California To Impose 7.25% Tax On Medical Marijuana

I don't think the cigarette companies will be in competition necessarily -- they'll have to adapt by selling marijuana cigarettes. And, I've seen recipes for cannabis infused beer and liquor as well. Both types of companies will adapt, and everyone will be making money off of this.
 
I'm not so sure. Big Alcohol and Big Tobacco were long-time contributors to the Partnership For A Drug-Free America until the latter entity started getting a lot of heat for the fundamental hypocrisy of it.

Though they've taken the booze and cigarette companies off their list of sponsors, I'm sure the funding still comes through in the form of fake companies, etc.

It's not like the PDFA would allow ethics to stand in the way of their agendas, and clearly the booze/cigarette industries view decriminalized marijuana as a major threat to their market shares.
 
Actually its my understanding that many of the tabacco companies have plans ready to set in motion to allow them to market a product as quickly as they can the moment marijuana is legalised

and honestly theyd be stupid if they didnt
 
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...
the average american has a moral problem with drugs (among other things like prostitution) and feels they must be illegal. this is what has to change.

so it's not about money. either people must realize drugs aren't what they think they are, or people must adopt a live and let live attitude, or preferably both
 
so... this means meds are going to be even more expensive!
I'm fucking sick of paying $65 an eigth down here in so. cal for some good weed... when i can get it off the street for $45-$50. This means that prices will be even higher if this falls through :-/
 
Ok... just to offer an opposing view...


I'm STRONGLY AGAINST TAXING MEDICAL MARIJUANA.

Ok?

Now... why....

Schedule I drugs have NO KNOWN MEDICAL USE.
By declaring that marijuana is NOT a drug - NOT subject to this exclusion, it loses it's medical purpose and becomes a recreational drug or plain old herbal supplement and they can keep it as a schedule I drug.

So yes... the state would be more willing to allow the program to continue - but that's not up to the state, it's up to the voters.

If they choose not to tax medical supplies/drugs, they cannot tax medical marijuana.
Period.

This would be VERY VERY bad for creating a case on the federal level.
 
OzzBozz said:
so... this means meds are going to be even more expensive!
I'm fucking sick of paying $65 an eigth down here in so. cal for some good weed... when i can get it off the street for $45-$50. This means that prices will be even higher if this falls through :-/
Click to expand...


Yeah - that's something else that needs to change - the black market prices are still below the...
Umm...
:blink :blink

What's a legal market called?
Fair?

Fair market prices.

(And... just so you know... your dispensaries markup is in excess of 300%)

Some sort of regulation of prices needs to be done to make the black market prices higher than the "fair" market price.

I think it would be better to implement a law showing what the dispensaries PAY for their marijuana so you know how much you're being ripped off by them.

A 300% markup is ridiculous for a LEGAL supplier of something that doesn't pay tax on either end...
The reason for the black market profit is paying for the risk factor.

Dispensaries' risk factors are minimal.
The prices should be adjusted accordingly.
 
I always had a sneaking suspicion that they would tax the fuck out of pot if it was ever legal.

Except it's different in this regard, this is MEDICAL pot, used to treat symptoms of illness....

SO when is it right? Is it better to tax a medicine for people who are probably paying out the ass for it anyway, or is it better to get it illegally??

Once that shit is legal everywhere, they are gonna tax the fuck out of it, just like they do with cigs...
 
X said:
Once that shit is legal everywhere, they are gonna tax the fuck out of it, just like they do with cigs...
Click to expand...



And that's fine.

But until it's legal, it's a MEDICINE ONLY and cannot be taxed.

Otherwise it will never get approval from the federal government and will remain a schedule I drug.

Taxing it shows they don't believe it's truly being used ONLY medically - backing the claim that it has a high potential for abuse.

I don't think prices would change that much...
The dispensaries would still be turning a VERY large profit.
 
X said:
I always had a sneaking suspicion that they would tax the fuck out of pot if it was ever legal.

Except it's different in this regard, this is MEDICAL pot, used to treat symptoms of illness....

SO when is it right? Is it better to tax a medicine for people who are probably paying out the ass for it anyway, or is it better to get it illegally??

Once that shit is legal everywhere, they are gonna tax the fuck out of it, just like they do with cigs...
Click to expand...
no matter how much they tax drugs, drugs will still be much cheaper legal..
 
as long as you can grow your own. taxation and legalization are good. I dont even mind a small nominal fee to grow my own.
 
LvMkngFlwrChld said:
this is another step towards legalization. when the government realizes they can make money off of it they will be all for it.
Click to expand...



Again, I dissent....


Yes... they will be making money - but it will be California making the money - it's already LEGAL in California. They don't need more incentive to make it MORE legal.

The illegality remains (unconstitutionally) at the Federal level.

This will demean the medicinal purposes proported by the current legislation rationalizing its legal status.

If you strip it of its MEDICAL nature, it will remain illegal longer on the national level.

One of the 3 criteria for a Schedule I substance is that it NOT HAVE AN ACCEPTED MEDICAL USE.
This tax will threaten the medical status of the "drug" and will only help prove its abuse potential.

Again - just an opposing view, but think of how misleading most governmental acts are currently.
This could be a major play for the prohibitionists if you look at the facts slightly differently.
This could gain them an immense amount of leverage.

