ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Ok we should make an exemption for people that are living in their cars
12.10.2012 Colorado Legal Today
- Thread starter GardenM
- Start date
Ok we should make an exemption for people that are living in their cars
desert dude
Well-Known Member
Cuz I luvs me some taxation and regulation, said Uncle Almost.
donmagicjuan
Active Member
my buddy grew a plant in the back of his pickup nvr even got pulled over!
donmagicjuan
Active Member
fuck that bullshit pot heads are fuckin up this was OUR weed now it surly will end up as uncle sams
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Maybe a disabled person or elderly person would of been a better example, but okay.
Ok, so back on track.
Until the tax revenues start getting collected from growers and dispenseries, all of this new legislation is costing CO/WA money. Lots of money. The CO Gov's task force assigned to implement ammend 64 is due to report back with a plan by late February. I would expect that the first priority will be to determine how to start selling growing licenses for the growing season. This starts paying for the government employees and implementation costs. Next come the licenses or government store setup for retail sales. So, yay!, the tax revenues start flowing into education, etc.
The problem is that this will leave out the Federal Government and they are not going to sit idle. They can't, period. What are they going to tell Mexico, Columbia, and the other countries that we have been demanding that they fight our war on drugs? Will they tell them to start growing to supply us? How much money are they (other countries) going to demand from us to pay for their expenses associated with this drug war and restructuring? Are we going to demand that they continue fighting the smuggling to protect the local growers? I suspect that our neighbors are trying to guide us to regulate the MJ trade to try and get this whole smuggling mess under control. If you look at it from the Feds position, they need to come out of this without creating a new debacle that they can't manage. Give them better work and a better challenge, and I bet they would drop this ineffective war on drugs just like they drop other wars. Call me naive, but I have to believe that the questions and answers are more in defining the best direction to go than the continuation/fighting to keep these old laws.
Until the tax revenues start getting collected from growers and dispenseries, all of this new legislation is costing CO/WA money. Lots of money. The CO Gov's task force assigned to implement ammend 64 is due to report back with a plan by late February. I would expect that the first priority will be to determine how to start selling growing licenses for the growing season. This starts paying for the government employees and implementation costs. Next come the licenses or government store setup for retail sales. So, yay!, the tax revenues start flowing into education, etc.
The problem is that this will leave out the Federal Government and they are not going to sit idle. They can't, period. What are they going to tell Mexico, Columbia, and the other countries that we have been demanding that they fight our war on drugs? Will they tell them to start growing to supply us? How much money are they (other countries) going to demand from us to pay for their expenses associated with this drug war and restructuring? Are we going to demand that they continue fighting the smuggling to protect the local growers? I suspect that our neighbors are trying to guide us to regulate the MJ trade to try and get this whole smuggling mess under control. If you look at it from the Feds position, they need to come out of this without creating a new debacle that they can't manage. Give them better work and a better challenge, and I bet they would drop this ineffective war on drugs just like they drop other wars. Call me naive, but I have to believe that the questions and answers are more in defining the best direction to go than the continuation/fighting to keep these old laws.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Let us not forget a very important thing. This is the FIRST state that has made recreational use legal - not decrimanilized, not medicinal only but truely legal.
That it is the first state is a tremedous problem. It is going to have be be made an example of. Not by attacking the users frontaly but through the use of propaganda. The state must not be allowed to suceed. If it does other states will follow suit.
Productivity in the state will have to go down. There will have to be more sick days taken than any other state per capita. There will have to be many more auto accidents. Children will have to be involved somehow - more parents taken away, more incidences of adults giving children pot, more pot found in schools (which will work well as the Feds have some direct influence over schools). The taxes raised will have to be shown to be far less than anticipated. Organized gangs, preferably from outside of the country will need to be discovered working within the state. I believe that there will be more incidence of harder drug busts, after all, marijuana is not just a gateway drug for users but one for the aspiring businessman as well.
While this is going on, the Feds will have to punish the state. Highway funds, welfare funds, perhaps medicare and school funds will have to be witheld.
All the while, I am quite certain that the Feds will crack down on all producers. I have not read the law but I suspect there is a major flaw in it - that is there is no safe haven for producers or vendors of quantity. It is all well and good that the casual posession of an ounce is legal but that is not all that different than in California, where anything up to an ounce is an infraction resulting in 100 dollar fine - and nothing else. There is a chink in the system somewhere and I think it is at medium levels of distribution, and maybe growing.
That it is the first state is a tremedous problem. It is going to have be be made an example of. Not by attacking the users frontaly but through the use of propaganda. The state must not be allowed to suceed. If it does other states will follow suit.
