RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


JanahX -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 11:48:35 AM)

Heres how Alaska deals with their legalized marijuana -
I dont know if CO will follow this or not -

Alaska

In Alaska, cannabis was decidedly legal (under state, but not federal, law) for in-home, personal use under the Ravin v. State ruling of 1975. This ruling allowed up to two ounces (57 g) of cannabis and cultivation of fewer than 25 plants for these purposes. A 1991 voter ballot initiative recriminalized marijuana possession, but when that law was eventually challenged in 2004, the Alaska courts upheld the Ravin ruling, saying the popular vote could not trump the state constitution. In response to former Governor Frank Murkowski's successive attempt to re-criminalize cannabis, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against the state. On July 17, 2006, Superior Court Judge Patricia Collins awarded the Case Summary judgment to the ACLU. In her ruling, she said "No specific argument has been advanced in this case that possession of more than 1 ounce (28 g) of cannabis, even within the privacy of the home, is constitutionally protected conduct under Ravin or that any plaintiff or ACLU of Alaska member actually possesses more than 1 ounce (28 g) of cannabis in their homes." This does not mean that the legal possession threshold has been reduced to one ounce, as this was a mere case summary review filed by the ACLU, not a full case. Reinforcing Ravin, Collins wrote "A lower court cannot reverse the State Supreme Court's 1975 decision in Ravin v. State" and "Unless and until the Supreme Court directs otherwise, Ravin is the law in this state and this court is duty bound to follow that law". The law regarding possession of cannabis has not changed in Alaska, and the Supreme Court has declined to review the case, therefore the law still stands at 4 ounces (113 g).[18] However, federal prosecutions under the CSA can be brought in Federal Court, and federal courts applying federal law are not bound by state court precedent. As such, federal courts in Alaska will recognize that possession of any quantity of marijuana remains illegal in Alaska under federal law.


It should be emphasized that legal possession of cannabis is strictly noncommercial. The maximum legal limit is up to four ounces or 25 plants owned for personal use by adults in the privacy of their homes.[18] Possessing more than 4oz or more than 25 or cannabis plants is a felony punishable by up to 5 years in jail and a fine of up to $ 50,000.[19] Possession of any amount cannabis within 500 feet of a school or a recreation center is also a felony punishable by 5 years jail time and a fine of up to $50,000; but if possession is noncommercial and the offender is in their a private residence, an affirmative defense may be raised in court.[19]

Possession of marijuana for Commercial reasons regardless of the amount is prohibited by law.[19]Sale of less than 1oz is considered a misdemeanor punishable by one year jail time and a fine of up to $5000.[19] Sale of more than one ounce of cannabis is a felony punishable by 5 years in prison and $ 50,000 fine.[19] Furthermore, Alaskans cannot maintain any buildings or structures whose sole purpose is to house and or distribute marijuana plant. [19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_States




thompsonx -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 12:11:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

That is my point. were you not the one complaining about taxing it?


This was my original post:
quote:

Fr:
One has to wonder why it is that all of those who don't smoke pot are all in favor of taxing it.


My point was and is that many on the right constantly carp about being "singled" out to be taxed and yet when it comes to cannibis they are all in favor of singling out someone to tax as long as it is not them. Taxing cannibis is no more logical than taxing coffee,tea or chocolate all of which are organic forms of speed.
btw: Totally fine butt in your new avitar.





tazzygirl -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 12:24:37 PM)

Yet arent they also the ones to have a drink or two after every meal? They get taxed as well on what they indulge in.

And thanky on the butt [;)]




thompsonx -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 12:50:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Yet arent they also the ones to have a drink or two after every meal? They get taxed as well on what they indulge in.

And thanky on the butt [;)]



Which leads us back to the questions...why is tobacco taxed? Why is alcohol taxed? Two different questions and two different answers.




PunisherNOLA -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 12:58:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

That is my point. were you not the one complaining about taxing it?


