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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KAPA

Any thoughts?

---

Yeah, we have enough taxes already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

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.

Tax the hello out of it just like alcohol and tobacco, what's the problem with that ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by merl

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by merl

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.

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.