The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

Author Topic: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010  (Read 31480 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« on: February 03, 2010, 01:38:22 AM »
It is confirmed that this will be on the 2010 ballot.

http://www.taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/initiative/
The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010

Title and Summary:

Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed. Initiative Statute.

Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.

Section 1: Name
This Act shall be known as the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010.”

Section 2: Findings, Intent and Purposes
This Act, adopted by the People of the State of California, makes the following Findings and Statement of Intent and Purpose:
A.     Findings
1.     California’s laws criminalizing cannabis (marijuana) have failed and need to be reformed. Despite spending decades arresting millions of non-violent cannabis consumers, we have failed to control cannabis or reduce its availability.
2.     According to surveys, roughly 100 million Americans (around 1/3 of the country’s population) acknowledge that they have used cannabis, 15 million of those Americans having consumed cannabis in the last month. Cannabis consumption is simply a fact of life for a large percentage of Americans.
3.     Despite having some of the strictest cannabis laws in the world, the United States has the largest number of cannabis consumers. The percentage of our citizens who consume cannabis is double that of the percentage of people who consume cannabis in the Netherlands, a country where the selling and adult possession of cannabis is allowed.
4.     According to The National Research Council’s recent study of the 11 U.S. states where cannabis is currently decriminalized, there is little apparent relationship between severity of sanctions and the rate of consumption.
5.     Cannabis has fewer harmful effects than either alcohol or cigarettes, which are both legal for adult consumption. Cannabis is not physically addictive, does not have long term toxic effects on the body, and does not cause its consumers to become violent.
6.     There is an estimated $15 billion in illegal cannabis transactions in California each year. Taxing and regulating cannabis, like we do with alcohol and cigarettes, will generate billions of dollars in annual revenues for California to fund what matters most to Californians: jobs, health care, schools and libraries, roads, and more.
7.     California wastes millions of dollars a year targeting, arresting, trying, convicting, and imprisoning non-violent citizens for cannabis related offenses. This money would be better used to combat violent crimes and gangs.
8.     The illegality of cannabis enables for the continuation of an out-of-control criminal market, which in turn spawns other illegal and often violent activities. Establishing legal, regulated sales outlets would put dangerous street dealers out of business.
B.     Purposes
1.     Reform California’s cannabis laws in a way that will benefit our state.
2.     Regulate cannabis like we do alcohol: Allow adults to possess and consume small amounts of cannabis.
3.     Implement a legal regulatory framework to give California more control over the cultivation, processing, transportation, distribution, and sales of cannabis.
4.     Implement a legal regulatory framework to better police and prevent access to and consumption of cannabis by minors in California.
5.     Put dangerous, underground street dealers out of business, so their influence in our communities will fade.
6.     Provide easier, safer access for patients who need cannabis for medical purposes.
7.     Ensure that if a city decides not to tax and regulate the sale of cannabis, that buying and selling cannabis within that city’s limits remain illegal, but that the city’s citizens still have the right to possess and consume small amounts, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
8.     Ensure that if a city decides it does want to tax and regulate the buying and selling of cannabis (to and from adults only), that a strictly controlled legal system is implemented to oversee and regulate cultivation, distribution, and sales, and that the city will have control over how and how much cannabis can be bought and sold, except as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.
9.     Tax and regulate cannabis to generate billions of dollars for our state and local governments to fund what matters most: jobs, healthcare, schools and libraries, parks, roads, transportation, and more.
10.   Stop arresting thousands of non-violent cannabis consumers, freeing up police resources and saving millions of dollars each year, which could be used for apprehending truly dangerous criminals and keeping them locked up, and for other essential state needs that lack funding.
11.   Allow the Legislature to adopt a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry.
12.   Make cannabis available for scientific, medical, industrial, and research purposes.
13.   Permit California to fulfill the state’s obligations under the United States Constitution to enact laws concerning health, morals, public welfare and safety within the State.
14.   Permit the cultivation of small amounts of cannabis for personal consumption.
C.      Intent
1.     This Act is intended to limit the application and enforcement of state and local laws relating to possession, transportation, cultivation, consumption and sale of cannabis, including but not limited to the following, whether now existing or adopted in the future: Health and Safety Code sections 11014.5 and 11364.5 [relating to drug paraphernalia]; 11054 [relating to cannabis or tetrahydrocannabinols]; 11357 [relating to possession]; 11358 [relating to cultivation]; 11359 [possession for sale]; 11360 [relating to transportation and sales]; 11366 [relating to maintenance of places]; 11366.5 [relating to use of property]; 11370 [relating to punishment]; 11470 [relating to forfeiture]; 11479 [relating to seizure and destruction]; 11703 [relating to definitions regarding illegal substances]; 11705 [actions for use of illegal controlled substance]; Vehicle Code sections 23222 and 40000.15 [relating to possession].
2.     This Act is not intended to affect the application or enforcement of the following state laws relating to public health and safety or protection of children and others: Health and Safety Code sections 11357 [relating to possession on school grounds]; 11361 [relating to minors as amended herein]; 11379.6 [relating to chemical production]; 11532 [relating to loitering to commit a crime or acts not authorized by law]; Vehicle Code section 23152 [relating to driving while under the influence]; Penal Code section 272 [relating to contributing to the delinquency of a minor]; nor any law prohibiting use of controlled substances in the workplace or by specific persons whose jobs involve public safety.