This was my original post:
quote:

Fr:
One has to wonder why it is that all of those who don't smoke pot are all in favor of taxing it.


My point was and is that many on the right constantly carp about being "singled" out to be taxed and yet when it comes to cannibis they are all in favor of singling out someone to tax as long as it is not them. Taxing cannibis is no more logical than taxing coffee,tea or chocolate all of which are organic forms of speed.
btw: Totally fine butt in your new avitar.




Ahh, so you're simply returning the favor by whining about pot being taxed, or rather because non partakers want to tax it. I'm all for seeing those who smoke weed being able to do it legally, but that it should be treated just as we do alcohol. That means added to the "sin tax" category, only sold to those 21 or over, regulated as to DUI laws and things of that nature.. What can possibly be your problem with that other than it seems to you to be those on the right who want to do this?




tazzygirl -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 12:59:14 PM)

I explained.. they are considered sin taxes... or sumptuary taxes (Pigovian tax). Taxed on things people find "undesireable" .. or have negative"externalities"... to raise income and reduce use.




PeonForHer -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 1:11:14 PM)

FR

Quick question, bit of an aside: What would be the point of taxing cannabis (beyond some trifling amount, anyway)? The gangster infrastructure is already in place to get the stuff into the country and to its consumers. Its people already know how to avoid police - why would IRS agents be more of a challenge?




kdsub -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 1:14:51 PM)

If you have legal unions... then what is the difference? They can always be married in a church there is no law against it today. Just so long as a legal civil union is had they would also have support and property protection.

Why haggle over wording?

Butch




tazzygirl -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 1:15:09 PM)

Because, honestly, more people would probably use it if it were legal. And many would want to avoid the stigma of using something illegal.

Its not much different than when prohibition ended.




kdsub -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 1:19:04 PM)

quote:

good idea to tax cigarettes


Not in Missouri




tazzygirl -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 1:20:42 PM)

quote:

The difference is that civil unions are irrelevant for federal tax purposes.  Also, states that don't recognize civil unions won't recognize civil unions filed in other states.  Only marriage is recognized across all state boundaries.

The argument you more often hear is moral though: Why should gays have to settle for a second-rate marriage?


I never said settle for second rate. I said settle for the same legalities.

quote:

I always thought... go after the legal right to form a union. Worry about what you call it afterwards.


It seems to me that the objection is to calling it a marriage. Is it worth the wait until it can be called as such when there is an alternative? Should it have to be that way? no.
Do I want it to be that way? no.
But why should people have to wait for an union with their SO simply because of a label?

Call it a civil union, go after the federal rights to have it viewedm legally, in the same context as a marriage... and worry about what you call it later.




Iamsemisweet -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 1:50:38 PM)

Wouldn't be the IRS, it would be the state. However, to answer your question some people don't want to risk their freedom/career/reputation doing something illegal. So it might be worth paying a little more.
quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Quick question, bit of an aside: What would be the point of taxing cannabis (beyond some trifling amount, anyway)? The gangster infrastructure is already in place to get the stuff into the country and to its consumers. Its people already know how to avoid police - why would IRS agents be more of a challenge?






Lordandmaster -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 7:29:40 PM)

That is precisely NOT easy, because the legislation would have to be federal legislation. It's hard enough to get any of these measures passed state by state.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

The difference is that civil unions are irrelevant for federal tax purposes.  Also, states that don't recognize civil unions won't recognize civil unions filed in other states.  Only marriage is recognized across all state boundaries.


Civil unions and tax purposes is easily done... legislation.





TheHeretic -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/7/2012 8:19:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

The gangster infrastructure is already in place to get the stuff into the country and to its consumers. Its people already know how to avoid police - why would IRS agents be more of a challenge?




Given the hassles, ripoffs, light bags, droughts, and the odd batch that had diesel fuel exposure during the smuggling process, I'd be perfectly happy to just drop by the store, and pay what they ask at the register.