It could also force FDA acceptance...
But consider the potential consequences....
 
^ Kalash you've been making good points, but i think i side with the "bottom line" crowd... once they realize how much money they can get from it, the government will want the money (it's cost a fuckload to run the drugwar anyways)

I mean, consider it... here in washington state, just on the amount seized, it is by FAR the most profitable agricultural product.... consider how much the STATE would get from taxation...and how much that money could help with roads, education, and the environment

I think if other states start this, they will fight the federal government to keep the money... it will be state vs. federal, and anyone for state rights will probably back it

Seriously, think about how well the states would do with all that extra tax income... education might actually meet the standards set by the "no child left behind" bs.
 
yucatanboy2 said:
^ Kalash you've been making good points, but i think i side with the "bottom line" crowd... once they realize how much money they can get from it, the government will want the money (it's cost a fuckload to run the drugwar anyways)

I mean, consider it... here in washington state, just on the amount seized, it is by FAR the most profitable agricultural product.... consider how much the STATE would get from taxation...and how much that money could help with roads, education, and the environment

I think if other states start this, they will fight the federal government to keep the money... it will be state vs. federal, and anyone for state rights will probably back it

Seriously, think about how well the states would do with all that extra tax income... education might actually meet the standards set by the "no child left behind" bs.
Click to expand...



I'm not saying you're wrong... I'm just bringing up the opposing side.

Regulating drugs IS one of the State's rights.

The Federal laws are unconstitutional and invalid (and... I may be challenging them in court >_<)
So yes... I agree with the taxation of (currently) illicit drugs to help pay for drug awareness education, rehabilitation clinics for addicts, medical treatment for accidental OD's - that can all be paid for by the tax.
If they want to slap a little extra on there to pay for the schools, that's fine.

I'm opposed to the breast cancer research getting money from the taxes, but that's based on personal beliefs that they aren't searching for a cure so much as a profit and drugs that merely prolong life...

I hope you guys are right and that this is a step forward for legalization...

I'm just afraid it may backfire and bring the medical laws tumbling down, making things worse again.

I don't know if any of you are active members pushing for the tax either way (though it looks like it was just... brought into existence... it wasn't a law that was passed...) or that there's reason to debate...

If there IS reason to debate - it's much better to understand both sides before walking into the debate.
Again - by removing the medical protection/rationalization for the distribution of a Schedule I substance, you stop fighting the Schedule I status based on medical use.

The Federal Government is never going to permit legalization of the drugs because it will fall back to the states and the Federal Government won't see its hunk of the tax money.

(Though... I may be mistaken on that... there is SOME federal tax on tobacco... not 100% sure on Alcohol - alcohol would be the deciding factor as the challenge equals out to challenging Prohibition...)

We'll see...
I'm willing to bet you that my arguments make the press faster than the arguments supporting legalization ;P
 
drklnk said:
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.
Click to expand...

If only that were true. It should be true, and it will be one day... I hope
 
he 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.
Click to expand...
Bah! When will people who write articles on drugs learn to research them before hand? Seriously, a 10 minute google or wikipedia search works wonders, it should be a requirement.
 
I agree on many levels, however, the FED would save SO much by ending the drug war, that it would offset and perceived 'loss' of potential revenue of drug tax dollars since that would go to the state. But what would prevent the FED from instituting a federal sales tax? Not that I am any fan of taxes, but I'd rather pay taxes to buy pot legally. Or better yet, grow my own legally. Even better.

Kalash said:
I'm not saying you're wrong... I'm just bringing up the opposing side.

Regulating drugs IS one of the State's rights.

The Federal laws are unconstitutional and invalid (and... I may be challenging them in court >_<)
So yes... I agree with the taxation of (currently) illicit drugs to help pay for drug awareness education, rehabilitation clinics for addicts, medical treatment for accidental OD's - that can all be paid for by the tax.
If they want to slap a little extra on there to pay for the schools, that's fine.

I'm opposed to the breast cancer research getting money from the taxes, but that's based on personal beliefs that they aren't searching for a cure so much as a profit and drugs that merely prolong life...

I hope you guys are right and that this is a step forward for legalization...

I'm just afraid it may backfire and bring the medical laws tumbling down, making things worse again.

I don't know if any of you are active members pushing for the tax either way (though it looks like it was just... brought into existence... it wasn't a law that was passed...) or that there's reason to debate...

If there IS reason to debate - it's much better to understand both sides before walking into the debate.
Again - by removing the medical protection/rationalization for the distribution of a Schedule I substance, you stop fighting the Schedule I status based on medical use.

The Federal Government is never going to permit legalization of the drugs because it will fall back to the states and the Federal Government won't see its hunk of the tax money.

(Though... I may be mistaken on that... there is SOME federal tax on tobacco... not 100% sure on Alcohol - alcohol would be the deciding factor as the challenge equals out to challenging Prohibition...)

We'll see...
I'm willing to bet you that my arguments make the press faster than the arguments supporting legalization ;P
Click to expand...
 
panic_the_digital said:
In fact, more people smoke weed in the U.S. than in the Netherlands.
Click to expand...


There's just a few more people in the US than the Netherlands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top