Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act (for sale, transporting, lease)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey TAI here is another Ronald Reagan quote for you to use.
What a line, and a lie.
LOL, and then people wondered why he got ripped in the thread about conservatives trying to create a national day for him. That damn lie is absolutely horrendous. Well, he's about to turn in his grave in November.
LOL, and then people wondered why he got ripped in the thread about conservatives trying to create a national day for him. That damn lie is absolutely horrendous. Well, he's about to turn in his grave in November.
Good maybe he will give our founding fathers a rest then, they must be pretty dizzy by now.
How on earth are they going to regulate and tax a substance whos users have spent their lifetime doing under the radar? Does anyone really think the illegal market for it will just go away because it's legalized? It's too easy and cheap to grow, and it will grow just about anywhere. All that will happen is, the current users will be more open about using it, no taxes will be gained.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,865 posts, read 10,400,492 times
Reputation: 6670
One of the things you seldom hear discussed is "how much tax" would be imposed on marijuana if it becomes legalized. Some estimates place the current (underground) profits at well over 500% of the actual cost of Cannabis "production". So if all (or most) of that difference simply gets transferred over to the government (as many legislators are currently "anticipating"), then obviously this will have pretty serious implications for the local economies in certain parts of the state.
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allows It to Be Regulated and Taxed.
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees
(a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
(b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.
How on earth are they going to regulate and tax a substance whos users have spent their lifetime doing under the radar? Does anyone really think the illegal market for it will just go away because it's legalized? It's too easy and cheap to grow, and it will grow just about anywhere. All that will happen is, the current users will be more open about using it, no taxes will be gained.
Easy, people want to sell their licensed products to stores and distributors for legitimate profits and customers want the convenience of being able to walk into a store and buy cannabis or any other product on the market. People pay for convenience all the time regardless of the taxes that come with the final price and people want to be able to run legitimate businesses regardless of the taxes that are taken out of their profits.
You seem to hold the opinion that the population of California on a majority would would rather be criminals and fund organized crime; instead of paying taxes on substance that is sold in a store? Ye of little knowledge and faith in your fellow citizens, maybe organized crime should expand into selling everything else that is taxed and found in stores.
Do some research on the era of Alcohol prohibition because it is a perfect example, it fueled and created violent organized crime and ended the vast majority of those organizations when repealed.
Alcohol is easy to produce but is also sold in stores, do you or the majority of the people you know buy illegally to avoid taxes? Please, by all means show us the statistics on the huge black markets that propagates illegal sales and distribution of alcohol and then compare for us here; the annual estimated amounts of money earned on alcohol illegally to the annual amounts of money earned from alcohol taxes.
Will the black market for Cannabis disappear completely? No, I don't think anyone thinks that. Will it shrink the black market and be detrimental to organized crime fueled by the Cannabis trade?
Definitely
Don't forget the billions in potential profits and taxes that industrial hemp represents, something that neither Organized Crime or our country is taking advantage of because of Cannabis prohibition.
I'd vote in favor of it. Compared to the other things that the California state government talks about on a daily basis, like taxing people with black cars or fine people who curse, this idea sounds less stupid. On a whole other level.
There is really no real reason why its still illegal, besides the strawman argument "because its illegal" Kind of circular reasoning, no?
However, I would want to see how the Supreme Court will react. They won't be to happy about this one.
One of the things you seldom hear discussed is "how much tax" would be imposed on marijuana if it becomes legalized. Some estimates place the current (underground) profits at well over 500% of the actual cost of Cannabis "production". So if all (or most) of that difference simply gets transferred over to the government (as many legislators are currently "anticipating"), then obviously this will have pretty serious implications for the local economies in certain parts of the state.
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allows It to Be Regulated and Taxed.
Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees
(a) Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
(b) Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.
Say would you like to expand on this? Not sure how to take this post because it reads both as a possible boon for the state and unreasonable tax burden for those who want to be legitimate participants in the potential market.
If you wrote it to show the latter sentiment, then I'd like to point out that the amount of tax revenue from this would only equal the costs associated with the regulation of the market. Which is stated in the language that you quoted..
