Marijuana and Taxes.

Open discussion about the world we live in today. Topics in here can get heated, but please keep it civil.

Moderator: Priests of Syrinx

zepboy
Posts: 6760
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:42 am
Location: Lookin for a place.
Contact:

Post by zepboy » Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:58 pm

Xanadu wrote:Actually, it used to be LEGAL...weed has been used for THOUSANDS of years, only recently in the last 100 years has it been illegal. People who ignore the law are the ones who are NOT giving up, everyone else has given up on freedom.
Having little or no regard for the rule of law is the issue I have a problem with more than the legalizing of a drug. Of course, I am against legalizing pot, but the ignorance of law is a much more crucial issue. Without respect for existing laws, any society is in jeopardy of rapid decay.

When we live in a society where people do whatever is right in their own eyes, with little regard for the law, we are in deep trouble. This is where we are heading in a hurry.

User avatar
Me
Posts: 3086
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:20 am

Post by Me » Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:22 pm

I think it is wise to educate oneself and be informed before you pass judgement or make decisions.
It's high time they legalize Marijuana, at the very least for medical purposes. The truth about marijunana has been hidden under a cloak of lies and misconceptions for far to long. In my opinion alcohol is much, much worst! No one has ever died from marijuana posioning or abused their wife and children under it's influence, unlike alcohol.

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/ ... legal.html
When evil is allowed to compete with good, evil has an emotional populist appeal that wins out unless good men & women stand as a vanguard against abuse.

User avatar
Raiden
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:30 pm
Location: Earthrealm

Post by Raiden » Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:11 am

Walkinghairball wrote:
Raiden wrote:If you need to be high to be artistic, you're pathetic. The fact that a lot of "classic rock" was made by stoners who couldn't handle reality is a shame.
You do like Rush don't you??? They are/were what you just described. Other than pathetic.

As medicinal, it is supposedly good for a ton of ailments, including eye problems. What if the benefits could help say................T4EFan???

Is it still so horrible?
Okay, show me a case where someone used pot to stimulate the growth of their optic nerves...*

I'm fully aware of Rush's past. I think they were at their best later on, but that's just my opinion.


*Didn't expect you to know that

User avatar
Walkinghairball
Posts: 25037
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.

Post by Walkinghairball » Tue Jul 07, 2009 7:23 am

Raiden wrote:
Walkinghairball wrote:
Raiden wrote:If you need to be high to be artistic, you're pathetic. The fact that a lot of "classic rock" was made by stoners who couldn't handle reality is a shame.
You do like Rush don't you??? They are/were what you just described. Other than pathetic.

As medicinal, it is supposedly good for a ton of ailments, including eye problems. What if the benefits could help say................T4EFan???

Is it still so horrible?
Okay, show me a case where someone used pot to stimulate the growth of their optic nerves...*

I'm fully aware of Rush's past. I think they were at their best later on, but that's just my opinion.


*Didn't expect you to know that
I couldn't tell you that without further research, just as you can only go by what you want to believe. I guess some kind of Google search might be in order. I have heard and read about Glaucoma and Catarack benefits though. And yes I realize that is not at all like optic nerve stuff.

I still find it odd you think of Rush as, "Pathetic classic rock stoners" though. Even if it is just in their early days. If you don't like that, how can you really like them now without hypocriting your point??

Just wondering, again I'm not trying to bust balls here.
This space for rent

User avatar
Xanadu
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: My vortex.

Post by Xanadu » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:15 am

Having little or no regard for the rule of law is the issue I have a problem with more than the legalizing of a drug.


What if a law violates ones rights and the our constitution? Kind of like what if they made guns illegal? Marijuana used to be legal!!!

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/ ... legal.html
...but the ignorance of law is a much more crucial issue.
I think most people who smoke herb know its illegal! *poke* :razz:
When we live in a society where people do whatever is right in their own eyes, with little regard for the law, we are in deep trouble.