Section 3: Lawful Activities
Article 5 of Chapter 5 of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code, commencing with section 11300 is added to read:
Section 11300: Personal Regulation and Controls
(a)     Notwithstanding any other provision of law, it is lawful and shall not be a public offense under California law for any person 21 years of age or older to:
(i)     Personally possess, process, share, or transport not more than one ounce of cannabis, solely for that individual’s personal consumption, and not for sale.
(ii)    Cultivate, on private property by the owner, lawful occupant, or other lawful resident or guest of the private property owner or lawful occupant, cannabis plants for personal consumption only, in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence or, in the absence of any residence, the parcel. Cultivation on leased or rented property may be subject to approval from the owner of the property.  Provided that, nothing in this section shall permit unlawful or unlicensed cultivation of cannabis on any public lands.
(iii)    Possess on the premises where grown the living and harvested plants and results of any harvest and processing of plants lawfully cultivated pursuant to section 11300(a)(ii), for personal consumption.
(iv)    Possess objects, items, tools, equipment, products and materials associated with activities permitted under this subsection.
(b)     “Personal consumption” shall include but is not limited to possession and consumption, in any form, of cannabis in a residence or other non-public place, and shall include licensed premises open to the public authorized to permit on-premises consumption of cannabis by a local government pursuant to section 11301.
(c)     “Personal consumption” shall not include, and nothing in this Act shall permit cannabis:
(i)     possession for sale regardless of amount, except by a person who is licensed or permitted to do so under the terms of an ordinance adopted pursuant to section 11301;
(ii)    consumption in public or in a public place;
(iii)    consumption by the operator of any vehicle, boat or aircraft while it is being operated, or that impairs the operator;
(iv)    smoking cannabis in any space while minors are present.

Section 11301: Commercial Regulations and Controls
Notwithstanding any other provision of state or local law, a local government may adopt ordinances, regulations, or other acts having the force of law to control, license, regulate, permit or otherwise authorize, with conditions, the following:
(a)     cultivation, processing, distribution, the safe and secure transportation, sale and possession for sale of cannabis, but only by persons and in amounts lawfully authorized;
(b)     retail sale of not more than one ounce per transaction, in licensed premises, to persons 21 years or older, for personal consumption and not for resale;
(c)     appropriate controls on cultivation, transportation, sales, and consumption of cannabis to strictly prohibit access to cannabis by persons under the age of 21;
(d)    age limits and controls to ensure that all persons present in, employed by, or in any way involved in the operation of, any such licensed premises are 21 or older;
(e)     consumption of cannabis within licensed premises;
(f)     safe and secure transportation of cannabis from a licensed premises for cultivation or processing, to a licensed premises for sale or on-premises consumption of cannabis;
(g)     prohibit and punish through civil fines or other remedies the possession, sale, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, or transportation of cannabis that was not obtained lawfully from a person pursuant to this section or section 11300;
(h)    appropriate controls on licensed premises for sale, cultivation, processing, or sale and on-premises consumption, of cannabis, including limits on zoning and land use, locations, size, hours of operation, occupancy, protection of adjoining and nearby properties and persons from unwanted exposure, advertising, signs and displays, and other controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare;
(i)     appropriate environmental and public health controls to ensure that any licensed premises minimizes any harm to the environment, adjoining and nearby landowners, and persons passing by;
(j)     appropriate controls to restrict public displays, or public  consumption of cannabis;
(k)    appropriate taxes or fees pursuant to section 11302;
(l)     such larger amounts as the local authority deems appropriate and proper under local circumstances, than those established under section 11300(a) for personal possession and cultivation, or under this section for commercial cultivation, processing, transportation and sale by persons authorized to do so under this section;
(m)   any other appropriate controls necessary for protection of the public health and welfare.

