View Full Version : Prop AA: The weed tax
So basically this is asking if we want to tax the hell out of weed which is what all the stoners have been wanting for the last decade or so... I am thinking I am all for this but the way it is worded, is there any chance that this tax can apply to any other products out there? It says state taxes can be increased by $70MM but if no one buys weed are they coming after something else to get their $70MM?
Trying to find out more about this one before I decide to tax the hell out of it.
Any thoughts?
Can you provide a single valid reason to "tax the hell out of" anything? The fact that you are even concerned it could backlash to something you care about should be answer enough for you.
Any thoughts?
Yeah, we have enough taxes already.
Can you provide a single valid reason to "tax the hell out of" anything? The fact that you are even concerned it could backlash to something you care about should be answer enough for you.
I can provide a reason in this very specific case, the people being affected said go ahead (though probably because they had to to get it at all).
They were also told the new taxes would fund schools and that is not happening (except a token amount)
As for OP, unless they start renaming other products as marijuana it should remain pretty specific.
But divide and tax works very very well. Special sin taxes on booze, smokes, pot are easy. We can thank TABOR they are not higher.
SideShow Bob
10-29-2013, 18:32
Tax the hello out of it just like alcohol and tobacco, what's the problem with that ?
I can provide a reason in this very specific case, the people being affected said go ahead (though probably because they had to to get it at all).
They were also told the new taxes would fund schools and that is not happening (except a token amount)
If you've told your wife 100 times to lock her car, and one morning you see someone snooping around her car with the door open, do you give them a go ahead to take it just to teach her a lesson?
The premise of Amendment 64 was to "Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol", thus it should be taxed like alcohol as well. No additional taxes beyond those that apply to booze are acceptable to me under that premise, thus I voted no on 66.
If you've told your wife 100 times to lock her car, and one morning you see someone snooping around her car with the door open, do you give them a go ahead to take it just to teach her a lesson?
If someone puts a 'free stuff' sign on a box by the trash, go for it. :)
Having to agree to be taxed was the bad part of the bargin to get it approved. That half of the agreement is why I voted against it then.
The premise of Amendment 64 was to "Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol", thus it should be taxed like alcohol as well. No additional taxes beyond those that apply to booze are acceptable to me under that premise, thus I voted no on 66.
In my mind, "regulated like" and "taxed like" are two different things. I suppose that card could be played either way.
If someone puts a 'free stuff' sign on a box by the trash, go for it. :)
Having to agree to be taxed was the bad part of the bargain to get it approved. That half of the agreement is why I voted against it then.
My point is that it sets a precedent that is a bad precedent to set. It shouldn't be allowed for any reason.
Aloha_Shooter
10-29-2013, 19:21
I was against Amendment 64 and still think it's bad policy but Denver needs a message to
1) listen to their constituents,
2) obey the will of the people instead of the reverse, and
3) live within the revenue they collect instead of constantly jacking up taxes.
I voted no on both 66 and AA.
My point is that it sets a precedent that is a bad precedent to set. It shouldn't be allowed for any reason.
I think we agree here, I'm not a fan of sin taxes at all. They tend to eventually get around to my sins.
(sometimes it is fun to be devils advocate and it was a single valid reason)
Stevensje
10-29-2013, 20:39
I was against Amendment 64 and still think it's bad policy but Denver needs a message to
1) listen to their constituents,
2) obey the will of the people instead of the reverse, and
3) live within the revenue they collect instead of constantly jacking up taxes.
I voted no on both 66 and AA.
DITTO
No new taxes. Not for the kids (liars, liars) not for the kids (pants on fire.)
Zundfolge
10-29-2013, 21:04
Can you provide a single valid reason to "tax the hell out of" anything?
Typically I'm opposed to any new taxes but frankly the people that are going to be most adversely affected by this tax are by and large my enemies ... while I acknowledge there are a handful of conservative and libertarian folk out there that smoke weed (or like me have no problem with it being legal even though we don't use it) but the vast majority of pot users are hardcore Democrats (and other assorted leftists) that are actively engaged in trying to take away my first and second amendment rights along with trying to eliminate free market capitalism so to hell with them.
I'm voting for AA purely out of spite and hate.
I'm voting for this rediculous tax purely to spit in the eye of pothead leftists that are ruining this beautiful state (and will if unchecked force me to leave it).
I am voting for AA simply to make the lives of people I hate just slightly less fulfilling than they would otherwise be.
I am voting for AA because for moral and legal reasons I can't simply shoot the fuckers, burn down their homes and piss on their graves.
This will be two firsts for me, it'll be the first time I've voted for a tax increase and the first time I've voted for reasons that were not either ideological or tactical.
As long as you can accept the unintended consequences. Your intention may be to voice your misplaced hate, but the message that will be received is that you are A-okay with being taxed on things you desire.
No. No more taxes. Look, even if you hate weed and the people who smoke it don't support another unenforceable law.
As a Libertarian I don't think it's the Gubs business what plants or potions someone owns/imbibes/trades. When we vote to support those policies, we do nothing to slow them down. Regardless of where one stands on this issue, we should not encourage those in power to make these kinds of policies, instead we should take back control of our bodies and what goes into them.
If it is to be taxed, than it should not be a greater tax than we are seeing on alcohol, because we can see that the market will bear those taxes.
If we embolden our greedy overlords, and they levy a tax which is more than the market will bear, than the black market wins.
newracer
10-29-2013, 21:34
I voted no because the tax rate is too high. I would agree with a tax equal to the amount needed to regulate it.
Why even say that the tax on alcohol is okay? The faster we all accept this BS, the faster is has ZERO chance of changing.
Typically I'm opposed to any new taxes but frankly the people that are going to be most adversely affected by this tax are by and large my enemies ... while I acknowledge there are a handful of conservative and libertarian folk out there that smoke weed (or like me have no problem with it being legal even though we don't use it) but the vast majority of pot users are hardcore Democrats (and other assorted leftists) that are actively engaged in trying to take away my first and second amendment rights along with trying to eliminate free market capitalism so to hell with them.
I'm voting for AA purely out of spite and hate.
I'm voting for this rediculous tax purely to spit in the eye of pothead leftists that are ruining this beautiful state (and will if unchecked force me to leave it).
I am voting for AA simply to make the lives of people I hate just slightly less fulfilling than they would otherwise be.
I am voting for AA because for moral and legal reasons I can't simply shoot the fuckers, burn down their homes and piss on their graves.
This will be two firsts for me, it'll be the first time I've voted for a tax increase and the first time I've voted for reasons that were not either ideological or tactical.
I like this thinking and I think that is kind of where I am at on this issue. I think the gov needs to use the tax money they have in a far more efficient manner but at the same time, I was against 64 so the more thorns I can poke in the side of the typical pro-weed democrat the better.
No way in hell I vote for 66, especially since this weed tax is supposed to go to schools. Yes on Prop AA for me!
They'll just use this extra money to refund the general tax fund so they can pay for some other bullshit that none of us want. Just like they will do with Amendment 66. What's go for the stoner is what's good for the children I guess?
hghclsswhitetrsh
10-29-2013, 22:02
Dude, what?
ChunkyMonkey
10-29-2013, 22:57
I am against any kind of tax increase.
What I was trying to say, is that any time we vote to give the government more money in one area, that lessens the burden from the general fund, allowing them to start a new avenue of dependence some where else. Then in a few years, we'll all be voting to increase taxes for that cause in the same way. Opening up the door for more taxes, no matter whom it hurts, is stupid and should be avoided.
California (san francisco) is trying to pass a sugar tax as we speak, give em an inch and next thing ya know they are a ruler. Where in the hell does this stop, maybe when you are forced to accept government handouts because your high paying job isn't enough to pay your bills because of to many taxes. I vote no on any tax increase of any kind at this point.
