|
lazyfingers
grrr
Registered: 08/07/09
Posts: 3,347
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Fuck Oaksterdam [Re: eeso]
#11671964 - 12/17/09 09:49 PM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
The whole argument here is a little ridiculous, but remember that California can always take away what it doesn't fully give. Working against the state won't help push anything forward. People will just see it as a "drug" enterprise which pays no taxes and therefore has no necessity or possible legitimacy in the state as a business. And don't forget about the feds who are itching to pull the trigger on the whole situation. Go ahead and don't pay taxes, see what happens.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination
Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 6,016
Last seen: 17 hours, 23 minutes
|
|
so is this actually replacing prop 215, or is it something in addition?
if its in addtion, it won't change anything for med mj people, and take away restrictions that are currently on normal people.
|
Entropymancer
Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,207
|
Re: Fuck Oaksterdam [Re: Freedom]
#11674370 - 12/18/09 10:52 AM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
It's not replacing it, but (as I read the measure) the taxes will apply to medical cannabis as well as non-medical... making California the first state in the nation to tax consumers buying their prescription drugs
|
Morican
Stranger
Registered: 05/01/09
Posts: 1,045
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
Re: Fuck Oaksterdam [Re: Freedom]
#11674388 - 12/18/09 10:56 AM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Freedom said: but even if they only legalize it in a way that makes it expensive and gives big profits to businesses and government, wouldn't this be a move in the right direction? Once they admit that it is not going to destroy your life, they will have to lower the penalties for someone growing pot, because then the grower isn't thought of as a distributer of poison, just someone going around the system like the moonshiners, the moonshiners who are not nearly as heavily prosceuted as the pot growers are now today.
I agree, it's an unfortunate part of making a deal with the devil, we want legalization, some other groups don't care about it and another group is apposed to legalizing it ever, but all need and want money, so when you make it look as if there is a bunch of money to be made by legalizing with extreme taxation, it is a step in the right direction, a step towards legalization if at a cost.
maybe one day enough people will be actually into it and become a larger voting age majority and then the taxing or the amount can be tweaked, but for now lets just accept the positive step forward.
|
Entropymancer
Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,207
|
Re: Fuck Oaksterdam [Re: Morican]
#11674431 - 12/18/09 11:07 AM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Morican, that's an excellent argument in favor of taxing it, and to that I have no objection. What I object to is that the bill is structured so people cannot grow enough for personal use (I have no problem with people paying taxes on their grow-ops, but I very much object to preventing people from legally having a personal grow-op... 5x5 is just not enough). That means that the profits (minus taxes) all go to the exact same people who are pushing so hard for this bill.
They put a happy "legalize it" front on the thing, but really all they want to do is to take the black market profits for themselves. That's what's fucked up.
I don't think you'll find many people opposed to taxation if that's what it takes to get it legal. But this proposition isn't just about taxation, it's about structuring the law to disproportionately benefit the dispensaries, and keep legal sanctions on anyone who doesn't want to feed into their bullshit.
The medical cannabusiness crowd knew that a tax-to-legalize bill would come up soon with or without them... so they decided to beat everyone to the punch so they could structure the law to essentially give them a monopoly. Face it: There's NO good reason to restrict homegrows to 5'x5' except to line the pockets of the people who are pushing so hard for this proposition.
|
Morican
Stranger
Registered: 05/01/09
Posts: 1,045
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
|
I've grown twice in my life before all this medical marijuana legal right to grow and I did it in a smaller area than 5x5 and yielded almost enough (my second time) to almost supply myself and my best friend in bud for a year, but I had to store in the fridge and freezer.
There are ways around the 5x5 restrictions, or rather ways to maximize the small space.
I am just happy to not have to go to my dealer and leave with the fear of getting pulled over down the street, I pay more now for my bud but have a bunch of different types available to me at any given time and can drive away with it in my trunk with no worries about the cops.