Section 11302: Imposition and Collection of Taxes and Fees
(a)     Any ordinance, regulation or other act adopted pursuant to section 11301 may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue, or to recoup any direct or indirect costs associated with the authorized activity, or the permitting or licensing scheme, including without limitation:  administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits; inspection of licensed premises and other enforcement of ordinances adopted under section 11301, including enforcement against unauthorized activities.
(b)     Any licensed premises shall be responsible for paying all federal, state and local taxes, fees, fines, penalties or other financial responsibility imposed on all or similarly situated businesses, facilities or premises, including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.

Section 11303: Seizure
(a)     Notwithstanding sections 11470 and 11479 of the Health and Safety Code or any other provision of law, no state or local law enforcement agency or official shall attempt to, threaten to, or in fact seize or destroy any cannabis plant, cannabis seeds or cannabis that is lawfully cultivated, processed, transported, possessed, possessed for sale, sold or used in compliance with this Act or any local government ordinance, law or regulation adopted pursuant to this Act.

Section 11304: Effect of Act and Definitions
(a)     This Act shall not be construed to affect, limit or amend any statute that forbids impairment while engaging in dangerous activities such as driving, or that penalizes bringing cannabis to a school enrolling pupils in any grade from kindergarten through 12, inclusive.
(b)     Nothing in this Act shall be construed or interpreted to permit interstate or international transportation of cannabis.  This Act shall be construed to permit a person to transport cannabis in a safe and secure manner from a licensed premises in one city or county to a licensed premises in another city or county pursuant to any ordinances adopted in such cities or counties, notwithstanding any other state law or the lack of any such ordinance in the intervening cities or counties.
(c)     No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this Act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301 of this Act.  Provided however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.
(d)    Definitions
For purposes of this Act:
(i)     “Marijuana” and “cannabis” are interchangeable terms that mean all parts of the plant Genus Cannabis, whether growing or not; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; concentrated cannabis; edible products containing same; and every active compound, manufacture, derivative, or preparation of the plant, or resin.
(ii)    “One ounce” means 28.5 grams.
(iii)    For purposes of section 11300(a)(ii) “cannabis plant” means all parts of a living Cannabis plant.
(iv)    In determining whether an amount of cannabis is or is not in excess of the amounts permitted by this Act, the following shall apply:
(a)     only the active amount of the cannabis in an edible cannabis product shall be included;
(b)     living and harvested cannabis plants shall be assessed by square footage, not by weight in determining the amounts set forth in section 11300(a);
(c)     in a criminal proceeding a person accused of violating a limitation in this Act shall have the right to an affirmative defense that the cannabis was reasonably related to his or her personal consumption.
(v)     “residence” means a dwelling or structure, whether permanent or temporary, on private or public property, intended for occupation by a person or persons for residential purposes, and includes that portion of any structure intended for both commercial and residential purposes.
(vi)    “local government” means a city, county, or city and county.
(vii)   “licensed premises” is any commercial business, facility, building, land or area that  has a license, permit or is otherwise authorized to cultivate, process, transport, sell, or permit on-premises consumption, of cannabis pursuant to any ordinance or regulation adopted by a local government pursuant to section 11301, or any subsequently enacted state statute or regulation.

