California To Impose 7.25% Tax On Medical Marijuana

dapurpman

dapurpman

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
943
Schwarzenegger wants marijuana money

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has his eyes on the marijuana of his citizens.

The State Board of Equalization, which is the state's main tax authority, has alerted California's 150 to 200 medical marijuana dispensaries that they are liable to pay taxes on their sales, the Sacramento Bee reported Monday.

'If you sell medical marijuana, your sales in California are generally subject to tax and you are required to hold a seller's permit,' the board said in notices sent out in February. 'If you do not obtain a seller's permit or fail to report and pay the taxes due, you will be subject to interest and penalty charges.'

The notice marks the first demand for marijuana taxes since California voters legalized medical marijuana in 1996 by passing Proposition 215 - in defiance of federal law.

The substance remains illegal under federal law even though 12 states have legalized use of the narcotic for medical treatment. The latest was New Mexico which passed its own medical marijuana bill last week.

Medicines are tax exempt in California, but tax authorities decided to start the marijuana levy because it is not dispensed by a pharmacist or approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a medication.

While some medical marijuana advocates support the tax for legitimizing their activity, others are concerned that the tax records could give federal authorities detailed records for possible prosecution follow-up.

Ryan Landers, a spokesman for Sacramento-area medical marijuana retailers and one of the original proponents of Proposition 215, supported the move.

'We've worked hard to make sure the (marijuana) clubs act like a good neighbour,' he said. 'We think if you pay your taxes, you're going to be looked upon a lot different(ly).'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schwarzenegger wants marijuana money
Monsters & Critics
April 9, 2007

Link

[Edited for FP; thread title edited for clarity. ff]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
this part is interesting

Medicines are tax exempt in California, but tax authorities decided to start the marijuana levy because it is not dispensed by a pharmacist or approved by the Food and Drug Administration as a medication.
Click to expand...

has its pros n' cons, like makin the co-ops more legit, then u have records of how much bud is sold, etc for the feds... but i think anything to legitimize the co-ops in cali would be good.


CALIFORNIA IN BID TO IMPOSE 7.25% SALES TAX ON CANNABIS
http://www.mapinc.org/norml/v07/n451/a08.htm
 
dapurpman said:
this part is interesting



has its pros n' cons, like makin the co-ops more legit, then u have records of how much bud is sold, etc for the feds... but i think anything to legitimize the co-ops in cali would be good.
Click to expand...

I agree. Taxing it as you would an herbal supplement or something along those lines does bring a nice air of legitimacy around for the clubs. The purveyors should work to have some wording in the bill that would prevent the state from turning over the records to the feds for prosecution to prevent being taken down.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Once they start getting their tax money, state and federal governments will follow with legalization. No government will pass up free money.
 
^^^^ Agreed. When weed money starts popping up above ground, all the King's moral babble, and all the King's drug-enforcement lackeys won't be able to put Humpty Dumpty's Pot-Laws back together again.

This is really good because once the state starts pulling in weed-tax, the next time Joe DEA shows up to bust a grow-op, he might find a line of state troopers standing in his way.
 
Does California still receive its federal highway subsidy? Because if they do, they won't for very much longer. Let's hope they rake in more money taxing weed than they would have gotten from the feds for fixing roads....
 
^So far, Bush hasn't thought about that possibility, as I'm sure he has other things to worry about now. Besides, they haven't played that card the entire time that med-pot has been legal, so why should they care if Cali gets a cut on the deal?
 
So I just extrapolated this scenario out a little more and it's very good for the economy at large:
Weed is legal everywhere, so people are walking down the street getting high. they get the munchies and hit up a restaurant or 7-11 for food. More revenue for the food industry, which means more revenue for health clubs and/or companies that supply exercise equipment so people don't get fat from all the munchies. And then the gov't is also taking their share and loving it. Everyone is happy.
 