Zundfolge
10-30-2013, 08:33
What I was trying to say, is that any time we vote to give the government more money in one area, that lessens the burden from the general fund, allowing them to start a new avenue of dependence some where else. Then in a few years, we'll all be voting to increase taxes for that cause in the same way. Opening up the door for more taxes, no matter whom it hurts, is stupid and should be avoided.
I don't for a moment believe that defeating a thousand tax increase initiatives at the polls will teach any politician in Denver any sort of lesson. In the minds of most Democrat (and quite a few Republican) politicians is the absolute belief that all wealth and property is rightfully the property of the state and the fact that the people "are allowed" to keep even a penny of The State's money is a gross injustice that must be rectified.
On principal I agree that we should stop feeding the beast ... that's why I said this is the first time I've voted for a reason other than ideology or tactics. But in the last few years the leftists in this state have been slowly eroding my personal liberty and wealth, so in this one case I'm going to spit in the eye of the leftists.
As for the whole "give 'em an inch they'll take a mile" thinking ... history has proved that when it comes to taxes and Democrats they will demand the whole ruler whether you give them any inches or not.
Typically I'm opposed to any new taxes but frankly the people that are going to be most adversely affected by this tax are by and large my enemies ... while I acknowledge there are a handful of conservative and libertarian folk out there that smoke weed (or like me have no problem with it being legal even though we don't use it) but the vast majority of pot users are hardcore Democrats (and other assorted leftists) that are actively engaged in trying to take away my first and second amendment rights along with trying to eliminate free market capitalism so to hell with them.
I'm voting for AA purely out of spite and hate.
I'm voting for this rediculous tax purely to spit in the eye of pothead leftists that are ruining this beautiful state (and will if unchecked force me to leave it).
I am voting for AA simply to make the lives of people I hate just slightly less fulfilling than they would otherwise be.
I am voting for AA because for moral and legal reasons I can't simply shoot the fuckers, burn down their homes and piss on their graves.
This will be two firsts for me, it'll be the first time I've voted for a tax increase and the first time I've voted for reasons that were not either ideological or tactical.
Replace "weed" with "guns and ammunition" and "potheads" with "gun nuts" you have a Democrat/Liberal/Communist rant. A 30% surtax on guns, ammo, and reloading components? I could see the Dems proposing that. And we'd be crying "FOUL" before the ballots were printed. NO. No new taxes. No new spending. Just NO!
dirtrulz
10-30-2013, 08:46
If you defeat every tax bill they will just find another way of getting their money, just like with the 30 dollar fee for your vehicle registration. Not a huge deal for someone who registers a 50 thousand dollar bmw, but for my motorcycles is more than doubled it.
That doesnt mean that you should vote for them just because they will get their money anyway.
It will likely just revert back to the old way of getting your weed, on the street. Except there will be no way for the state to track it and tell whether taxes were paid on it.
Personally have never understood the draw of smoking, drinking, etc. To me they are just ways of fooling yourself that you are better and happier. I cant think of any real tangible way that they have improved society and our country and the human race as a whole. But it is your life, you have to pay to play.
The funny thing is that everyone knew that if it was made legal they would tax the hell out of it, They told you straight up that was what was going to happen, and they still voted to make it legal and are then surprised when they actually followed through. It would be like buying a car with you knew had a blown engine and then being surprised that you were not able to drive it home. That is what happens when you go for instant gratification and dont think it through.
It's not about teaching a lesson, it's about saying "no" when asked. If you refuse a vehicle search, you don't do so to teach the officer a lesson, you do it to protect your rights. You might as well vote yes on 66 as well since that will also hurt your enemies through increased taxation. It's the same thing. Don't let yout emotions get in the way.
I have a different perspective- and while I know many of you will disagree with this, you have that right. While I'm no fan of pot heads- nor am I a fan of their majority being of a certain political persuasion- the thing I am more reluctant about is not more taxes in other areas, or giving politicians more room to tax more, or even the correlation between us and them, no, my reservations to oppose this is the fact that we are starting to become the pot state. Pot is legal here now, and as a result, all the little dope smoking hippies will flock here like it's the American Amsterdam. Some say we should embrace this, but I say no. If we "tax the everloving hell" out of pot, maybe that will help to lessen the amount of potheads that migrate here- and every little bit helps. Granted, us and WA are the start, and I'd expect the rest of the nation to follow suit at one point or another (eventually), but in the mean time, us being among the first to do so, I'd rather not be the "Pot Mecca." Wyoming sure is looking nice...
Aloha_Shooter
10-30-2013, 10:28
If you defeat every tax bill they will just find another way of getting their money, just like with the 30 dollar fee for your vehicle registration. Not a huge deal for someone who registers a 50 thousand dollar bmw, but for my motorcycles is more than doubled it.
Just to correct you on the increased vehicle registration fees, it IS a big deal for the person registering that $50K BMW because his/her registration fee isn't some measly $30, it's more like $1500. Three years ago I got a "new" Expedition (1-year-old former rental) to replace my 13-year-old Bravada. Registration went up from about $50 to over $500 (my memory is foggy but I think it was around $700-800).
Denver's addiction to taxes and fees is a major reason I refuse to replace my 14-year-old car -- I can afford a shiny new car and there are even some I like but I'd rather pay my mechanic to keep the old junker running than pay Denver their extortion on new vehicles.
Aloha, I am in agreement about vehicles. I drive a $900 car with no paint for that very reason.
Ronin, what you said is dumb. Sure people are excited about legal pot, I would expect just as many people to move here as however many moved to Canada when Bush was elected. People smoke pot all over the country, and no matter where they live, they aren't hiding under the bed or going out of their way to do it.
I voted for the tax out of spite.
If this leads to other tax proposals down the road, I'll have ample opportunity to vote against those taxes, so I don't really see how the slippery slope argument applies here.
HBARleatherneck
10-30-2013, 15:34
Can you provide a single valid reason to "tax the hell out of" anything? The fact that you are even concerned it could backlash to something you care about should be answer enough for you.
yes, i would tax the hell out of politicians.
and I agree with Irv, thats one of the reasons we own old vehicles. 94, 95, 2003.
I had a hard time deciding on how to vote on that one. I do worry that it can lead to future tax increases on other items, but I also didn't want the regulation of pot to not be covered by some kind of taxes.
As for vehicle fees, my 02 Explorer's renewal came yesterday and I'm just under $100 for this year.
As for vehicle fees, my 02 Explorer's renewal came yesterday and I'm just under $100 for this year.
My 04.5 Ram 2500 is still $177.57. For a vehicle that does ~ 5k per year on the roads. Fuckn ridiculous shit Ritter dumped on us.
At least I got a bye on the (diesel) emissions test this year. Another crock of complete shit.
I'm all for Ritter's illegal by-passing of the TABOR laws; because I hate Toyota Prius drivers.
Zundfolge
10-30-2013, 22:22
I'm all for Ritter's illegal by-passing of the TABOR laws; because I hate Toyota Prius drivers.
Non-sequitur and a straw man.
AA is in line with TABOR, Ritter's illegal by-passing of TABOR was illegal and bypassed tabor. And no I won't vote for 66 or your imaginary Prius tax because they would harm non-liberals as much as liberals. AA will harm liberals disproportionately to non-liberals.
Again, on principal I don't disagree with you. The state has too much money and doesn't deserve more, but I already admitted I'm voting for the damn thing purely out of hatred of leftists, liberals and Demonrats (and no it's not misguided hatred ... it's a laser focused and fully justified hatred that frankly I've shown WAY more restraint of in the past).
I don't expect my reasoning to convince someone still voting for ideological or tactical reasons to convince them to come over to my side, nor do I hold it against anyone who chooses to vote against AA because they oppose any new taxes (or feel AA is excessive).
Well, it sounds like you know you're voting emotionally and fully understand the consequences.
I'm all for Ritter's illegal by-passing of the TABOR laws; because I hate Toyota Prius drivers.