Section 4: Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
Section 11361 of the Health and Safety Code is amended to read:
Prohibition on Furnishing Marijuana to Minors
(a) Every person 18 years of age or over who hires, employs, or uses a minor in transporting, carrying, selling, giving away, preparing for sale, or peddling any marijuana, who unlawfully sells, or offers to sell, any marijuana to a minor, or who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give any marijuana to a minor under 14 years of age, or who induces a minor to use marijuana in violation of law shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, five, or seven years.
(b) Every person 18 years of age or over who furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer, or give, any marijuana to a minor 14 years of age or older shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, four, or five years.
(c) Every person 21 years of age or over who knowingly furnishes, administers, or gives, or offers to furnish, administer or give, any marijuana to a person aged 18 years or older, but younger than 21 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of up to six months and be fined up to $1,000 for each offense.
(d) In addition to the penalties above, any person who is licensed, permitted or authorized to perform any act pursuant to Section 11301, who while so licensed, permitted or authorized, negligently furnishes, administers, gives or sells, or offers to furnish, administer, give or sell, any marijuana to any person younger than 21 years of age shall not be permitted to own, operate, be employed by, assist or enter any licensed premises authorized under Section 11301 for a period of one year.

Section 5: Amendment
Pursuant to Article 2, section 10(c) of the California Constitution, this Act may be amended either by a subsequent measure submitted to a vote of the People at a statewide election; or by statute validly passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor, but only to further the purposes of the Act.  Such permitted amendments include but are not limited to:
(a)     Amendments to the limitations in section 11300, which limitations are minimum thresholds and the Legislature may adopt less restrictive limitations.
(b)     Statutes and authorize regulations to further the purposes of the Act to establish a statewide regulatory system for a commercial cannabis industry that addresses some or all of the items referenced in Sections 11301 and 11302.
(c)     Laws to authorize the production of hemp or non-active cannabis for horticultural and industrial purposes.

Section 6: Severability
If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the measure that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.

http://70.32.87.43/documents/initiative.pdf

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline Neco

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,490
  • Welcome to the 4th Reich
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2010, 10:21:06 PM »
"Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen: the enunciation of truth." ~V

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." ~Patrick Henry

Neco Illuminati

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,585
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2010, 10:26:21 PM »
Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

Offline Neco

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,490
  • Welcome to the 4th Reich
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2010, 10:38:29 PM »
Lol.  Regulate this beautiful plant!

Before you know it, people will be smoking cannabis and learning the truth and maybe even saving their lives by BEATING CANCER with it!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7331006790306000271#

"Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen: the enunciation of truth." ~V

"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." ~Patrick Henry

Neco Illuminati

Offline Agent_L

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #4 on: February 06, 2010, 01:21:39 AM »
Maybe it wont pass but My vote is in :)

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2010, 05:41:57 AM »
http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/local/la-council-delays-pot-ordinance-vote-20091119

LA Council Delays Pot Ordinance Vote
Medical marijuana proposal in 6th revision.

Updated: Wednesday, 18 Nov 2009, 5:11 PM PST
Published : Wednesday, 18 Nov 2009, 1:01 PM PST
Posted by: Scott Coppersmith

Los Angeles - The Los Angeles City Council is still refining a proposed medical marijuana ordinance, with several members on Wednesday, recommending a host of amendments.

The City Council decided to postpone voting on the issue until next Tuesday.

Several members indicated support for allowing not-for-profit sales of medical marijuana, despite the advice of Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter, who insisted that would violate federal and state law.

"The problem when you use the word `sale' in any way is it creates confusion, because there's nowhere in the Compassionate Use Act or the Medical Marijuana Protection Act that allows for the sale of marijuana, whether it's for sale for profit, or for non-profit," Carter told the City Council.

But Councilman Paul Koretz, one of the co-authors of the Compassionate Use Act -- the 1996 voter-approved ballot measure that authorized individuals and collectives to possess, use and cultivate marijuana for medicinal purposes - - pointed out that "silence on a topic is not automatically a prohibition."

Councilman Ed Reyes also criticized the plan to ban sales outright. He chairs the City Council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee, which has overseen the development of the proposed medical marijuana ordinance for the last two years.

"I just felt that it was very narrow," he said. "I sat through so many meetings in my hearings and I'm looking at the eyes of these people who are really sick, and I can physically see ... that they're hurting and they're in pain, and they need our help. That's all we're trying to do is achieve a level of access, (while) protecting our neighborhoods."

Reyes noted the proposed ordinance being considered by the City Council says sales must be "consistent with state law."

To settle the dispute over what state law does and does not allow, Councilwoman Jan Perry introduced a motion asking California Attorney General Jerry Brown to provide an opinion that "clarifies and interprets" the Compassionate Use Act, and "explains why some cities allow the sale of medical marijuana and why some cities do not."