Some day we might have freedom but as long as we have a money grubbing, cash strapped government that can put us in jail whenever they want, freedom is for the rich, it's capitalism that we hate not the medical marijuana or legalization movement.
|
ferrel_human
stone eater
Registered: 06/26/09
Posts: 16,397
Loc: Darkside of the moon
|
Re: Fuck Oaksterdam [Re: Morican]
#11674530 - 12/18/09 11:28 AM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
get yourself a vacuum saver. the one jan muller peddles. its good to keep everything fresh for a long ass tme. i'm pretty sure you could vaccuum your bud with it and don't have toput anything in the freezer
-------------------- Nature is my church and walking through it is gospel. It tells no lies and reveals all to those who look, and listen, closely. -Karode
|
danielx
whatup!
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 6,500
|
Re: Fuck Oaksterdam [Re: Morican]
#11674923 - 12/18/09 12:48 PM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Morican said: I've grown twice in my life before all this medical marijuana legal right to grow and I did it in a smaller area than 5x5 and yielded almost enough (my second time) to almost supply myself and my best friend in bud for a year, but I had to store in the fridge and freezer.
There are ways around the 5x5 restrictions, or rather ways to maximize the small space.
bro your not getting it. There is a one ounce personal limit on tax 2010. How can anybody possibly grow weed, and stay under one ounce. Should we throw away the rest? I can go through an ounce in one sitting.
tax 2010 is bad all around, not because im opposed to taxes. While I would rather not have to pay them, I feel you will never get around them if you want legitimacy. Its the other parts of the bill that are flawed. And i feel that the bill would go through without those assine limits and restrictions, so why have them in there? Ill tell you why, so oaksterdam can have their monoply that they have been fighting so hard for.
-------------------- Long live kratom
|
Morican
Stranger
Registered: 05/01/09
Posts: 1,045
Last seen: 9 years, 8 months
|
Re: Fuck Oaksterdam [Re: danielx]
#11675006 - 12/18/09 12:59 PM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
My bad, I didn't read the actual language of the bill, but yeah an ounce is not enough to justify growing, I guess how it can work is to sell your excess to the shops and then buy back at your leisure. We need to find and exploit the lop wholes, play the game to our advantage, if there is a way at all. I'm thinking of starting a legal grow operation soon and will need to know my legal in's and out's before doing so. I will post my finding as soon as I find a way around the man that benefits us all.
|
Entropymancer
Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,207
|
Re: Fuck Oaksterdam [Re: Morican]
#11675029 - 12/18/09 01:02 PM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Or California can just give a big to Rich Lee and his moneygrubbing monopoly-seeking cronies and wait for a proposal that isn't so fucked-from-the-ground-up.
|
danielx
whatup!
Registered: 10/13/08
Posts: 6,500
|
|
-------------------- Long live kratom
|
Entropymancer
Registered: 07/16/05
Posts: 10,207
|
Re: Fuck Oaksterdam [Re: danielx]
#11675184 - 12/18/09 01:24 PM (14 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
A good analogy just occurred to me: Think back to the early days of the civil rights movement... imagine if Dr. King and a couple of his friends proposed some legislation that would do away with segregated schools, bathrooms, water fountains, etc... but required all minorities to pay an annual surcharge to Dr. King's ministry (or at least a ministry of the same denomination) in order to gain those rights.
Do you think the oppressed minorities would hail that as a victory, or even a step in the right direction?
|
notapillow
I want to be a fisherman
Registered: 09/29/03
Posts: 31,129
Loc: A rare and different tune
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
Quote:
Entropymancer said: It's clear their interest is in making obscene profits off cannabis users, not promoting their civil liberties. They fired one of their faculty, a longstanding member of the medical cannabis and legalization movements, simply for expressing his belief that people should be allowed to grow their own cannabis without paying exorbitant taxes.
I don't have any problem with some taxation if that's what it takes to make it legal in the short-term.... but it's clear that Oaksterdam's priority is not legalization, but simply making fat stacks of cash.
Fuck them and the horse they rode in on
too be honest who is not interested in making obscene pfofits of mj users its jow its been built up
it should be a plant. like any pther
one that was esesialy free. or cheep to buy reproduce or grow.
like some tomatos or some basil, or some collegulla seeds i have no problem paying someone for some. wither they are seeds plants or end product. but ill be damned if anyone is gonna tax people to grow shit in MY land
--------------------
|
|