^^cept alcohol and tobacco. they are the ones with the money and they will throw everything they got to stop that scenario from happening.
 
ya i can see it now. If only we legalized pot there would only be sunshine and happiness in the world, and everyone would have their own unicorn!8)

seriously guys, its pot, its not a gift from god to cure the worlds ills.
 
Blacksoulman said:
^^cept alcohol and tobacco. they are the ones with the money and they will throw everything they got to stop that scenario from happening.
Click to expand...

Everyone always says that and I don't get it. I smoke cigs and drink along with smoking weed. I assume the concept of mixing drugs is known to more than just the drug using community.

RollinJ said:
ya i can see it now. If only we legalized pot there would only be sunshine and happiness in the world, and everyone would have their own unicorn!8)

seriously guys, its pot, its not a gift from god to cure the worlds ills.
Click to expand...

I never said it cured anything. I merely pondered a nice economic scenario with legal, taxed weed.
 
schwarzenegger_arnold_146.jpg
 
Blacksoulman said:
^^cept alcohol and tobacco. they are the ones with the money and they will throw everything they got to stop that scenario from happening.
Click to expand...
Except that in the Netherlands more people drink and smoke tobacco than weed. In fact, more people smoke weed in the U.S. than in the Netherlands.
 
More info (most interesting parts have been bolded)

Medical marijuana policy revised
Dispensers no longer have to reveal the nature of their products
By Geoff Johnson, California Aggie
Posted: 4/13/07

The California State Board of Equalization, responsible for the state's sales and business tax, is changing its policy regarding medical marijuana in the state of California. Under the new system, dispensers will no longer be required to disclose the nature of their products.

Previously, dispensers were required to sell items other than marijuana and were allowed to attribute income from the sales of marijuana to other legal goods such as T-shirts or rolling papers.

Though medical marijuana has been legal within the state of California since Proposition 215 was passed in 1996, Board Chairwoman Betty Yee said the matter of taxing medical marijuana had not been addressed because cannabis clubs needed time to proliferate, in part because of negotiations with local authorities.

"I think part of what's happened is that the establishment of cannabis clubs has taken time," Yee said. "They've been dealing with local regulatory issues."

Nathan Sands, communications director for the nonprofit organization Compassionate Coalition, said the policy would have only marginal impact on the medical-marijuana community.

"To some extent, I think the media has wanted to make it appear that people in the medical-marijuana movement disagree on the subject," Sands said. "Nowadays there's been a lot of agreement on the subject."

Sands dismissed fears that tax information could help the federal government track down patients and dispensers, noting that information-sharing agreements with the state already allowed such records to be made available, and outlined a scenario in which tax information could actually be used to persuade potential juries that marijuana is for medical use.

"[Tax] information might actually help dispensers in court," Sands said. "You're not allowed to mention the words 'medical marijuana' in your defense or at all, because [the authorities] don't acknowledge medical marijuana."

Co-founder and director of the San Francisco Patients Cooperative Randi Webster, however, said she feels the tax is just one more obstacle for what was already a difficult practice. She added that she is frustrated that something could be illegal on a federal level while being taxed by the state.

"Many of these places are nonprofit and don't make any money," Webster said. "They barely break even."

Webster said she went before the Board of Equalization in 2005, when the current legislation was being considered to make the case for alternatives to taxation and was unsuccessful.

"The majority of us went into this with the idea of helping patients, not earning money. The few profiteers … are the ones they should be going after," Webster said.

Link
 
panic_the_digital said:
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Once they start getting their tax money, state and federal governments will follow with legalization. No government will pass up free money.
Click to expand...


exactly, i think this is a gret idea. they need to shy away from demonization and focus on capitolization!!!!
 
Everyone always says that and I don't get it. I smoke cigs and drink along with smoking weed. I assume the concept of mixing drugs is known to more than just the drug using community.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And a lot of corporations produce both cigarettes and alcohol anyway. They stand to make money as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top