Because you perceive them as ironically pious? Or is it because they actually do more harm to the environment than any other modern ultra mileage economy car? I once had a Prius as a rental, would I endure the same hate?
I do know some nice conservative folks (co-workers) that commute in metro areas other than Denver that only got one to save (gas) money for their family. I'm sure they would be interested to know the motivation behind all the hate.
milwaukeeshaker
10-31-2013, 08:08
Cause they are a butt ugly car, and every owner that I have talked to is a treehugging, green weinie, liberal, gun hating, Democrap who thinks they are smugly "helping the environment" while you are a gross polluter. As to the original subject of this thread, taxation to me is an infringment of my freedoms. Letting the Govt tax anything allows them some measure of control. Most of you here on this site seem to think you have freedom in regards to your firearms, why would you want to take that same freedom of choice away from someone else by supporting the Govts. ability to tax their version of freedom? They don't like guns, you don't like "potheads" so lets each find a way to piss in the others post toasties? Give me a break! Hypocritical to the max. NO TO ANY NEW TAXES!!!
Divide and conquer. Something the 'pols are great at. If you don't like taxes, don't vote for it, even if this particular tax won't stick it to you personally.
Who knows, the next AA might be a 25% tax on ammunition. Do you really want to be standing there trying to convince some pot smoker that they shouldn't vote for a tax that doesn't affect them when you had shafted them exactly the same way a few years before?
Freedom is about allowing others to do things that you might not agree with. Your freedom to swing your arms should only end just before they reach my nose, not before.
Next time you check into a hotel and shake your head at a >10% "occupancy tax" realize that it was voted in by people that thought "oh, this won't affect me" because they're locals. Yeah, until you travel elsewhere and encounter taxes put in place by the same kinds of people.
Regulating weed is no harder than regulating alcohol, and alcohol gets by without huge taxes. Put grass under the exact same controls and be done with it. The pols are creating a problem that doesn't exist and then they're asking for taxes to solve said non-problem.
O2
Zundfolge
10-31-2013, 09:43
Who knows, the next AA might be a 25% tax on ammunition. Do you really want to be standing there trying to convince some pot smoker that they shouldn't vote for a tax that doesn't affect them when you had shafted them exactly the same way a few years before?
Do you honestly believe that if you vote against AA now that a single pot smoking leftist will thank you by voting against an ammo tax? Short term memory issues aside, these leftist fuckers would vote for an ammo tax with glee even if you gave them a kidney.
Do you honestly believe that if you vote against AA now that a single pot smoking leftist will thank you by voting against an ammo tax? Short term memory issues aside, these leftist fuckers would vote for an ammo tax with glee even if you gave them a kidney.
So you are for big government?
Since when has the purpose of voting ever been to appease or spite other voters?
Since when has the purpose of voting ever been to appease or spite other voters?
Maybe not so much at our level but once inside Gov it seems many votes are made for exactly those reasons.
Since when has the purpose of voting ever been to appease or spite other voters?
+5 [Beer]
Since when has the purpose of voting ever been to appease or spite other voters?
My point is it gives you a principle to stand upon. Guess being principled isn't important to some folks.
For me, principle is everything. "Do unto others" is a good place to start...
Voting for AA because it doesn't gore your ox just makes you a politician's useful idiot.
O2
Aloha_Shooter
10-31-2013, 20:26
My point is it gives you a principal to stand upon. Guess that's not important to some folks.
O2
I think the point is that different people have different principles. Like some here, I happen to think socialists and recreational use of mind-altering drugs are both detrimental to society. Beyond that, I've seen family and friends really mess up their lives with heavy use of marijuana. Unlike some of the others, I think feeding Denver's tax-and-spend habit is even worse. Some people's principles call for them to vote for AA, my principles call for me to deny Denver any tax increase whatsoever until they get the reality of fiscal discipline through their thick heads.
My point is it gives you a principle to stand upon. Guess being principled isn't important to some folks.
For me, principle is everything. "Do unto others" is a good place to start...
Voting for AA because it doesn't gore your ox just makes you a politician's useful idiot.
O2
My post wasn't directed at you.
Pot is legal here now, and as a result, all the little dope smoking hippies will flock here like it's the American Amsterdam.
When I've been in Amsterdam, pot didn't seem to be the sought after novelty item that many like to portray it as. My guess is that most people that use Amsterdam as an example have never set foot in the Netherlands.
I highly doubt that someone in another state is going to spend the money to get to CO when they could simply buy the stuff at home - and I've yet to hear of any state where pot is hard to get.
skullybones
10-31-2013, 21:23
I highly doubt that someone in another state is going to spend the money to get to CO when they could simply buy the stuff at home - and I've yet to hear of any state where pot is hard to get.
Yep. Most don't have the drive to uproot. I could see a novelty visit between friends, but an outright relocation is a stretch.
I voted yes on the weed tax. I'm hoping it passes for 2 reasons: 1: hopeful the pot smokers blame the democrats for it and hoping the republicans can capitalize on it. 2: my wife is a teacher so I hope to see her get a raise out of the deal and then it will benefit me personally since neither of us touch or will touch weed. win-win
They have been arguing for years that if they legalize weed and tax it, the schools will come out great. Damn if the stuff wasn't legalized and now they are trying to get away with it not being taxed after all that bitching for years. I voted no on 64 so if they get to have this crap, I want something good to come out of it.
As for the no new taxes of any kind... Well, I will go back to the Bill of Rights. Arms are covered, weed isn't. Voting yes on this thing will piss off more liberal dems than it will anyone else and that is all I need to know.
What does the Bill of Rights have to do with this?
milwaukeeshaker
11-01-2013, 08:10
It's no wonder we are up shit river with no paddle. Some folks just don't understand Freedom, and what that means.
They have been arguing for years that if they legalize weed and tax it, the schools will come out great. Damn if the stuff wasn't legalized and now they are trying to get away with it not being taxed after all that bitching for years. I voted no on 64 so if they get to have this crap, I want something good to come out of it.
As for the no new taxes of any kind... Well, I will go back to the Bill of Rights. Arms are covered, weed isn't. Voting yes on this thing will piss off more liberal dems than it will anyone else and that is all I need to know.
HBARleatherneck
11-01-2013, 08:15
just because rights are not specifically spelled out in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, it doesnt mean they are not rights. Think about your daily life, how many things that you own or do are not specifically spelled out? probably much of your life and possessions. We need more freedom, not less. That is the thinking that keeps Ds and Rs going. Each one wants to ban something. Fuck that. Give me LIBERTY or give politicians ...........the politicians and judges who take away our freedoms, should be tried for treason and given the maximum quickest sentence.
It's no wonder we are up shit river with no paddle. Some folks just don't understand Freedom, and what that means.
Well then make it illegal again or either make EVERYTHING legal as long as it doesn't affect someone else. If you want to smoke crack, do it in your house and keep all of its effects in there away from others. Once it affects someone else, then it has gone too far. It is an all or none kind of thing.
What does the Bill of Rights have to do with this?
Well that is my point there, nothing!
milwaukeeshaker
11-01-2013, 08:26
Now you got it, make everything legal, as an adult you should be free to do as you like as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, THAT'S freedom.
Well then make it illegal again or either make EVERYTHING legal as long as it doesn't affect someone else. If you want to smoke crack, do it in your house and keep all of its effects in there away from others. Once it affects someone else, then it has gone too far. It is an all or none kind of thing.
dirtrulz
11-01-2013, 08:34
That is why I said it was and added fee, not that your registration would only be 30 dollars. 30 dollars added ot a 1500 dollar registration doesnt hit as hard as a 30 dollar fee added to a 28 dollar registration.
Now you got it, make everything legal, as an adult you should be free to do as you like as long as it doesn't affect anyone else, THAT'S freedom.