In the meantime, the City Council is considering several amendments to the latest version of the proposed ordinance submitted by the City Attorney's Office.

Among the amendments recommended by Councilmen Reyes, Koretz and Jose Huizar:

-- proceeds from pot sales could only be used for reasonable employee compensation, reimbursement for the actual cost of cultivating marijuana and its derivative products, rent, utility bills, insurance, etc.;

-- audits and inspections would be conducted on a regular basis to ensure that the medical marijuana facilities are not for-profit ventures;

-- only 70 collectives would be allowed citywide, or one medical marijuana facility per 57,000 residents, each chosen via a blind random drawing;

-- medical marijuana facilities would have to be 1,000 feet away from each other; and 500 feet away from any school, public park, public library, religious institution, child care center and rehab;

-- a search warrant or other court order would have to be presented before medical marijuana facilities could be forced to disclose records of its operators and patients; and

-- to deter robberies, medical marijuana facilities would have to deposit earnings in a bank daily, or even twice daily, so that no more than a few hundred dollars are on the premises at any given time.

Reyes and Councilwoman Janice Hahn also suggested the possibility of taxing medical marijuana transactions, similar to what the city of Oakland did in July.

Huizar recommended deleting a proposed "grandfather clause" for the existing 186 medical marijuana collectives which opened before the moratorium took effect in late 2007.

Currently, the proposed ordinance would give those collectives an extra six months to comply with its provisions, while requiring about 800 other collectives which opened during the moratorium to comply immediately.

"Should we go with a cap (on the number of dispensaries), and to ensure that there is no concentration (of dispensaries in any given location), we would want to start from scratch," Huizar said.

The proposed amendments would be merged with provisions that require medical marijuana collectives to register with the city; install stringent security measures, including bars on the windows and closed-circuit cameras; be open only 12 hours a day; and require a valid doctor's permit or prescription before dispensing the drug.

City Council President Eric Garcetti urged his colleagues to try to pass an ordinance by Tuesday.

"I don't want us to wait too long," he said. "Good legislation and the best laws are usually the ones you reform over time, but it's better to have something in place than to not have something in place."

On Tuesday, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley vowed to continue prosecuting dispensaries that sell medical marijuana, even if the City Council permits such sales.

He insisted

that model for distributing medical marijuana would violate federal and state law. He called the City Council "clueless" and said its actions were "meaningless and irrelevant."
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline Survive All

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2010, 07:23:09 AM »
Have you ever seen a violent stoner?

That's because it promotes a peaceable state of mind. Which is something I think a whole lot of people need.

Offline Survive All

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 61
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2010, 02:42:24 PM »
I hear ya, that shit can make you immobilized for sure ;) It's got its place, people just need to keep it in its place. It'll take its time to settle in just like alcohol did after prohibition, but once it does I think people will be right at home with it.

wvoutlaw2002

  • Guest
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2010, 08:31:19 PM »
Lol.  Regulate this beautiful plant!

Before you know it, people will be smoking cannabis and learning the truth and maybe even saving their lives by BEATING CANCER with it!

My gut instinct tells me that cannabis companies will sell marijuana cigarettes......with hundreds of toxic chemicals added to it to CAUSE cancer instead. Then the sheeple will be begging for marijuana to be re-illegalized.

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Legalization vs. Freedom: A Libertarian Perspective on “The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010”

Don’t Tax Me Bro
I love most of what I read in the “The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010” I support sensible regulations: age limits, food safety, secure gardens, driving responsibly, etc. And I am excited to see all the “personal use/cultivation” decriminalization. Ultimately, once responsible adults can cultivate their own medication in peace, the black markets will die, the prices will drop, and the dispensaries will thin out naturally.

