Posted on 10/30/2010 10:17:43 AM PDT by SoCal SoCon
In a word, yes. When the people of CA vote on an issue, that is supposed to be the final word on the matter (unless a judge deems the proposition to be unconstitutional).
If worst comes to worst, and ONLY if worst comes to worst, there are other ways of dealing with the weed problem. For instance, I could decide I have way too much salt lying around the house. Don’t want to worry about high blood pressure if you know what I mean. Just a thought.
I should have specified: all private growing without paying the tax, which is what the home-growers thought they were getting.
So your claim is based not on what IS written in Prop 19, but rather on 1) what is NOT written in Prop 19 and 2) how some judge might rule in the future?
I should have specified: all private growing without paying the tax, which is what the home-growers thought they were getting.
What tax? The only taxing authority is given to local governments on authorized commercial growers and sellers. Home growers would run afoul of State law if they tried to sell their product, so your argument makes no sense.
Again, could you copy and paste the "fine print" in Prop 19 that you had in mind in your earlier post?
They’d also face similar regulation as tobacco growers. Somehow I don’t think the grow-ops have thought this through.
7. Ensure, if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9 of the Health and Safety Code.
8. Ensure, if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9 of the Health and Safety Code.
9. Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, health care, schools, libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.
I'm sure you're right, no lawyer would take advantage of this wording to tax individual growers and judges are always on the side of home pot growers.
Arizona has a Prop 203 allowing medical use of marijuana. Anybody know how that’s trending?
I guess the supporters are too stoned to respond to polls.
California and the U.S. are bankrupt. Where do you plan to get the money to enforce your nanny-state crusade? Are you also an anti-tobacco nanny-stater? The two usually go together.
The pro-nanny state drug warriors don't care about such details. Like nanny staters on the left, only the end goal (stamping on personal liberty on a particular issue) matters to them.
Of course the rationale being that increased revenues for the state is one that those interested in liberty would make.
It seems to me that the market for pot is quite robust despite government intervention to the contrary. So what exactly is the threat to liberty?
I’m a “nanny-stater” because I don’t like the idea of companies being forced to employ stoners?
Are you high right now? Seriously?
Where does Prop 19 state this? Put up or shut up.
I never made any such "rationale." I'm for tax cuts anywhere and everywhere but I'm also against prohibition. According to your theory we should bring back alcohol prohibition since its repeal resulted in tax increases. Is this what are you saying? Free back the speak easies and Al Capone eh?
I never made any such "rationale." I'm for tax cuts anywhere and everywhere but I'm also against prohibition. According to your theory we should bring back alcohol prohibition since its repeal resulted in tax increases. Is this what are you saying? Bring back the speak easies and Al Capone eh?
Oh....the market for illegal liquor was also quite “robust” in the days of Al Capone. Is that your model?
Normally I ignore trolls like you.
Look - it took me less than one minute to google it.
Do you own research.
Evasion. Your "links" don't show that the law requires employers are required to hire "stoners." Man up and admit your lied or quote specific language in Prop 19 to back up your case.
I may have spoken too soon. Now polls are looking uncertain, it could go either way... All that’s certain as of this moment is that it’s going to be a close call.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localsfo/20101025/ts_yblog_localsfo/prop-19-could-flicker-out
http://blog.mpp.org/tax-and-regulate/latest-prop-19-poll-shows-52-percent-support/09302010/
“I’m for tax cuts anywhere and everywhere but I’m also against prohibition.”
Unlike most of the garbage enacted these days, it was a constitutional amendment, which passed. Same as many of the other constitutional amendments. Prohibition has a much higher profile than most of the stuff that we have today.
“According to your theory we should bring back alcohol prohibition since its repeal resulted in tax increases. Is this what are you saying? Free back the speak easies and Al Capone eh?”
Never said anything of the sort. The argument that you are not free unless the government is selling you dope is a bad one. The government has no obligation to regulate the buying or selling of any substance, but it is within their constitutionally governed authority to do so.
As already stated, the penalties for having dope on you is a hundred dollar fine. I don’t see that as a particularly strong deterrent. The argument in favour of this proposition, which is merely a tax grab, seems rather dim.
But then it doesn’t matter, so long as you get yours you are happy to feed the beast.
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.