Unfortunately I don't see it happening anytime soon. Until I can buy a short barrel select fire M4 for less than my 6920, tax the weed!!!
osok-308
11-01-2013, 09:25
I don't think we should tax pot more than normal sales tax that goes on anything. Think about it, if you want to smoke or drink you're not going to let price get in your way, you're going to do it. Those of you guys who are for adding a tax to reduce the number of people who smoke pot are just fooling yourself. As far as giving the money to schools, we spend (per capita) on schools than almost any other country. Any problems that we have in the school system are not a result of lack of funding, it's from misappropriation of those funds.
The problem with these 'sin' taxes, is eventually reps will find a way to consider shooting a sin. and tax the hell out of ammunition and guns even further *cough California cough*. People always try to tax new things and tell you "it's for the children" but lets be honest, it's for the government.
brokenscout
11-01-2013, 09:45
+1
The premise of Amendment 64 was to "Regulate Marijuana like Alcohol", thus it should be taxed like alcohol as well. No additional taxes beyond those that apply to booze are acceptable to me under that premise, thus I voted no on 66.
I don't think we should tax pot more than normal sales tax that goes on anything. Think about it, if you want to smoke or drink you're not going to let price get in your way, you're going to do it. Those of you guys who are for adding a tax to reduce the number of people who smoke pot are just fooling yourself. As far as giving the money to schools, we spend (per capita) on schools than almost any other country. Any problems that we have in the school system are not a result of lack of funding, it's from misappropriation of those funds.
The problem with these 'sin' taxes, is eventually reps will find a way to consider shooting a sin. and tax the hell out of ammunition and guns even further *cough California cough*. People always try to tax new things and tell you "it's for the children" but lets be honest, it's for the government.
I agree with you but that is not how the game is being played. There comes a time when you have to respect the 3 point shot or you are going to get beat if you keep missing the 20 footer for two points.
When everyone pays the exact same percentage in taxes on their income, their sin products, medical, and whatever else gets taxed, then I am all for it. If Bill gates pays a higher percentage in taxes than the guy mopping the floors down at Taco Bell, then it isn't fair.
I am not voting yes on AA to give more money to the GOV, I am voting yes on it to piss off stoners, who more often than not tend to be dems. Frankly I can't think of another tax that I would ever vote for, that is why this one was tough.
milwaukeeshaker
11-01-2013, 10:46
Wow! This is exactly the kind of thinking that gets everybody these Govt sponsored intrusions in our lives. You have voted to give up more of OUR freedom by taxation to further YOUR misguided cause. THANK YOU!
I agree with you but that is not how the game is being played. There comes a time when you have to respect the 3 point shot or you are going to get beat if you keep missing the 20 footer for two points.
When everyone pays the exact same percentage in taxes on their income, their sin products, medical, and whatever else gets taxed, then I am all for it. If Bill gates pays a higher percentage in taxes than the guy mopping the floors down at Taco Bell, then it isn't fair.
I am not voting yes on AA to give more money to the GOV, I am voting yes on it to piss off stoners, who more often than not tend to be dems. Frankly I can't think of another tax that I would ever vote for, that is why this one was tough.
No one is allowed to say that they agree with less taxes, if they voted for this.
Zundfolge
11-01-2013, 11:27
Wow! This is exactly the kind of thinking that gets everybody these Govt sponsored intrusions in our lives. You have voted to give up more of OUR freedom by taxation to further YOUR misguided cause. THANK YOU!
No one is allowed to say that they agree with less taxes, if they voted for this.
I think some people are grossly over-blowing the importance of this one vote.
The importance of the vote has nothing to do with it. It is the importance of the principle of the voters. It's been compromised and once is all it takes.
I voted yes on the weed tax. I'm hoping it passes for 2 reasons: 1: hopeful the pot smokers blame the democrats for it and hoping the republicans can capitalize on it. 2: my wife is a teacher so I hope to see her get a raise out of the deal and then it will benefit me personally since neither of us touch or will touch weed. win-win
As far as your second item. Your wife will not see a penny of that nor will any other teacher. A small part is earmarked to construction/maintenance of schools, nothing more.
I disagree. TABOR means that all tax increases must be put to the people for a vote.
I don't see how one tax proposal on one ballot is going to directly lead to the implementation of additional taxes, or additional proposed tax increases that would otherwise not have been proposed.
Government, by its very nature, can and will constantly exert pressure to increase revenues, so it's disingenuous to claim that this tax will lead to more taxes when, in fact, there will be more tax proposals regardless of whether or not the weed tax passes.
Fair enough Justin. I agree with that point. Why vote at all then on AA?
milwaukeeshaker
11-01-2013, 11:56
This one, and another, and another at a later time, and another a few years later, etc. You ever heard about boiling the frog? The point is, and I will repeat, VOTE NO ON ANY NEW TAX of any kind, on anybody. Eventually the Govt. will try to tax YOUR activities and you won't like it, why allow other folks vices to be burdened by a new tax that you voted on in order to screw them over??? In the long run you screwed yourself, and everyone else in Colorado, whether they are involved in that particular vice or not. I don't do pot, or any other drug, but I'm not gonna sick a tax on them that do. Just cuttin' off your nose to spite your face!
I think some people are grossly over-blowing the importance of this one vote.
It is funny how the only arguments so far for voting yes on AA are petty and emotional. To each their own but i like the idea of not punishing people just because i do not agree with them.
Kraven251
11-01-2013, 14:10
Fair enough Justin. I agree with that point. Why vote at all then on AA?
We need to pass it. The sooner we get the predominate demographic of pot smokers away from the voting booth the better. The left's biggest weapon in CO has been people that normally don't give a shit, turning out to vote in droves for pot. Get pot off the ballot, they go away.
No one is allowed to say that they agree with less taxes, if they voted for this.
I'm all for less taxes on ME. fuck them.
the fucking bicyclists and hippy hikers utilize the federal lands and parks and everything else that my tax dollars and my dads tax dollars and my grandparents tax dollars paid for. the pittman robertson tax that sportsmen pay for and voluntarily elected. My guns, my ammo, my hunting licenses etc. Guys like me keep places like that running. then the fucking parks department runs in the red all the time and the division of wildlife who was paid for by my same very tax dollars (and always in the black) gets combined with them thanks to another fucking democrat. now I have to pay for the god damn liberals wages that think I shouldn't carry in the same fucking park that I now have to pay for. FUCK THAT AN FUCK THEM
As far as your second item. Your wife will not see a penny of that nor will any other teacher. A small part is earmarked to construction/maintenance of schools, nothing more.
I'll call BS. The unions and the district may not get anything for the teachers but I guarantee the teachers will get a raise out of it, and at a minimum they will get to the pay levels they are currently supposed to be at since many of them were on pay freezes for 2-4 years depending on the districts that I am aware of and know teachers in.
the school have enough money now and most have a surplus of money. district 12 kept something like 6 million back this last year. a few years ago they pissed away ~20 million on an indoor swimming pool because the money was use it or lose it from the state (not property taxes). People who suck with money in their own lives have jobs where they are in charge of projects like these and they suck with money in their jobs as well. But if this gets passed a big pat on the back will go to the teachers for their "walk and knocks" and getting out the vote type of BS. just watch.
skullybones
11-01-2013, 14:43
I'm all for less taxes on ME. fuck them.
the fucking bicyclists and hippy hikers utilize the federal lands and parks and everything else that my tax dollars and my dads tax dollars and my grandparents tax dollars paid for.(...) FUCK THAT AN FUCK THEM
Then go get your money's worth dude. No one is stopping you.
Then go get your money's worth dude. No one is stopping you.
you didn't even come close to getting the point. I don't even think you saw a point...
Aloha_Shooter
11-01-2013, 16:27
We need to pass it. The sooner we get the predominate demographic of pot smokers away from the voting booth the better. The left's biggest weapon in CO has been people that normally don't give a shit, turning out to vote in droves for pot. Get pot off the ballot, they go away.
