunded public education, and sought voter approval to put school funding on a surer financial footing.
Opponents argued that Colorado requires local school districts to allocate tax revenues, so there is no guarantee on how the money will be spent at the local level, which could be used on teacher salaries or to backfill the state's underfunded public employees retirement fund.
Backers of the tax raised more than $10 million for their campaign, bombarding television and radio airwaves with ads, touting the need for money to fund full-day kindergarten, and to restore music, art and physical education programs.
Among the donors to the pro-tax measure were Microsoft founder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who, combined, donated $2 million to the campaign.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/supporters-declare-victory-colorado-measure-tax-recreational-pot-044430275.html
 

TheCleanGame

Active member
Veteran
This will allow for a strong regulatory environment...


Uhh.. no. It's going to seriously diminish the amount of taxes you WOULD have taken in... had it been kept sane at say... 2%?

Doesn't matter... I and everyone I know in Colorado (and their parents, regardless of age) are either talking about, gearing up to or are already growing for themselves.

Nice way to shoot yourselves in the foot guys!

Keep it Clean! :D
 
O

OrganicOzarks

I sure the fuck am not paying that high of a sales tax. They can suck my frosty nugs. :)
 

supermanlives

Active member
Veteran
greed will keep the black market going strong . they want too much in taxes and its gonna backfire on em. remember the old saying slow nickel over fast dime . lol
 

Hemphrey Bogart

Active member
Veteran
Something tells me that while everyone is going to be growing their own, CO will figure out a way to get their money.

Grow house tax, taxing "excessive" electrical use, selling permits...so many options for them.

People always try to stay one step ahead, but the government will always come up with new ways to take a piece.

HB.
 

Jhhnn

Active member
Veteran
Something tells me that while everyone is going to be growing their own, CO will figure out a way to get their money.

Grow house tax, taxing "excessive" electrical use, selling permits...so many options for them.

People always try to stay one step ahead, but the government will always come up with new ways to take a piece.

HB.

I don't think A64 allows for any of that. As part of the State Constitution, its not subject to being altered by the legislature. It says that Colorado residents have the right to grow a limited number of plants under certain circumstances, period. Those circumstances can't be altered other than by a vote of the People.

I do think that the authorities are probably being greedy, perhaps self defeating.

Colorado growers need to realize that increased tax revenues will probably be used for increased enforcement against bootleg commercial growers in no small way. People who grow strictly for personal consumption don't want to be mistaken for that. Understand the game, play it however you want, take your own chances, realize that blind luck is always a factor.
 

Avinash.miles

Caregiver Extraordinaire
Moderator
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I don't think A64 allows for any of that. As part of the State Constitution, its not subject to being altered by the legislature. It says that Colorado residents have the right to grow a limited number of plants under certain circumstances, period. Those circumstances can't be altered other than by a vote of the People.

I do think that the authorities are probably being greedy, perhaps self defeating.

Colorado growers need to realize that increased tax revenues will probably be used for increased enforcement against bootleg commercial growers in no small way. People who grow strictly for personal consumption don't want to be mistaken for that. Understand the game, play it however you want, take your own chances, realize that blind luck is always a factor.
I agree that this revenue is likely to go towards regulatory agencies

altho a64 does nothing to protect from taxes.... if co wanted to cut down on grows they could tax any number of products in order to do so, in addition to amping up the enforcement, once the dollars from rec. start flowing.
 

Jhhnn

Active member
Veteran
I agree that this revenue is likely to go towards regulatory agencies

altho a64 does nothing to protect from taxes.... if co wanted to cut down on grows they could tax any number of products in order to do so, in addition to amping up the enforcement, once the dollars from rec. start flowing.

I don't really think that'll work very well, given that growers can get everything they need via the internet.

It's not like they can tax the hell out of basic horticultural products like potting soil, pots, fertilizer & so forth w/o raising the ire of ordinary gardeners. Industrial users will have a fit if they try to tax bulbs & ballasts in a discriminatory fashion, too.

All of it is pretty much multi-use stuff if we think about it much at all.
 
Top