Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Tax Those Backyards
Old 10-21-2010, 04:05 PM   #41
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
MasterBlaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,359
Tax Those Backyards

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronin View Post
If back yard growers were to be taxed, we'd need more revenuers than cops now. Tax issue is red herring. Just like Lotto, $ for schools! Yeah, right.

Prohibition is ineffective, and wrong IMO. But unfortunately, this law was written by someone high on chronic. It is a poorly crafted initiative. In any event, if the states (read: the people) hammer away at the Feds long enough, even with dumb, illegal laws, possibly those jackasses will eventually get it, maybe.
What we really need is a new Back-Yard tax that would tax the opportunity to grow ! Maybe a few thou per backyard ought to cover the deficit.

Then people would be required to grow just to pay the taxes.
__________________

__________________
MasterBlaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 10-21-2010, 04:13 PM   #42
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rustic23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Livingston, Tx
Posts: 3,624
I don't buy the argument, 'If alcohol is legal then weed should be legal'. This argument seems to have no end. Legalize all dope with this argument.

I would vote to legalize it based on the cost, and the completely ineffective results to stamp it out. The cost to the legal system alone should be enormous.

However, unless the proposition has extremely tough penalties for sale or distribution to anyone under the age of 21, I would not vote for it. I feel the same way for cigarettes, and booze. I don't care what the average citizen inflects upon them selves, but that ends when they take it out side. i.e. driving! So you might not save that much in the legal system. You just may have the average citizen in jail for DUI instead.
__________________

__________________
If it is after 5:00 when I post I reserve the right to disavow anything I posted.
Rustic23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 04:26 PM   #43
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Waimanalo, HI
Posts: 1,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic23 View Post
I don't buy the argument, 'If alcohol is legal then weed should be legal'. This argument seems to have no end. Legalize all dope with this argument.
Now there's an idea.
__________________
Greg (retired in 2010 at age 68, state pension)
GregLee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 04:28 PM   #44
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 5,072
How well is the current approach working?

If it were my state... I would vote for it... and tax it. Make up for some of the tax shortfall.

Of course we would all vote for it we are children of the 60's and 70's
__________________
chinaco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 05:07 PM   #45
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,978
I think I'd vote to legalize it. There are millions of users out there now, it's been popular for 50 years and in use before then. I don't buy the argument that it's worse than alcohol, people have been killing themselves and others with alcohol forever.

There would have to be enforceable laws for related DUI/DWI.

Tax it by all means, just like alcohol and cigs.

But the big reason I'd vote to legalize it, is to end the violent and other crime associated with distribution. Gangs, mobsters, illegals, etc. - all out of business.

Creates jobs here, instead of growers in Mexico and south.

No I wouldn't use it, don't now and wouldn't if it was legal.

And if it turns out to be worse, wasn't alcohol legal, then illegal and then legal again?
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 05:08 PM   #46
Recycles dryer sheets
IBWino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by lets-retire View Post
From T-Al's description I would say California is not interested in the regulate side of the equation. What other prescribed drug are people allowed to grow and manufacture themselves? If the law was actually designed to provide medical care to people, it would be a bit more controlled than the description given. Not to mention it would be able to be taxed and many of California's money problems would be diminished. As long as the MJ isn't transported across state or country line, I don't think the feds can really do anything about it. From the sounds of it, the law was essentially written to feed the dopers.

On a more personal note, I am in support of legalizing marijuana. I'm still not sure I buy into the gateway drug theory. If you want to say MJ is a gateway drug then so are cigarettes and alcohol. I have yet to arrest a person for MJ possession who didn't have cigarettes on them and didn't drink. I think the biggest problem is going to be setting a limit for legal levels. Essentially if a person is still testing hot, they are still under the influence of that drug. I can also see many different occupations not allowing the use of MJ simply because of the long time the drug effects the body. Even using on Friday will result in the effects lasting well into the next week. Do you want you LE officers responding and shooting grandma while they are still under the influence of MJ?
I think this is a very good point. My BIL and I discussed this recently. His company has made it clear that they have a zero tolerance policy, regardless of the outcome of this election. If someone tests positive, they're fired.