The problem with your thesis is that the very existence of this Amendment -- as well as 64 last year -- is designed to get pot smokers to the polls. Without 64 on the ballot, fewer pot smokers would have gotten up the energy to go to the polls, fewer Dems would have won tight races across the state, etc. They will be motivated to actually vote as long as pot IS on the ballot.
osok-308
11-01-2013, 17:01
I'll call BS. The unions and the district may not get anything for the teachers but I guarantee the teachers will get a raise out of it, and at a minimum they will get to the pay levels they are currently supposed to be at since many of them were on pay freezes for 2-4 years depending on the districts that I am aware of and know teachers in.
the school have enough money now and most have a surplus of money. district 12 kept something like 6 million back this last year. a few years ago they pissed away ~20 million on an indoor swimming pool because the money was use it or lose it from the state (not property taxes). People who suck with money in their own lives have jobs where they are in charge of projects like these and they suck with money in their jobs as well. But if this gets passed a big pat on the back will go to the teachers for their "walk and knocks" and getting out the vote type of BS. just watch.
Well, if this bill passes, you'll know if it helps at all by if your wife gets a raise. If she does tell us, if not, I'd be interested to see how this money "helps" the schools.
I'm all for less taxes on ME. fuck them.
the fucking bicyclists and hippy hikers utilize the federal lands and parks and everything else that my tax dollars and my dads tax dollars and my grandparents tax dollars paid for. the pittman robertson tax that sportsmen pay for and voluntarily elected. My guns, my ammo, my hunting licenses etc. Guys like me keep places like that running. then the fucking parks department runs in the red all the time and the division of wildlife who was paid for by my same very tax dollars (and always in the black) gets combined with them thanks to another fucking democrat. now I have to pay for the god damn liberals wages that think I shouldn't carry in the same fucking park that I now have to pay for. FUCK THAT AN FUCK THEM
They cannot use some areas unless they buy the habitat stamp if that makes you feel any better. DOW is a perfect example of "if you give them an inch they will take a mile". While not loosing money they raise the price on hunting and fishing licenses with residents taking most of the brunt, then they add habitat stamps, for a while they required parking permits for access to many of our rivers, they tried to make you pay for walk-on access even though they had more then enough money to pay for it, the list goes on and on. I have not seen any improvement to my hunting or fishing experience, if any thing its worse, yet they still keep going after your money.
skullybones
11-01-2013, 18:09
you didn't even come close to getting the point. I don't even think you saw a point...
Oh, I got your point. Just stirring the pot since this is such an emotional topic...
I do agree that the funds are usually mismanaged, and this will most likely be no different.
I also don't see my wife getting a raise out of this, but maybe I should HOPE for CHANGE in the system.
I'll bow out now and let everyone have their fun.
BushMasterBoy
11-01-2013, 18:37
It will help when I go to sell my house. I will note in the listing that "house is adorable and located in 420 friendly Pee Eblow"
Well, if this bill passes, you'll know if it helps at all by if your wife gets a raise. If she does tell us, if not, I'd be interested to see how this money "helps" the schools.
I'll keep you guys in the loop depending on how this goes down. Between me, bigbear, and a couple others it should be pretty easy to see direct effects.
They cannot use some areas unless they buy the habitat stamp if that makes you feel any better. DOW is a perfect example of "if you give them an inch they will take a mile". While not loosing money they raise the price on hunting and fishing licenses with residents taking most of the brunt, then they add habitat stamps, for a while they required parking permits for access to many of our rivers, they tried to make you pay for walk-on access even though they had more then enough money to pay for it, the list goes on and on. I have not seen any improvement to my hunting or fishing experience, if any thing its worse, yet they still keep going after your money.
that makes me feel a little better I guess[Flower]
they got rid of the walk in access fee. I bought a lifetime habitat stamp because I am young enough it will pay for itself. I wish they still offered lifetime licenses. that would be awesome.
they follow what other states do. if you ever hunt out of state you will see a lot of the same things.
Fair enough Justin. I agree with that point. Why vote at all then on AA?
I voted for the tax because fuck hippies.
While I agree with you in principal, the problem is that siding with the legalize weed crowd has results in the election of politicians who have actively worked against my rights and interests.
In all of the years that I've advocated for civil rights and weed legalization, I never, not once, got reciprocation from the pot crowd on gun rights.
If they aren't going to stand up for my rights, then I am withdrawing my support for theirs.
If you want me to rescind my position, you can start by convincing some of the pot crowd to stand up for my rights, even though it's not their thing.
milwaukeeshaker
11-05-2013, 16:22
As I said before: "cutting off your nose to spite your face". And I hoped 99% of the "gun guys" had their heads untucked, it seems I am wrong. Some sound exactly like the libtards.
Prove me wrong and show me the pot advocates willing to speak up for my gun rights, and not just on the internet, but in testimony, financial support and the voting booth.
Zundfolge
11-05-2013, 16:38
As I said before: "cutting off your nose to spite your face". And I hoped 99% of the "gun guys" had their heads untucked, it seems I am wrong. Some sound exactly like the libtards.
Hyperbole is the stock and trade of the libtards ... sheesh.
Hyperbole is the stock and trade of the libtards ... sheesh.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
Evidently so do the Jedi, judging by that statement.
Zundfolge
11-05-2013, 18:47
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
[facepalm] and what I said wasn't an absolute ... in fact it was a rebuttal to a somewhat absolutist argument.
besides, the sith get the cool red lightsabers ... I want a red lightsaber, not a gay green one.
Prove me wrong and show me the pot advocates willing to speak up for my gun rights, and not just on the internet, but in testimony, financial support and the voting booth.
Why would you vote based on your perception of how other people treat you? Other people are a part of the equation. The reason we all get to vote is so we can all voice our individual opinion. The question on the ballot is addressed to each individual. This question asked, "Justin, do you support raising annual taxes by $70,000,000 ANNUALLY, and beyond, through the taxation of of marijuana at 15% and an additional tax at 10%?" You answered "Yes." I don't remember the option of "Yes, but only because I am angry at what I perceive another group of people to be like." It's nice that your vote came with a complicated emotional response, but the message was lost when the answers "Yes" and "No" were printed on the ballot.
Conclusion. Q: Justin, do you want a 70 million dollar a year tax increase?
A: Yes.
That is the message you delivered today. Doesn't matter now, as this ship has sailed.
^^^ and don't forget that a "Yes" vote also means they can raise it without having another vote from the people.
F N Libs [Bang]
^^^ and don't forget that a "Yes" vote also means they can raise it without having another vote from the people.
F N Libs [Bang]
If it is any consolation, they can only raise each part of the tax up to a maximum of 15%. It is at 25% now. Interested to see how these all pan out.
I want the tax increase. And I want it because I Dont and won't use pot and it won't cost me anything. It may actually gain me something in the form of extra income. And if it doesn't it will make me feel better that the majority of the folks affected are the same ones that voted against my guns.
If they want to jam things down our throats I hope we return the favor and not only repeal these terrible gun laws but make it easier to get guns and full autos and have guns in schools. Let them spend hours writing up testimonies only to be ignored. Let them spend their money only to be pissed on. Let them waste their breath, let them get their blood pressure up. Let them feel helpless as they Dont get what they want. Then take away their bs entitlement programs. Create a new sector of tax police to go after their assets if they avoid paying the pot tax.
That is essentially what they did with these guns laws. Its payback time.
"Hey! Let's make pot a taxable commodity. That's an awesome idea. Then I can legally buy pot."
BLAMMO! Your wish has come true.
milwaukeeshaker
11-05-2013, 21:36
That's not the point. You are either all in for liberty, or not. You Sir, must be the latter. You can't split hairs using the actions of others as an excuse.