Quote:
Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme
Associated costs would control the amount of taxes applied to the Cannabis market and would allow for the market to grow, much like the alcohol taxes are controlled to allow for reasonable market prices. In regards to benefits to the state budget, if you go to Legislative Analyst's Office's site.. http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/main.aspx and look up the legally required analysis that was done for this bill which is "A.G. File No. 09‑0024, Amdt. #1-S"
Quote:
Fiscal Effects
Although the federal government recently announced that it would no longer prosecute medical marijuana patients and providers whose actions are consistent with Proposition 215, it has continued to enforce its prohibitions on non-medical marijuana activities. To the extent that the federal government continued to enforce existing federal marijuana laws, it would generally have the effect of impeding or eliminating the cultivation, possession, transportation, sale, or use of marijuana permitted by this measure under state law.
Thus, the revenues or expenditures resulting from this measure would be subject to significant uncertainty. The measure could have the following fiscal effects discussed below. Reduction in State and Local Correctional Costs. The measure could result in significant savings to state and local governments, potentially up to several tens of millions of dollars annually, by reducing the number of marijuana offenders incarcerated in state prisons and county jails. It could also reduce the number of persons placed on county probation or state parole. The county jail savings would be offset to the extent that jail beds no longer needed for marijuana offenders were used for other criminals who are now being released early because of a lack of jail space. Redirection of Court and Law Enforcement Resources. The measure could result in a major reduction in state and local costs for enforcement of marijuana-related offenses and the handling of related criminal cases in the court system. However, it is likely that state and local governments would redirect some or all of their resources to other law enforcement and court activities, reducing or perhaps eliminating the savings that could otherwise be realized. Potential Effects on Substance Abuse Program Costs. The measure could result in an increase in the consumption of marijuana, potentially resulting in an unknown increase in the number of individuals seeking publicly funded substance abuse treatment services. For example, the state Drug Medi-Cal Program could incur increased costs of a few million dollars annually. This measure could also have fiscal effects on state- and locally funded drug treatment programs for criminal offenders, such as drug courts. For example, the measure might reduce spending on mandatory treatment for some criminal offenders, or result in the redirection of these funds for other offenders. Potential Reduction in Medical Marijuana Program. The measure could potentially reduce both the costs and offsetting revenues of the state’s Medical Marijuana Program, a patient registry that identifies those individuals eligible under state law to legally purchase and consume marijuana for medical purposes. That is because some adults 21 and over would likely no longer participate in the program to obtain marijuana. Potential New Revenues From the Legalization of Marijuana. State and local governments could realize additional revenues from sales taxes generated by commercial producers of marijuana. The state could also realize additional income tax revenues from the production and sale of marijuana. In addition, local governments could realize additional revenue from various types of taxes, benefit assessments, and fees on marijuana. The actual level of revenues generated would depend upon the rate of such levies and how the measure changed the consumption and sales price of marijuana. Moreover, the amount of all of the various revenues that could be generated under this measure would depend considerably on the extent to which the federal government enforces its laws against marijuana in California. Effects on State and Local Fine Revenues. The measure could reduce state and local revenues from the collection of the fines established in current law for marijuana criminal offenders. However, there could be additional fine revenue generated from the new civil and criminal penalties for violators of the measure, such as for selling marijuana commercially without authorization. The net fiscal effect of these changes in fine revenues is unknown. Summary of Fiscal Effects
Given that the federal government continues to enforce federal marijuana laws that do not conflict with state medical marijuana laws, the revenues and expenditures resulting from this measure would be subject to significant uncertainty. We estimate that this measure would have the following major fiscal effects:
Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders.
Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,865 posts, read 10,400,492 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by keroppininja
Say would you like to expand on this? Not sure how to take this post because it reads both as a possible boon for the state and unreasonable tax burden for those who want to be legitimate participants in the potential market.
If you wrote it to show the latter sentiment, then I'd like to point out that the amount of tax revenue from this would only equal the costs associated with the regulation of the market. Which is stated in the language that you quoted..
Associated costs would control the amount of taxes applied to the Cannabis market and would allow for the market to grow, much like the alcohol taxes are controlled to allow for reasonable market prices. In regards to benefits to the state budget, if you go to Legislative Analyst's Office's site.. http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/main.aspx and look up the legally required analysis that was done for this bill which is "A.G. File No. 09‑0024, Amdt. #1-S"
Especially these days, alot of the local economy in some parts of the state comes from the (substantial) profits derived from the marijuana biz. Of course the state (and plenty of others) are salivating at getting a piece of that action. I'm just asking the obvious question of how much of that profit will be "re-directed" to state coffers thru legalization & taxes, and what''ll be the economic impact on all those communities?
As written, the legislation is pretty vague about defining things like "reasonable market prices", "the costs associated with the regulation of the market", "permitting the local government to raise revenue", etc., but pretty specific that however defined, it'll all be "without limitation".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.