Productivity in the state will have to go down. There will have to be more sick days taken than any other state per capita. There will have to be many more auto accidents. Children will have to be involved somehow - more parents taken away, more incidences of adults giving children pot, more pot found in schools (which will work well as the Feds have some direct influence over schools). The taxes raised will have to be shown to be far less than anticipated. Organized gangs, preferably from outside of the country will need to be discovered working within the state. I believe that there will be more incidence of harder drug busts, after all, marijuana is not just a gateway drug for users but one for the aspiring businessman as well.
While this is going on, the Feds will have to punish the state. Highway funds, welfare funds, perhaps medicare and school funds will have to be witheld.
All the while, I am quite certain that the Feds will crack down on all producers. I have not read the law but I suspect there is a major flaw in it - that is there is no safe haven for producers or vendors of quantity. It is all well and good that the casual posession of an ounce is legal but that is not all that different than in California, where anything up to an ounce is an infraction resulting in 100 dollar fine - and nothing else. There is a chink in the system somewhere and I think it is at medium levels of distribution, and maybe growing.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
I sense a new Federal Cannabis Tax Act.
Maybe only 50 bucks a gram this time, that won't kill legalisation at all
And you'll all still praise the Flying Elephant from Kenya.
Not a problem if you make it legal to possess and grow illegal to sell
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
i ask the government to do it at every possible chance, and they keep telling me no.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Not a problem if the Feds just leave the Will of the People alone, you facist POS.
You've stated you don't even grow and you think it should be illegal to sell, so gtfo this website cos youre either a liar or a hypocrite.
You choose.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Cant tax something that isnt sold
ETA
And you dont even live in this country so why dont you fix your own welfare state and STFU
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Nice try at deflection but it's a fail.
Why keep it illegal to sell? If you don't grow and don't buy it (cos selling it is apparently wrong) how do you get yours?
Although I must say, our budget deficit is only 4% now, so we can cover our excessive welfare bill and we don't even have to cry to China for them to bankroll us, 2 more budgets and its balanced.
When was the last US budget? Bush.
So why keep it illegal to sell? You want Buck and FDD and the rest in prison?
Wow you really are a piece of shit.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
You keep it illegal to sell to keep the FEDs out of colorado
If you make it Legal to sell you end up with cowboys growing commercial. Which leads to interstate sales which means the FEDs get involved. Until a majority of states or a sizable portion make it legal that is the only option
And truthfully I dont want Phillip Morris, Monsanto and cargill involved as they will naturally be if it was legal to grow large scale
and to your last point
China doesnt want to buy your countries debt. Its junk bond status
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Moody's Investors Service on Tuesday downgraded Ireland's government bond ratings to junk, dealing a further blow to the euro zone as it struggles to contain a worsening debt crisis.
Moody's said it cut Ireland's rating by one notch to Ba1 from Baa3, because it sees a growing risk the debt-ridden country will need a second bailout once its current rescue package expires at the end of 2013. The outlook for Ireland remains "negative," Moody's added
Moody's said it cut Ireland's rating by one notch to Ba1 from Baa3, because it sees a growing risk the debt-ridden country will need a second bailout once its current rescue package expires at the end of 2013. The outlook for Ireland remains "negative," Moody's added
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Again that's from 2010, it's almost 2013 and our bond rates are more than sustainable now.
The fact remains you want cannabis illegal to sell and all dealers arrested.
You're a miserable son of a bitch, I retract saying you're "cool" because you're basically a Prohibitionist on a cannabis website.
So I'll ask again, if you don't grow and selling should remain illegal, where does ChesusPaedophile get his cannabis from?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Moody's cuts Irish bond ratings as IMF seeks map of budget cuts
By Thomas Molloy
Friday September 07 2012
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Putting words in my mouth that I never said
I dont even smoke pot. But if I did and it was legal. I would grow my own.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Well if you don't smoke pot, then stop trying to weigh in on it and fuck off.
I don't tell you how to live your life and I don't involve myself in shit that doesn't involve me.
Infact, due to me being a smoker and WA/CO being the first places worldwide to legalise, it effects me far more than you even tho I'm thousands of miles away.
Oh and if our bonds were rated as "junk" in 2010, how were they downgraded again this year? And how come investors were climbing over each other to buy bonds at our most recent auction, slashing interest rates as a result?
You can't paint your house, cant get a proper "non-mail order" wife, dont understand even the fundamentals of economics and you're overly opinionated on a subject that doesn't even involve you.
When did it all start going so wrong for you Duke?
Similar threads