Prove me wrong and show me the pot advocates willing to speak up for my gun rights, and not just on the internet, but in testimony, financial support and the voting booth.
And if it doesn't it will make me feel better that the majority of the folks affected are the same ones that voted against my guns.
This is where you and others are deluding yourselves. The cross section of people who voted for people to legalize weed is the same as the cross section of people who would vote to legalize alcohol. While guns as an issue may draw a stark line between parties, weed is not guns and you can't draw that same line between those that support and those that don't, the issue. Great job on fearing a make believe boogey man I guess.
If it is any consolation, they can only raise each part of the tax up to a maximum of 15%. It is at 25% now. Interested to see how these all pan out.
I expect a bill very early to raise it to 15% before prices stabilize.
Haven't read all of the pages in between but taxing the hell out of pot will only cause the black market to flourish.. why buy pot that is highly taxed when you can get the same thing from the same people you have been getting it from for the last 40 years for less? Pot will be legal and crime will be rampant.. no one with a brain will figure it out though.
Circuits
11-05-2013, 22:22
The real watershed was making it legal for "medicinal uses" which meant you could cultivate legally. What doesn't make it out high-tax free to "MMJ" stores, will magically disappear into the untaxed black market.
Congrats on keeping shit underground, AA supporters. Maybe out of state pot tourists will pay the high taxes for the legal thrill?
Haven't read all of the pages in between but taxing the hell out of pot will only cause the black market to flourish.. why buy pot that is highly taxed when you can get the same thing from the same people you have been getting it from for the last 40 years for less? Pot will be legal and crime will be rampant.. no one with a brain will figure it out though.
The black market already flourishes. At worst, nothing will change. More likely is that the more sheepish law breakers will suck it up and go the legal route.
GilpinGuy
11-06-2013, 00:45
Haven't read all of the pages in between but taxing the hell out of pot will only cause the black market to flourish.. why buy pot that is highly taxed when you can get the same thing from the same people you have been getting it from for the last 40 years for less? Pot will be legal and crime will be rampant.. no one with a brain will figure it out though.
Pot was illegal for the last 40 years. Was crime more rampant then or now that it's legal? The black market will not INCREASE due to taxes, it will only stay the same as it has been for decades and decades. This seems so obvious to me.
It passed. I win. I feel better.
osok-308
11-06-2013, 08:39
Pot was illegal for the last 40 years. Was crime more rampant then or now that it's legal? The black market will not INCREASE due to taxes, it will only stay the same as it has been for decades and decades. This seems so obvious to me.
While crime will not go rampant, high taxes just gives incentives to people to grow their own weed and sell it tax free. It's a plant so I assume that it grows easily (hey, potheads can do it). The tax probably won't bring in that much in revenue because people CAN just grow it. But Hey, I could be wrong. I guess time will tell.
There was no tax revenue to start with. Growing is a pretty involved task especially in this climate.
now is the time to make growing it and selling it illegally (there is a legal path) a way to financially ruin your life and take away everything you hold valuable. That will give them cause to follow the law and pay the tax.
This is exactly what was done with guns. We now pay $10 per transfer, you can lose your right to even own a gun if you don't follow the law, etc etc...
Like I said, it is time for payback. Let these fuckers know what it is like for liberalism to give them a strong backhand in their life. See how they like the man then....
The Rico Act is old news Sniper. You are 20 years late to the party.
I'm no talking drug enterprises. I want the individual growers who sell to get the strong hand of the law for tax evasion, attempted distribution to minors. Sure you can toss in racketeering And other charges that fit from Rico if you want. Let them feel the pain.
Pot was illegal for the last 40 years. Was crime more rampant then or now that it's legal? The black market will not INCREASE due to taxes, it will only stay the same as it has been for decades and decades. This seems so obvious to me.
The whole argument for legalizing pot is that it will reduce crime and end the gangs hold on drugs.. Legalizing pot and then taxing it so high that people still flock to the black market because it is cheaper will not reduce crime and will not have any effect on gangs. So now we have legalized pot with all of the same crime issues as before, what's the point?
buffalobo
11-06-2013, 10:49
The "black market" and the cartels are/will be financing many of the new commercial growing operations.
They have the bases covered both sides of the line.
I'm no talking drug enterprises. I want the individual growers who sell to get the strong hand of the law for tax evasion, attempted distribution to minors. Sure you can toss in racketeering And other charges that fit from Rico if you want. Let them feel the pain.
So you want people charged on groundless counts? That same argument could be made for home brewers as well. You brew beer = you are illegally selling AND selling to minors. Boy, who wouldn't buy that?
Gotta pay the tax or face the consequences. That is now the law.
I just want to see them suffer Irving. That is their mentality toward us. It is now mutual
I know what you want, but it is misplaced and a modern day witch hunt. The cross section of people who voted against guns is not the same as the cross section who voted for weed. The tax is only for retail sale anyway, so going after people growing is misguided as well. It's like you got rear-ended by a taxi and went and firbombed an airport shuttle maintenance garage. I l'm angry about shitty gjn laws too, but at least point your anger in the right direction.
Stop making sense Irving. Just let me dream a little!
Zundfolge
11-06-2013, 12:36
The cross section of people who voted against guns is not the same as the cross section who voted for weed.
That is the crux of our disagreement.
Aloha_Shooter
11-06-2013, 13:06
The cross section of people who voted against guns is not the same as the cross section who voted for weed.
No but an 80+% congruency is close enough that I understand why so many people voted for the tax. Personally, I'd rather put Denver on starvation diet. Voting for AA was like giving Michael Moore a shipping container of Twinkie burgers. I may loathe the SOB and may have absolutely no interest in the product myself but why indulge him like that?
Zundfolge
11-06-2013, 13:07
Voting for AA was like giving Michael Moore a shipping container of Twinkie burgers. I may loathe the SOB and may have absolutely no interest in the product myself but why indulge him like that?
'cause you could hasten a severe myocardial infarction followed by assumption of room temperature. [Muaha]
Stop making sense Irving. Just let me dream a little!
I AM trying to find a bright side in the passing of this law. Perhaps this will make Colorado seem more conservative to the people I don't want moving here, but probably not.
There was no tax revenue to start with. Growing is a pretty involved task especially in this climate.
now is the time to make growing it and selling it illegally (there is a legal path) a way to financially ruin your life and take away everything you hold valuable. That will give them cause to follow the law and pay the tax. Replace pot with guns. you sound like diane feinstein. Ya! lets make one more way for gov to ruin someone's life for thought crime. that is what you are supporting an invented crime. As another said, you are either all for liberty or you are not.
e
This is exactly what was done with guns. We now pay $10 per transfer, you can lose your right to even own a gun if you don't follow the law, etc etc... so, you want more of this style of gov? You want more petty excuses to lose freedom financial or otherwise? rhetorical question - what is ultimately to be gained by passing more crime/laws?
Like I said, it is time for payback. Let these fuckers know what it is like for liberalism to give them a strong backhand in their life. See how they like the man then.... This isn't payback, it's enabling government intrusion, just like the laws you are ''paying back'' are an intrusion. an eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
oh Jesus, get over yourself.
maybe someday you'll support freedom even when it's not your freedom.
maybe someday you'll support freedom even when it's not your freedom.
This. I'm disappointed. Even though I don't smoke [anything].
O2
Circuits
11-06-2013, 21:25
Sniper7's attitude has made me decide to start smoking weed. I'll grow it myself so I don't pay a dime in taxes.
jerrymrc
11-06-2013, 21:31
My take from an old guy. I voted for the passing to make it legal. I also voted for the tax. One of the BIG selling points was the new taxes that voting yes would bring.
Comparing freedoms of pot VS guns holds no water because I see nowhere that the founding fathers thought taking a hit off a bong was in the same importance of bearing arms and yes I understand that back then there was no law against weed.