Since you and me both believe in everyone having a soul I think I can ask you this: Do you not have a God-given/innate sense of morals? Isn't there something inside of you that would stop you from say killing or stealing or being mean to your loved ones (or anyone!), self harm, lying...etc.? Would it not feel wrong to even think about doing those things?

Now I'm NOT talking here about our ego minds and what we have been taught, I'm talking about that subconscious deep down feeling of right and wrong. That thing that most people seem to drown out a whole lot...that thing that can stop rage right in its tracks...that connection to the universe/God/source/light...your moral compass...something no dogma can take away from you, its always there, you can reconnect at any time...ITS CALLED LOVE!!!

Sane people who are criminals CHOSE to be criminals because they IGNORED their inner soul guidance and CHOSE to do something horrid. The law does NOT keep me from killing or stealing or lying...my SOUL and LOVE is what keeps me strait.
This is where we are heading in a hurry.
You know what we're really headed to? FASCISM!!! Unless we start waking up and realizing the REAL problems (spiritual/philosophical) and see what is happening, WE ARE LOOSING OUR FREEDOMS...and for what?
We're all mad here!

User avatar
Xanadu
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:26 pm
Location: My vortex.

Post by Xanadu » Tue Jul 07, 2009 9:29 am

Okay, show me a case where someone used pot to stimulate the growth of their optic nerves...*
Who was saying they used it for that? It is an effective pain medication for even a lot of severe pain without causing the harmful side effects that opiates and NSAIDs cause. Opiates loose their effectiveness rapidly from tolerance and cause nausea and constipation...NSAIDs can cause strokes and intestinal bleeding...yadda...its also effective for even severe depression (without the nasty side effects of antidepressants like loss of sex drive, suicide, liver failure etc.) , manic depression and even anxiety. Seriously, there are people with chronic pain and mental problems who nothing else works for...at least they should be allowed to have it!
I'm fully aware of Rush's past. I think they were at their best later on, but that's just my opinion.
And we're so sure they don't smoke weed now *poke* :razz:
We're all mad here!

User avatar
Raiden
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:30 pm
Location: Earthrealm

Post by Raiden » Tue Jul 07, 2009 5:09 pm

Walkinghairball wrote:
Raiden wrote:
Walkinghairball wrote:
Raiden wrote:If you need to be high to be artistic, you're pathetic. The fact that a lot of "classic rock" was made by stoners who couldn't handle reality is a shame.
You do like Rush don't you??? They are/were what you just described. Other than pathetic.

As medicinal, it is supposedly good for a ton of ailments, including eye problems. What if the benefits could help say................T4EFan???

Is it still so horrible?
Okay, show me a case where someone used pot to stimulate the growth of their optic nerves...*

I'm fully aware of Rush's past. I think they were at their best later on, but that's just my opinion.


*Didn't expect you to know that
I still find it odd you think of Rush as, "Pathetic classic rock stoners" though. Even if it is just in their early days. If you don't like that, how can you really like them now without hypocriting your point??

Just wondering, again I'm not trying to bust balls here.
I was referring to people who seem to think they can't write music without being stoned at the time. From what I've heard, Rush weren't as bad about that as, say, Black Sabbath, the Rolling Stones and the Beatles. I'm not saying they're all terrible people and need to die.

How do I know Rush aren't still whacked out on God knows what? Because I spy on them. :wink:


I'm going to shut up now before I start a riot.

User avatar
Walkinghairball
Posts: 25037
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.

Post by Walkinghairball » Tue Jul 07, 2009 6:44 pm

Raiden wrote:
Walkinghairball wrote:
Raiden wrote:
Walkinghairball wrote:
Raiden wrote:If you need to be high to be artistic, you're pathetic. The fact that a lot of "classic rock" was made by stoners who couldn't handle reality is a shame.
You do like Rush don't you??? They are/were what you just described. Other than pathetic.

As medicinal, it is supposedly good for a ton of ailments, including eye problems. What if the benefits could help say................T4EFan???

Is it still so horrible?
Okay, show me a case where someone used pot to stimulate the growth of their optic nerves...*

I'm fully aware of Rush's past. I think they were at their best later on, but that's just my opinion.