I can see this proposition creating a whole new level of litigation opportunities issues if it is not well crafted.
__________________
IBWino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 05:19 PM   #47
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,199
I see a big problem with taxing it. The federal government says it is illegal, but is willing to take a don't ask don't tell stance with regard to the medical marijuana.

But I can't see the feds ignoring California condoning, regulating and taxing it to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I also can't see a big company willing to invest several hundred K to plant and harvest big fields of dope if they know that the feds could shut them down at any moment.
__________________
Al
TromboneAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 05:21 PM   #48
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,199
Quote:
His company has made it clear that they have a zero tolerance policy, regardless of the outcome of this election. If someone tests positive, they're fired.
They can't do that:

(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
__________________
Al
TromboneAl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 05:32 PM   #49
Recycles dryer sheets
IBWino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
They can't do that:

(c) No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act. Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
Well, I guess then the issue is in defining what level leads to impairment.
__________________
IBWino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 05:49 PM   #50
Recycles dryer sheets
Tigger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 388
I'd legalize it. That would eliminate a lot of crime. And I hear it's a great stress reliever. We all know stress kills.
__________________
Tigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 06:10 PM   #51
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
thefed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,203
vote yes. it's inevitable. don't fight it lol. i dont think it'll pass this time around tho...


if you can drink a beer and drive away from a bar, you should be able to the same with pot. enforcing DWI will be tougher though, as it stays in the system so long.

taxing it will help oyur shortfall in CA

it will eliminate a lot of black market situations. did you know that in amsterdam, where pot is legal, all OTHER heavier drug ovwerdoses are lower than any other country (source: drugs inc, nat geo special 2 day ago) This is because it is sold ina controlled environment....not pot in the left hand and heroin in the right (an extreme example...but I know first had that dealing with pot dealers opens the doors to EVERYTHING else...)

The $$ spent trying to stop its importation from canada an mexico will diminish, as it wont be 'as' profitible to do those things (this is a bit longer term...once it is legalized everywhere...for now, it wont make a diff)

the $$ wasted on jailing pot offenders can go to a good cause.

the list goes on

vote yes
__________________
thefed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 06:46 PM   #52
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,646
Vote yes. Ha is right, the war on drugs is disastrous for America.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 06:49 PM   #53
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Moemg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sarasota,fl.
Posts: 10,036
I'd not only vote for it . I'd open one of these restaurants in the area .
Attached Images
File Type: jpg m1.jpg (426.1 KB, 12 views)
__________________
Moemg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 08:17 PM   #54
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
I see a big problem with taxing it. The federal government says it is illegal, but is willing to take a don't ask don't tell stance with regard to the medical marijuana.

But I can't see the feds ignoring California condoning, regulating and taxing it to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I also can't see a big company willing to invest several hundred K to plant and harvest big fields of dope if they know that the feds could shut them down at any moment.
They made change their tune if federal taxpayers get tired of funding out of control California budget shortfalls. I wouldn't care if California closed their deficit by setting up state run brothels, just keep it from costing me anything.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 08:30 PM   #55
Full time employment: Posting here.
BTravlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 994
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
If I had the opportunity I would definitely vote yes, and not because I want to use it, I don't.

Prohibition is wrecking our society, wrecking America, contributing to a vast overgrowth of police power, involving the armed forces in activities far removed from war waging (which may be part of the reason they are no good at that anymore).

As far as neighborhood grow houses, dealing and criminality, it would stop most of it dead. What do you care if your neighbor has a few plants and a grow light? Do you care if he makes beer or wine?

For that matter, what business of any of us is it if someone else wants to purchase and use marijuana?