Of course many that may try and beat me up on it but in my mind I say let the people do what they want. Make it all legal and let nature take its course. Theft by tweakers looking to steel your stuff would diminish because hopefully having access to it would have them OD before they got desperate. I have seen what having access with no strings attached can do.
This is new and uncharted waters for the state and a tax on it was a fair trade-off for the votes to carry the measure. Now that it has passed people that complain about the tax on it are being very unfair. I do not hear anyone screaming for a repeal of other taxes on other things that are legal like tobacco and alcohol. Take away the taxes and cigarettes would be back to $2.50 a carton but take away those taxes and services would decrease much to the chagrin of the population.
I still remember all the lawsuits against big tobacco and how the $$$$ were going to help smokers. Guess what, once the states got there hands on the money most was diverted for other causes. Money is money and the politicians do not care what lie they have to tell to get it they just want more of it to do what they want to.
Just some thoughts. [Flower]
Sniper7's attitude has made me decide to start smoking weed. I'll grow it myself so I don't pay a dime in taxes.
Have fun losing your gun rights over it.
This isn't payback, it's enabling government intrusion, just like the laws you are ''paying back'' are an intrusion. an eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
I Dont smoke weed, what do I care? That is their attitude toward your guns. I want them to feel the pain. I want them to want out of this state just like we have members here moving. That is my ultimate motivation. Make this state miserable for them so they leave. At the same time legalize everything like jerry said and let nature take its course.
I would really like less of this style of government but we get our dicks slapped for trying to play nice all the time. Its time to go on the offensive. Repeal the bad gun laws they jammed down our throats and force a ton of shitty laws on them that they will have to fight with their time and money. That little erosion of rights cut by cut can work both ways and I'm tired of it happening to me.
As I said before: "cutting off your nose to spite your face". And I hoped 99% of the "gun guys" had their heads untucked, it seems I am wrong. Some sound exactly like the libtards.
I'm just using this quote to prove a point- don't take it personally. First off- has anyone ever heard the cliche phrase "You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar"? So you want to try to convince some of us that voting for a tax on weed because a)we don't like pot smoking hippies, b)we want to lessen the comfort of pot smokers, or c)screw 'em, they don't help us, why should we give them any aid, and yet you jump on and say that we're stupid, wrong, or "sound like libtards." Yeah, your convincing is awesome! You should become a defense attorney, you'll win EVERY case! [Sarcasm2] The way I see it, I voted No on 66, Yes on AA. Why you ask? Because 1- Marijuana should be taxed and regulated if it's going to be legal. 2- Tax it in the same way that the government does with gas, tobacco, and alcohol (just look at some of the tax % on some of those items). 3- well, honestly, because I'm really effing tired of all this pro-pot BS I keep getting shoved in my face at least 2x a week, now they can suffer a bit. But if someone has a clear, convincing, and respectful argument to persuade me that I perhaps voted wrong, I'm all ears. But I do not equate a weed tax to anything closely related to firearms or similar.
Ronin, if AA didn't pass, weed would still be taxed and regulated, it just wouldn't have an additional 15% tax arbitrarily added to the base tax. Don't compare to gas, tobacco, and alcohol. The government flat out steals monry from the consumers on gasoline. Tobacco and alcohol are already taxed too high on their own. They are not a fitting example, and certainly not justification for what AA called for.
jerrymrc
11-07-2013, 20:48
Ronin, if AA didn't pass, weed would still be taxed and regulated, it just wouldn't have an additional 15% tax arbitrarily added to the base tax. Don't compare to gas, tobacco, and alcohol. The government flat out steals monry from the consumers on gasoline. Tobacco and alcohol are already taxed too high on their own. They are not a fitting example, and certainly not justification for what AA called for.
And the rate on weed is? over and above the normal sales tax. I honestly do not know but if it has no additional tax then it needed it. 15% is chump change compared to the $1 a pack Colorado levied a few years ago on cigarettes. They claimed that it would drastically reduce smoking but it did not and in all honesty they do not want us to kill the cash cow.
I can't smoke weed even under the MMJ because I work for the fed. Too old to do so now anyway but just like cigs it is a bad thing. Any smoke inhaled is a bad thing to the body. So after years of being victimized/marginalized because I am a nasty, bad smoker that make all the mothers hide there children and the butt of jokes by the younger subjects we make pot legal and the crowd goes wild. Guess what? What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Still think they should make it all legal. but then I got my hand slapped by a judge 37 years ago for saying that.
I still don't understand what all the stink is since when I was a teenager and where I grew up it was only a traffic ticket for under an OZ back then.
Just my take on it..
And the rate on weed is? over and above the normal sales tax.
Are you asking what the tax rate on weed sales will be? I feel like I'm missing the tone of this sentence. Don't forget that weed isn't limited to being smoked anymore.
jerrymrc
11-07-2013, 22:19
Are you asking what the tax rate on weed sales will be? I feel like I'm missing the tone of this sentence. Don't forget that weed isn't limited to being smoked anymore.
What I was asking was when the law passed what tax over and above the normal sales tax was enacted? It was voted on to tax at 15% but the message I get is that passing the legality had no additional tax on it in the first place. Am I correct?
From all of the griping and talk of 'black market' sales, it appears to me that those advocating that we should make pot a taxable commodity were disingenuous. They were willing to sell it illegally before, why should we think that the pattern would change? You can dye the fur on the leopard, but the spots are still there.
What I was asking was when the law passed what tax over and above the normal sales tax was enacted? It was voted on to tax at 15% but the message I get is that passing the legality had no additional tax on it in the first place. Am I correct?
I believe so. AA was to set the "sales tax" portion at 10% in order to cover regular sales tax and fund regulation. There will be an additional 15% tax on the sale, to fund school construction; for a total tax of 25%. The bill specified that the tax amount of either portion of the tax may be changed for any reason, not to.exceed 15% each.
Ronin, if AA didn't pass, weed would still be taxed and regulated, it just wouldn't have an additional 15% tax arbitrarily added to the base tax. Don't compare to gas, tobacco, and alcohol. The government flat out steals monry from the consumers on gasoline. Tobacco and alcohol are already taxed too high on their own. They are not a fitting example, and certainly not justification for what AA called for.
I never said it wouldn't be taxed, I was more saying the taxes on it should be independent of everything else. And why can't I compare weed tax to gas, tobacco, and booze? They're taxed really high- which is the goal for Pro-AA folks on weed. I see a perfect correlation.
Because those aren't acceptable taxes either. Just because one product has an unacceptable tax rate, doesn't mean that more should.
Jeffrey Lebowski
11-08-2013, 09:03
What is an "acceptable tax rate?"
Believe me, I look at how every proposal will affect my own pocketbook and vote accordingly, but how do you frame up any discussion around something so arbitrary and subjective?
Acceptable is whatever the local tax base rate is. If the local tax rate on consumables is 7.25%, then what is the justification of having the weed be taxed at 25%? Oh yeah, for "regulation" and building schools for the kids.
newracer
11-08-2013, 09:39
Acceptable is whatever the local tax base rate is. If the local tax rate on consumables is 7.25%, then what is the justification of having the weed be taxed at 25%? Oh yeah, for "regulation" and building schools for the kids.
There is additional regulation that needs to happen with the sale of this product that the normal local rate would not cover. However I do agree with you that the rates in the proposition are too high.
From all of the griping and talk of 'black market' sales, it appears to me that those advocating that we should make pot a taxable commodity were disingenuous. They were willing to sell it illegally before, why should we think that the pattern would change? You can dye the fur on the leopard, but the spots are still there.
Good point. Just like with the repeal of prohibition, afterwards there's a still a HUGE amount of bootlegging and illegal alcohol being sold.
Oh, wait, come to think of it...
O2
There is additional regulation that needs to happen with the sale of this product that the normal local rate would not cover. However I do agree with you that the rates in the proposition are too high.