*Didn't expect you to know that
I still find it odd you think of Rush as, "Pathetic classic rock stoners" though. Even if it is just in their early days. If you don't like that, how can you really like them now without hypocriting your point??

Just wondering, again I'm not trying to bust balls here.
I was referring to people who seem to think they can't write music without being stoned at the time. From what I've heard, Rush weren't as bad about that as, say, Black Sabbath, the Rolling Stones and the Beatles. I'm not saying they're all terrible people and need to die.

How do I know Rush aren't still whacked out on God knows what? Because I spy on them. :wink:


I'm going to shut up now before I start a riot.

No, don't shut up. There is no riot here, just alla us asking questions for clarity. I get what you are saying about stoners and music writing, I was just looking for a clearer picture.
I'm not saying they're all terrible people and need to die.
Oh why not??? *wink* :razz: :-D :lol:


How do I know Rush aren't still whacked out on God knows what? Because I spy on them. :wink:
^^^^^^
Made me LOL. :lol: :-)
This space for rent

User avatar
Raiden
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:30 pm
Location: Earthrealm

Post by Raiden » Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:56 pm

My responses in bold.
Walkinghairball wrote:
Raiden wrote:
Walkinghairball wrote:
Raiden wrote:
Walkinghairball wrote:
Raiden wrote:If you need to be high to be artistic, you're pathetic. The fact that a lot of "classic rock" was made by stoners who couldn't handle reality is a shame.
You do like Rush don't you??? They are/were what you just described. Other than pathetic.

As medicinal, it is supposedly good for a ton of ailments, including eye problems. What if the benefits could help say................T4EFan???

Is it still so horrible?
Okay, show me a case where someone used pot to stimulate the growth of their optic nerves...*

I'm fully aware of Rush's past. I think they were at their best later on, but that's just my opinion.


*Didn't expect you to know that
I still find it odd you think of Rush as, "Pathetic classic rock stoners" though. Even if it is just in their early days. If you don't like that, how can you really like them now without hypocriting your point??

Just wondering, again I'm not trying to bust balls here.
I was referring to people who seem to think they can't write music without being stoned at the time. From what I've heard, Rush weren't as bad about that as, say, Black Sabbath, the Rolling Stones and the Beatles. I'm not saying they're all terrible people and need to die.

How do I know Rush aren't still whacked out on God knows what? Because I spy on them. :wink:


I'm going to shut up now before I start a riot.

No, don't shut up. There is no riot here, just alla us asking questions for clarity. I get what you are saying about stoners and music writing, I was just looking for a clearer picture.

Ah, okay. My apologies for my foggy language.

I'm not saying they're all terrible people and need to die.
Oh why not??? *wink* :razz: :-D :lol:

What, you want me to smite someone for you? :razz:

How do I know Rush aren't still whacked out on God knows what? Because I spy on them. :wink:
^^^^^^
Made me LOL. :lol: :-)
Last edited by Raiden on Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Walkinghairball
Posts: 25037
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.

Post by Walkinghairball » Wed Jul 08, 2009 7:43 am

Heh heh heh.

Rock on Raiden. :-D
This space for rent

User avatar
Raiden
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:30 pm
Location: Earthrealm

Post by Raiden » Wed Jul 08, 2009 11:14 am

Hmm...how'd that stray tag get there?

User avatar
Walkinghairball
Posts: 25037
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.

Post by Walkinghairball » Thu Jul 16, 2009 8:12 am

Now, something new from California.
Calif. tax officials: Legal pot would bring $1.4B
By MARCUS WOHLSEN, Associated Press Writer Marcus Wohlsen, Associated Press Writer ? Wed Jul 15, 9:14 pm ET


SAN FRANCISCO ? A bill to tax and regulate marijuana in California like alcohol would generate nearly $1.4 billion in revenue for the cash-strapped state, according to an official analysis released Wednesday by tax officials.

The State Board of Equalization report estimates marijuana retail sales would bring $990 million from a $50-per-ounce fee and $392 million in sales taxes.