It's more nanny state becomes police state.

Ha
Agreed. Prohibition doesn't work, never has and never will. Why expend a huge amount of our scarce resources trying to protect people from themselves? I'd rather use those resources to protect us all from others who want to hurt us.

Prohibition creates a huge black market controlled by criminals who use their huge profits to corrupt numerous aspects of society to get their drugs to market.

And marijuana is only a gateway drug because it's illegal and users have to go to criminals to get it. While the user is there the dealer offers up all the other drugs they traffic in.

Along this same line of reasoning I'd legalize all drugs. This would truly kill the cartels or at the very least turn them into legitimate tax paying global megacorps.

Legalize it all, regulate and tax it. Use some portion of the tax revenues to pay for treatment programs for those who get in over their heads. Cheaper and more humane in the long run than incarcerating them and turning them into lifelong criminals.

We might just save Mexico, a few South American countries and ourselves in the process.
__________________
Wherever you go, there you are.
(In other words, no whining!)
BTravlin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 08:51 PM   #56
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
harley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Following the nice weather
Posts: 6,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by TromboneAl View Post
I see a big problem with taxing it. The federal government says it is illegal, but is willing to take a don't ask don't tell stance with regard to the medical marijuana.

But I can't see the feds ignoring California condoning, regulating and taxing it to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. I also can't see a big company willing to invest several hundred K to plant and harvest big fields of dope if they know that the feds could shut them down at any moment.
The feds stance on this is just a bluff. They don't have the manpower to enforce federal marijuana laws in CA. That's an estimated 3 million illegal users, not counting the medical users. Where are all these DEA agents going to come from? For that matter, Eric Holder's announcement wasn't a strong statement against legalization, it was a response to the letter sent out by 9 previous DEA heads criticizing him for his lack of response. The Obama administration has much bigger things to worry about.

And this is just the next big step in the eventual end of the incredibly costly (in dollars and societal damage) prohibition. This is how it happens, chipping away until it stops being worth it to continue.

The other only other legitimate concern I can see, DUI, already has methods to deal with the problem. Nothing will change there.

And as far as the prop being poorly written regarding local control of regulations, I seem to remember being in CA and not being able to buy liquor on Sunday on one side of the street, but being able to on the other side (city/county boundry). I know here in VA, beer and wine sales are totally locally controlled. And in MD, liquor is too. I don't see a problem here.

So in case you haven't guessed, yes.

edit: here are a few links that might help.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/20/th...ack-of-vigor-a

http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/0...st-prevaricati
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Will Rogers, or maybe Sam Clemens
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
harley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 09:07 PM   #57
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
veremchuka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: irradiated - too close to the nuclear furnace
Posts: 1,294
the war on drugs is a joke. we've waged it for what 30, 40 years, how's it working out? prisons are full of people for possession and dangerous thugs walk the street cuz there's no room for them.

there are a hundred reasons to not legalize it and another hundred to legalize it. taxing it would create a lot of revenue but would legalization put smugglers and dealers out of business? i say no because whatever the legal price is the bad guys will under cut it. it costs very little to produce literally tons of pot so they have a lot of room to drop their price lower than the legal price.

as far as a gateway drug this is bs, total BS. everyone that is a (name your addiction) addict started with pot but they also drank milk and ate bread and watched tv didn't they? if you have an addictive personality then you'll be an addict. i don't care whether you ever smoked pot or not, you'll get hooked on drugs or booze because you have the desire to use them. it is not pot it's the person.

i used to smoke large amounts of pot for decades and i just quit when i realized it was not making my life better but worse. i never used hard drugs, i don't have an addictive personality. i used to stop smoking cigarettes when the mood hit me after smoking for years - now talk to people that are cig smokers and see how many can do that! maybe 1/1000 th of 1%?

