When will you realize that you have only one vote and it really won't make any difference in our lives? We all get one round!
When you gonna wake up and realize it? So far, you're just tilting at windmills, and they're winning!
Posted on 08/17/2006 3:38:19 PM PDT by Wolfie
Marijuana Amendment Will Be On Ballot
Denver -- Coloradans are to decide this fall whether to make it legal under state law for anyone age 21 and older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana. Secretary of State Gigi Dennis said Wednesday that backers of that initiative had turned in enough signatures to qualify for the Nov. 7 general election. The proposal will be Amendment 44 on the state ballot, Dennis said.
Under Colorado law, anyone in possession of an ounce or less of marijuana can be charged with a Class 2 petty offense, punishable by a fine of up to $100.
Legislative staffers preparing an analysis of the initiative report that during the 2005-06 state budget year, state courts convicted 3,700 adults for possession of such amounts of marijuana.
The legalization proposal is being pushed by SAFER, an organization that asserts that marijuana is a “Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation” than alcohol.
“The campaign will highlight the hypocrisy of laws that prohibit the use of marijuana while allowing and even encouraging the use of alcohol, an infinitely more harmful drug,” SAFER spokesman Mason Tvert said Wednesday.
If approved by voters, Amendment 44 would change state law to allow adults age 21 and older to possess or use small amounts of marijuana, according to the legislative staff analysis, as long as that use doesn’t occur in public. It still would be illegal for anyone younger than 21 to possess any amount of marijuana or for people 21 and older to possess amounts more than an ounce.
It also would still be illegal for individuals age 18 and older to transfer any amount of marijuana to anyone younger than 15.
State laws also would continue to ban: growing or selling marijuana; open and public display, use or consumption of marijuana; and driving under the influence of marijuana.
SAFER has noted that even if voters OK the initiative, home-rule cities and towns would still have the ability to ticket and prosecute marijuana users under local ordinances.
Last year, SAFER successfully campaigned for an ordinance change to make it legal for an adult to possess up to an ounce of marijuana in Denver, but the organization has complained that Denver continues to prosecute people under state law.
Tvert said in an interview that voter passage of a state legalization measure would “send a large message” to home-rule municipalities “about how the people of Colorado feel about this.”
Tvert said alcohol abuse “contributes to social problems like fighting, sexual assault, property damage and domestic violence. Marijuana use has never been linked to these types of issues.”
Tvert said he expects Amendment 44 to be opposed by members of the state’s law enforcement community, including Colorado Attorney General John Suthers.
Suthers spokeswoman Kristen Holtzman said Wednesday that “the attorney general’s position on this issue has not changed. He is adamantly against the legalization of marijuana.”
Foes of SAFER’s proposal have argued that marijuana use can lead someone to other illegal drugs and thus increase overall drug use and drug abuse in Colorado.
Indeed you are.
When will you realize that you have only one vote and it really won't make any difference in our lives? We all get one round!
When you gonna wake up and realize it? So far, you're just tilting at windmills, and they're winning!
Don't change the rules after we start playing the game. Second request.
Changing the rules? What the hell are you talking about Paulson? The $100 an ounce example was showing the guy that the government could tax pot at an obscene rate, ie 10,000% of it's production cost, and still make the cost of an ounce far lower than the black market cost, not that the government would tax it that much. Since you failed to read past that, I also said a mere 1,000% tax would come to $10, which is still an obscene tax rate.
This also begs the question, why aren't you out growing tobacco and selling it now? You could make a lot of money undercutting the black market. Other than the fact you really can't. The reason the smugglers do now is because they don't have to produce it, they just buy it from one state and move it to another, and it is still a pittence in the overall scheme of things.
Compared to your taxation scheme of $99 on a $1 item, the tobacco tax is a pittance. As taxes on cigarettes rise, smuggling increases. The same will happen with marijuana. The gangs will not go away. You're dreaming.
Who said they would? They would ceratinly be weaker and would become a blip on the rader under legalization. Alcohol has proved that in spades. Other than the occassional moonshiner, nobody really deals in black market alcohol.
How the hell would I know? The govt. doesn't keep tabs on these things.
I would guess 1,000 or so myself, which is far too high a number. Even if I agreed with you 5 guess that's too high.
Now me, I say this happens maybe 5 or 6 times. The reason being that the cops have no reason whatsoever to even come-a-knockin'. Now, unless you're dealing marijuana, or growing your own, or bothering your neighbors with marijuana parties, or announcing to the world what you're doing, I see no reason for the cops to knock on your door, much less arrest you.
If that's the case, why would it happen even 5 or 6 times? To me, it's not really even if it is happening or not, but the fact that it is on the books to happen.
Why would they tax it that high? Even as high as they've taxed tobacco, production hasn't been driven underground. How many people in Michigan who still go to 7-11 and buy their legal, tax stamped tobacco have stooped to growing their own? 1?
Gangs who grow will still be breaking the law, and now they will have less of a profit margin to bank off breaking the law, skweing the risk/reward ratio against them. The average joe might, but growing your own isn't all that easy, at least growing it good.