I live in California. I have my letter from the doctor, and my membership in a local collective with a fantastic varietal selection. There is no tax, because this is medicine, but because my state legislature was derelict in their duty to devise a coherent framework, the money I spend at the store goes right back into the underground economy.

Marijuana legalization needs to be addressed in a realistic and pragmatic way. There is no great direct windfall of tax dollars here, the real benefits are in law enforcement saving, and reducing the social damage of a horribly failed policy, but we are going to need to have better drug education and treatment programs. I have no issue whatsoever with taxing a legal intoxicant to cover that sort of thing.

This is my silver lining on the Obama reelection, Peon. I'll probably be on the subject at length more than twice, as I have been in the past, so stay tuned, if it's a topic you think worth discussing.




Moonhead -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/8/2012 4:03:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

The gangster infrastructure is already in place to get the stuff into the country and to its consumers. Its people already know how to avoid police - why would IRS agents be more of a challenge?




Given the hassles, ripoffs, light bags, droughts, and the odd batch that had diesel fuel exposure during the smuggling process, I'd be perfectly happy to just drop by the store, and pay what they ask at the register.

This.
If you buy a bottle of scotch, you can be reasonably sure that it's full of whisky.
It'd be nice to be able to buy dope the same way, so that it isn't cut with three or four kinds of shit.
(Also, you can buy all sorts of scotch, and it'd be nice if the same thing happened with the whacky baccy: wouldn't it be great if you could get dope other than skunk that smells like Shane McGowan or resin?)

There's also the fact that, with the stuff legalised, the illegal distribution network will have the legs kicked out from under it and wither away because you can buy the same stuff legally, and probably a lot cheaper. I think tazzy's on the ball with the reference to prohibition: I'd much rather drink Bombay Sapphire or Tanqueray rather than bathtub gin that might blind me, put it that way.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/8/2012 4:35:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
That is precisely NOT easy, because the legislation would have to be federal legislation. It's hard enough to get any of these measures passed state by state.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
The difference is that civil unions are irrelevant for federal tax purposes.  Also, states that don't recognize civil unions won't recognize civil unions filed in other states.  Only marriage is recognized across all state boundaries.

Civil unions and tax purposes is easily done... legislation.



Actually, it isn't as difficult as you would think, unless it isn't truly popular with We the People. Obamacare was passed while there were plenty of polls showing that the majority of Americans were against it. That was a simple show of force by the Democrats. Imagine if there were Conservatives and Liberals that actually pushed their representatives towards giving civil unions the same treatment as marriage. To be honest, I want to see a major rewrite of that stuff as it is. IMO, only a civil union should be given any legal standing under law, and marriage is a specific type of civil union. A civil union would be open only to consenting adults and would carry the same stature under law as marriage does today. A marriage would be a religious moniker. The law would only see a marriage simply as another civil union. Three examples that might clarify what I'm talking about: 1. Homosexual "marriage" outside of a religious institution would be a civil union. 2. Heterosexual "marriage" outside of a religious institution would be a civil union. 3. A "marriage" within a religious institution would be a civil union and also a "marriage." Under my idea, the only category that is given civil benefits is a civil union, of which marriage is one.





Iamsemisweet -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/8/2012 4:43:03 AM)

Raich v. Gonzalez, Ron. The DOJ has no stopped enforcing the Controlled Substance Act.
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, there will have to be some tailoring by states to keep within federal law, but I guess I would call it a under what authority is it a federal law when these hit scotus.   These are not among the several, it is in stte only, no difference I see than there not being a federal poll tax, but state poll taxes are fine.  That's how there is a voter ID  law in a state at all, n-est ce pas, Iam?





Toysinbabeland -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/8/2012 4:46:46 AM)

Great, now the dutch will come to colorado for vacation.
Score 1 for the tourism board.




OttersSwim -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/8/2012 4:50:52 AM)

Have you seen the Dutch Chicas? This is NOT a bad thing! [;)]




Toysinbabeland -> RE: Colorado votes to legalize pot... (11/8/2012 4:55:10 AM)

Too funny




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875