pot is much less dangerous than booze. virtually everyone that drinks is violent and gets into fights or exhibits anti social behavior. i never saw anyone act that way when high on pot and i was with a lot of drinkers and pot smokers over the years. another thing, i have driven literally tens of thousands of miles maybe 100's of thousands of miles high on pot and i never had an accident or got a ticket for any driving infraction ever tho i did tend to drive a bit slow!

i could count on 1 hand the number of times i have smoked pot in the past 5 years and when i did i was uncomfortable. i just don't miss it. now if it was legal i would definitely use it because i wouldn't have to fear being arrested and i'd like to try various types to see what is the best. but i suspect i'd stop soon because today i don't like feeling high.

now hashish was a totally different high than pot, vastly different like night and day. i'd love to have some of that! it wasn't all that easy to find 40 years ago and it's been literally 35+ years since i've smoked that. it was very apparent that hashish was a very mellow mind expanding peaceful high whereas pot was all body rushes and confusion in your thinking. i saw the show on drugs a few weeks ago and they said there are 2 types of cannabis - sativa and indicata and one is the typical pot high but the other is more like hashish.
__________________
veremchuka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 09:13 PM   #58
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
harley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Following the nice weather
Posts: 6,435
From amsterdammarijuanaseedbank.com:

The Sativa High :
The sativa high is often characterized as uplifting and energetic . The effects of a sativa marijuana are mostly cerebral. They give a feeling of optimism and well - being, as well as providing a good measure of pain relief for certain symptoms. A few pure sativas are also very high in THC content. They are known to have a quite spacey, or hallucinogenic, effect. Sativas are a good choice for daytime smoking.


The Indica High :
The indica highs are most often described as a pleasant body buzz. Indicas are great for relaxation, stress relief, and for an overall sense of calm and serenity. Marijuana indicas are also very effective for overall body pain relief, and often used in the treatment of insomnia. They are the late - evening choice of many smokers as an all - night sleep aid. A few pure indica strains are very potent in THC, and will cause the "couchlock" effect, enabling the smoker to simply sit still and enjoy the experience of the smoke.
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Will Rogers, or maybe Sam Clemens
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
harley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 09:16 PM   #59
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
harley's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Following the nice weather
Posts: 6,435
Also, don't forget Arizona is about to become the 15th state to allow medical marijuana. Or maybe the 16th, since South Dakota is also voting on it this time. That would be nearly 1/3 of the country that allows MM. The enforcement complications are going to get so far out of hand that there will be no real way to continue.

chip, chip, chip...
__________________
"Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement." - Will Rogers, or maybe Sam Clemens
DW and I - FIREd at 50 (7/06), living off assets
harley is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2010, 09:18 PM   #60
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,798
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
Probably an exaggeration to say someone who tests positive is still impaired. After all, depending on the circumstances, and the person, and the type of test, one could still be stoned for weeks...

Must've been some good chit...
Going off the DUI laws it really doesn't matter the effects of alcohol once it hits a certain level, the presumption is the person is intoxicated typically around .08 or .10. Right now any level of THC in the body while driving is enough to get a conviction. Physiologically the body still "suffers" the effects of the THC as long as the person tests positive, because the body is still metabolizing the THC, IIRC. I might be off on this a bit it has been a long time since I studied it. The problem becomes where to draw the line to say at XX level the person is presumed to be to impaired to drive.
__________________

__________________
You don't want to work. You want to live like a king, but the big bad world don't owe you a thing. Get over it--The Eagles
lets-retire is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pot smoking renter clifp Other topics 41 02-12-2010 10:22 AM
Stirring the pot...heeheeheeee freebird5825 FIRE and Money 15 10-23-2009 10:53 AM
Any POT heads on here? Trapshooter Stock Picking and Market Strategy 7 05-10-2008 06:44 PM
Home De-Pot ronin Other topics 8 06-14-2006 08:14 PM
OFFICE 'POT LUCKS' Ginger Life after FIRE 8 09-01-2005 05:31 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:32 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.