Nate505 felt that people would pay $100/oz. for legal marijuana instead of $200/oz. for illegal marijuana today. The theory sounds good, doesn't it?
I'm simply saying that they will NOT pay $100/oz. if $99 of that is taxes.
People would certainly pay $100 an ounce against $200 if that was their choice. What sort of moron would pay twice as much just because $99 is going to taxes? Someone who likes spending double on things?
Of course. This would happen with just about any product. Many people who live in Vancouver Washington do their grocery shopping in Portland, Oregon because they don't have any sales tax, yet it doesn't happen enough to destroy the tax revenues of Vancouver. I'd bet anything the majority of tobacco customers buy their tobacco from legal soucres. There is hardly any proof one way or the other though.
Cigarettes are going underground when the tax is equal to the cost. In your example of marijuana costing $1/oz, we can expect to see it start to go underground when sold at $2/oz. You're proposing $100/oz.
Seriously Paulson, you have an issue with reading comprehension. Nowhere have I proposed $100 an ounce. This is my exact quote. Read it carefully, since you appear to have an issue here:
Alcohol is already taxed, at a much higher rate than most products are taxed at. Same with tobacco for that matter. However, even with the taxes the price of both products are much cheaper than they would be if both products were subject to prohibition.
Tax the bejezus out of pot, say 10,000% of it's production cost. If it costs around $1 to produce an ounce of it undera legal environment, and frankly I think I'm making that cost extremely high, that would come to $100 an ounce, which is still around $200-300 below the black market price. If you tax it a measly 1,000% of its production cost, that comes to $10 an ounce. Or $290-390 blow the black market price. The point is that even if you tax the hell out of pot it will still be way below the black market price that people are willing to pay now, and far below what people would be willing to risk to produce it illegaly. The government still gets a ton of tax dollars yet the consumer is getting what they percieve to be an extreme value (paying 90% less or so than they are currently), at least if they were used to black market prices.
Based on that quote, if I made any sort of proposal it would be $30-40 an ounce (90% less than what they are paying currently), not $100. That $100 figure was made to show that even if pot were taxed extremely high, it would be far below the black market price. Do you get that? Do I need to explain that to you again?
(Even allowing you to backpedal to $20/oz, that still invites the black market.)
No way. Who's going to buy from a guy from the black market when they can go to the store and pick from a bunch of different varieties? Why would a black marketer risk getting arrested for producing something that is going to net him a $20 profit per ounce? They are making a near $300 profit per ounce now.
What could happen is if North Carolnia leaglizes pot, and has a small tax on it, and so does Michigan, and has a large tax on it, the smugglers would just move it from one state to the other and recoop the difference on taxes. Then they don't have to produce anything.
BTW rp- thank you for dismissing reports of innocent civilians being murdered by LE as "the cops...doing a fine job". It shows you for what you are.
I couldn't ever match the quality. Pot smokers, on the other hand, couldn't care less about the quality -- it's the "high".
"They would ceratinly be weaker and would become a blip on the rader under legalization."
Of all the money spent on illegal recreational drugs in the U.S., only 15% is spent on marijuana. Legalize it and the gangs will focus on the other 85%.
Quality tobacco is difficult to grow.
"What sort of moron would pay twice as much just because $99 is going to taxes?"
He wouldn't. He'd buy it black market at $60/oz. -- he'd save $40 and the gangs would make $59/oz. profit.
No, it's called "putting things in perspective".
You're the one being disingenuous. You're the one who's posting these stories as though they were the norm rather than the exception.
Two dozen stories out of 15 million arrests. As tragic as they may be, they do not represent what's going on.
But legal restrictions and penalties don't fetter buyers? They only fetter suppliers?
Trippy.
Like behavior that is merely offensive, correct?
SOME offensive behavior, such as burning tires in a residential neighborhood, rises to the level of violating rights. Do you disagree?
Is there unfettered competition among medical marijuana suppliers? If not (as I believe is the case), there's your answer.
But legal restrictions and penalties don't fetter buyers? They only fetter suppliers?
I was rebutting from the suppply side robertpaulsen's claim that Candian medical marijuana is enough like general legalization of marijuana to test the economic theory that general legalization would lower prices. If you wish to also rebut his claim from the demand side, be my guest.
Bet if you check, you'll find they're getting quiet funding help and practical guidance in getting their initiative on the ballot from ...... Karl Rove.
This is just up Karl's alley. Down-ballot, deniable social issues to bring the conservatives out to vote -- then trap them into voting for his and Shrub's RiNO, Business-Wing candidates.
Misrepresenting robertpaulsen in order to avoid addressing the point raised. And without bothering to ping him.
It'll bring social conservatives out in bigger ones.
Your claim is an unsupported falsehood.
in order to avoid addressing the point raised.
No, in order to stick to the context of the discussion you barged in on.
What is this "point" you wish to insert, and how does it contradict anything I've said?
And without bothering to ping him.
I admit I should have pinged him (my apologies, rp) ... which is more that he has done regarding his non-pinging of me.
You were having a private conversation on a public message board?
So how is that legal restrictions and penalties supposedly fetter sellers but don't fetter buyers?
Trippy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.