Are all those other consumables not regulated? I think that they are, especially foods, yet how are they not subject to special taxes?
Jeffrey Lebowski
11-08-2013, 10:41
Acceptable is whatever the local tax base rate is. If the local tax rate on consumables is 7.25%, then what is the justification of having the weed be taxed at 25%? Oh yeah, for "regulation" and building schools for the kids.
OK, so you're talking about all these other items that have special taxes that go beyond "the local tax rate on consumables" - are those not acceptable either?
What about the fact that two very close municipalities may have different local tax rates?
I'm not disagreeing, necessarily, I think the argument is framed up so awkwardly as to be entirely unconvincing.
I guess I just don't agree with any justification of a "sin tax."
centrarchidae
11-08-2013, 13:08
My problem here, is the idea of the sin tax.
The idea of government making people be good people for their own good, at gunpoint, was the whole philosophical foundation for progressivism. A sin tax on weed may be a little less offensive than forced sterilization and eugenics, but that doesn't make it right. I don't want the state to think it has any business trying to make me a better person. I had parents and a boy scout troop for that.
The bettering of people is just a thin veil for an excuse to steal money anyway. Either premise is not right.
I'll just say this, as one of my absolute favorite instructors I've had thus far in the academy is a CSP drug recognition expert- weed is worse than alcohol, especially for driving. At moderate doses, alcohol doesn't cause impairment for up to 24 hours... Let that sink in. And mark my words, legalizing it won't reduce crime like the pro-pot folks will tell you.
Sent from my evil, black smartphone.
Lol. Not at all relevent to the conversation at hand, and subjective at best, but okay. Noted.
newracer
11-08-2013, 14:44
Are all those other consumables not regulated? I think that they are, especially foods, yet how are they not subject to special taxes?
Yes they are however the legalization of MJ creates a whole new set of regulations and regulators. It's not like someone is simply introducing a new food, alcohol, fuel, etc that would fall under a current department.
Why wouldn't weed be under FDA or ATF?
They wanted it legal.. they got it legal.. they didn't want it taxed.. and the rest of the public said 'Fuck you'.. Majority rules. Nothing we can do now.
Yes they are however the legalization of MJ creates a whole new set of regulations and regulators. It's not like someone is simply introducing a new food, alcohol, fuel, etc that would fall under a current department.
Why not just lump it in with ATF regulators?
We already tax the hell out of other forms of tobacco.
newracer
11-08-2013, 14:55
Why wouldn't weed be under FDA or ATF?
Why not just lump it in with ATF regulators?
We already tax the hell out of other forms of tobacco.
Because those are federal departments and it is not legal at the federal level. So for now there is a need for a tax at the state level. Even if it did fall under one of those departments it would still need to be taxed the same as the products currently under those departments are.
Because those are federal departments and it is not legal at the federal level. So for now there is a need for a tax at the state level. Even if it did fall under one of those departments it would still need to be taxed the same as the products currently under those departments are.
Fair enough.
How bout the Colorado, Department of Revenue, Liquor Enforcement Division?
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Rev-Liquor/LIQ/1209635770319
Tobacco Enforcement
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1235627314375&ssbinary=true
Beginning July 1, 1998 the Liquor Enforcement Division received tobacco enforcement duties. Federal mandate requires each state to have a tobacco enforcement program and a designated enforcement agency. States that do not have a program in place are in jeopardy of losing federal substance abuse and treatment grants. For Colorado, approximately 8 million dollars, annually, is at risk.
The Division coordinates its enforcement activities with the Colorado Departments of Human Services and Health. The Division responds to complaints about tobacco sales to minors and conducts unannounced retailer compliance checks (stings) to determine retailer compliance.
The Division conducts approximately 3,200 tobacco retailer compliance checks. Retailers who sell to minors during a compliance check will be issued a warning and targeted for future compliance checks. If continuing violations occur, a retailer can receive administrative fines ranging from $250 to $15,000.
On an annual basis the Division will work with the Department of Human Services to develop a federal report concerning the effectiveness of Colorado's enforcement program. Federal mandates require Colorado to achieve and maintain an 80% retailer compliance rate to avoid endangering federal grant monies. Colorado's current compliance rate ranges from 92-96%.
newracer
11-08-2013, 15:13
Fair enough.
How bout the Colorado, Department of Revenue, Liquor Enforcement Division?
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/Rev-Liquor/LIQ/1209635770319
Tobacco Enforcement
http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1235627314375&ssbinary=true
Beginning July 1, 1998 the Liquor Enforcement Division received tobacco enforcement duties. Federal mandate requires each state to have a tobacco enforcement program and a designated enforcement agency. States that do not have a program in place are in jeopardy of losing federal substance abuse and treatment grants. For Colorado, approximately 8 million dollars, annually, is at risk.
The Division coordinates its enforcement activities with the Colorado Departments of Human Services and Health. The Division responds to complaints about tobacco sales to minors and conducts unannounced retailer compliance checks (stings) to determine retailer compliance.
The Division conducts approximately 3,200 tobacco retailer compliance checks. Retailers who sell to minors during a compliance check will be issued a warning and targeted for future compliance checks. If continuing violations occur, a retailer can receive administrative fines ranging from $250 to $15,000.
On an annual basis the Division will work with the Department of Human Services to develop a federal report concerning the effectiveness of Colorado's enforcement program. Federal mandates require Colorado to achieve and maintain an 80% retailer compliance rate to avoid endangering federal grant monies. Colorado's current compliance rate ranges from 92-96%.
It could be placed under their jurisdiction but it would still need to be taxed just as alcohol and tobacco.
As I said before I think this tax is too high as well as many others and for the record I voted no.
Also even if MJ is placed under an existing department there would still be a need to regulators that are familiar with MJ. So that means either training existing personnel or highering new.
It could be placed under their jurisdiction but it would still need to be taxed just as alcohol and tobacco.
As I said before I think this tax is too high as well as many others and for the record I voted no.
Also even if MJ is placed under an existing department there would still be a need to regulators that are familiar with MJ. So that means either training existing personnel or highering new.
I think it is hilarious that all the ass-hurt-that-MJ-passed people then voted to tax the living shit out of it for spite. Why is it funny? Because not only did they just create a new black market for something we just legalized (because the tax is too high), but they also grew the state government a ton. CO will be hiring new people to oversee the taxation portion, more to regulate the massive book of MJ laws and probably even some to enforce them as well.
So the next time they cry about growing the government...
milwaukeeshaker
11-08-2013, 19:41
There's a lot of dumb-shits on this forum, who continually shoot themselves in the foot for lack of understanding true freedom and liberty. But you might as well give up trying to educate them. They are as bad as the hoplophobes.
I think it is hilarious that all the ass-hurt-that-MJ-passed people then voted to tax the living shit out of it for spite. Why is it funny? Because not only did they just create a new black market for something we just legalized (because the tax is too high), but they also grew the state government a ton. CO will be hiring new people to oversee the taxation portion, more to regulate the massive book of MJ laws and probably even some to enforce them as well.
So the next time they cry about growing the government...
There's a lot of dumb-shits on this forum, who continually shoot themselves in the foot for lack of understanding true freedom and liberty. But you might as well give up trying to educate them. They are as bad as the hoplophobes.
When the so-called "education" is veiled heavily in condescension and vitriol (as your post indicates), it's really hard to keep an open mind. But it's okay, trying out Liberal argument tactics for the first time can hard to adjust to.
jerrymrc
11-08-2013, 21:29
I think it is hilarious that all the ass-hurt-that-MJ-passed people then voted to tax the living shit out of it for spite. Why is it funny? Because not only did they just create a new black market for something we just legalized (because the tax is too high), but they also grew the state government a ton. CO will be hiring new people to oversee the taxation portion, more to regulate the massive book of MJ laws and probably even some to enforce them as well.
So the next time they cry about growing the government...
Your welcome.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.