The bill introduced by San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano in February would allow adults 21 and older to legally possess, grow and sell marijuana.

Ammiano has promoted the bill as a way to help bridge the state's $26.3 billion budget shortfall.

"It defies reason to propose closing parks and eliminating vital services for the poor while this potential revenue is available," Ammiano said in a statement.

The way the bill is written, the state could not begin collecting taxes until the federal government legalizes marijuana. A spokesman says Ammiano plans to amend the bill to remove that provision.

The legislation requires all revenue generated by the $50-per-ounce fee to be used for drug education and rehabilitation programs. The state's 9 percent sales tax would be applied to retail sales, while the fee would likely be charged at the wholesale level and built into the retail price.

The Equalization Board used law enforcement and academic studies to calculate that about 16 million ounces ? or 500 tons ? of marijuana are consumed in California each year.

Marijuana use would likely increase by about 30 percent once the law took effect because legalization would lead to falling prices, the board said.

Estimates of marijuana use, cultivation and sales are notoriously difficult to come by because of the drug's status as a black-market substance. Calculations by marijuana advocates and law enforcement officials often differ widely.

"That's one reason why we look at multiple reports from multiple sources ? so that no one agenda is considered to be the deciding or determining data," said board spokeswoman Anita Gore.

Advocates and opponents do agree that California is by far the country's top pot-producing state. Last year law enforcement agencies in California seized nearly 5.3 million plants.

If passed, Ammiano's bill could increase the tension between the state and the U.S. government over marijuana, which is banned outright under federal law. The two sides have clashed often since state voters passed a ballot measure in 1996 legalizing marijuana for medical use.

At the same time, some medical marijuana dispensary operators in the state have said they are less fearful of federal raids since U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department would defer to state marijuana regulations.

Advocates pounced on the analysis as ammunition for their claim that the ban on marijuana is obsolete.

"We can't borrow or slash our way out of this deficit," said Stephen Gutwillig, California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "The legislature must consider innovative sources of new revenue, and marijuana should be at the top of that list."

Ammiano's bill is still in committee. Hearings on the legislation are expected this fall.

Also Wednesday, three Los Angeles City Council members proposed taxing medical marijuana to help close the city's budget gap.

Council members Janice Hahn, Dennis Zine and Bill Rosendahl backed a motion asking city finance officials to explore taxing the drug.

Hahn said that with more than 400 dispensaries operating in the city, the tax could generate significant revenue. The motion pointed out that a proposed tax increase on medical marijuana in Oakland, which has only four dispensaries, was projected to bring in more than $300,000 in 2010.

Meanwhile, marijuana supporters have taken the first official step toward putting the legalization question directly to California voters.

A trio of Northern California criminal defense attorneys on Wednesday submitted a pot legalization measure to the state attorney general's office, which must provide an official summary before supporters can begin gathering signatures.

About 443,000 signatures are necessary to place The Tax, Regulate and Control Cannabis Act on the November 2010 ballot. The measure would repeal all state and local laws that criminalize marijuana.
This space for rent

zepboy
Posts: 6760
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:42 am
Location: Lookin for a place.
Contact:

Post by zepboy » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:18 pm

^^^^^^^^^^^
I still think that making something legal doesn't make it right. Is the need/love of money REALLY a valid reason?

User avatar
Walkinghairball
Posts: 25037
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.

Post by Walkinghairball » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:20 pm

zepboy wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^
I still think that making something legal doesn't make it right. Is the need/love of money REALLY a valid reason?

Don't know. I think that it is a lesser of two evils in the regard that it might actually be a way to help the ailing, and the deficit. Gnomesayin?

Granted, it will most likely be abused like EVERYTHING else. Double edged what??? :-)
This space for rent

Sir Myghin
Posts: 9148
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:12 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post by Sir Myghin » Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:22 pm

The high unregulation of allowing anyone to sell/grow is kind of shooting yourself in the foot too. But the fact they are trying to tote this as a deficit solution, I agree with Zep when saying, is utterly pathetic.

Post Reply