But regardless of the overwhelming amount of positives that appear to be included in the Act, I find it difficult to accept any legislation that advocates taxation, especially on small businesses. Further taxation is a deal breaker. There, I said it. Somebody had to.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.   
 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.”
—Communist Manifesto 10 point program   
  
(a)...may include imposition of appropriate general, special or excise, transfer or transaction taxes, benefit assessments, or fees, on any activity authorized pursuant to such enactment, in order to permit the local government to raise revenue...
(b)... including without limitation income taxes, business taxes, license fees, and property taxes, without regard to or identification of the business or items or services sold.”
--Section 11302: Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010


As I am writing this, it is February 2010, and Depression 2.0 has only begun. Unemployment is around 22%. Wal-Mart laid off 10,000 workers last week....so there are not even any $7/hr jobs left. And a Federal Reserve Note isn’t even worth the paper it’s printed on. Tax elimination should be implemented right now, not the other way around. I would suggest that, anybody who requests more taxes is suffering from Stockholm Syndrome and could use a thorough deprogramming session. Marijuana prohibition has been extremely tyrannical. But so are taxes. We should never settle for the lesser of two evils.

While there is a ton of positivity inside The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010, there are two issues that stand out...
1- The presumption that the State is “out of money”
2- Cannabusinesses will incriminate themselves of federal crimes by submitting the IRS paperwork.


Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports
The State of California is NOT out of money. The State does not need any more of your money. The State already takes too much of your money. And then they constantly mismanage the funds...across the board...especially the war on drugs. Additional taxes will not save California’s failing economy. Before any positive economic change can occur, the irresponsible State representatives need to be held accountable for their mismanagement of State funds.

Ever been audited by the IRS? That can be a harsh experience for a citizen. The Government Accountability Office is like the IRS for the State. Except the state must submit to a GAO audit every year. In fact, every single US governmental entity must submit to a yearly audit from the GAO...every State, every county, every school district, every city, every police department, every charity, etc. The accountants down at the GAO do their audits and quietly publish their results called Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports. These reports are available to the public. You can find them on the internet (search CAFR + state/county/city/etc)

“But the TV tells us we are in a budget crisis.” The “budget” that is heralded to the citizens excludes the trillions and trillions of investment profits brought in by the State every year. In the example below, we see a single entry of over one billion dollars under “investments” for the County of Placer.



That single entry begs the question “How much profit is being made with that billion dollars worth of investments?” and “If that one county is making X amount profit from investments, what about all the counties added together?” and “Why is the State firing teachers and firefighters when it is actually making trillions in profits?” These are the types of questions I expect my legislation writers to think about before they invite the State to tax us all.

“It’s a trap!”—Admiral Ackbar
With Cannabusiness being illegal on the Federal level, it seems pretty obvious what will happen to the Cannabusinesses once they start reporting their marijuana transactions to the federal government via IRS tax forms....the Feds will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. This self-incriminating scenario is clearly a violation of the 5th amendment of the US Constitution.

“...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,...”

The Cannabusiness taxing apparatus looks like the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 all over again. Moses Baca tried to comply with the law and was jailed. This latest marijuana tax proposal smells like an ambush on a much larger scale. I hope I’m wrong.

Psychic Warfare
Propaganda has an incredible influence on populations. The magnitude of lies surrounding marijuana demonization are staggering. Faulty/misinterpreted scientific studies, and slanted films like “Reefer Madness” have been used to support the immoral, unlawful, and impractical prohibition of marijuana for decades. A large percentage of the anti-prohibition struggle involves reversing the brainwashing that our friends and family have been subjected to for generations. Unfortunately, the same can be said about taxation. Thanks to propaganda, the population is under the impression that taxation helps the community.

Gradually, and very systematically, we have been trained to measure our own worth, not by what we produce, not by how we treat other people, but by how well we obey authority. Consider the term, "law abiding taxpayer." How many people wear that label as a badge of honor? "I am a law-abiding taxpayer!" When they say that, they mean, "I'm a good person." But is that what it really means?
--Larken Rose in Philadelphia, in front of Independence Hall, on July 4th, Anno Domini 2009


Most tax legislation is attached to other bills, buried in clauses, and hidden in plain sight with semantic deception. I would like to applaud the honesty of the Act’s authors for actually including the word “Tax” in the title. But, even with the word “Tax” right at the top...the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 petition received ~700,000 signatures.

A vote for tax, is a vote against free humanity.
 
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
-­-­Samuel Adams 1776
   
  
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2010, 06:27:52 PM »
http://blog.norml.org/2010/03/25/this-november-is-going-to-be-very-very-interesting/

This November Is Going To Be Very, Very Interesting
March 25th, 2010 By: Paul Armentano, NORML Deputy Director

This coming November’s mid-term election is going to have major implications for cannabis law reform.

In South Dakota, election officials last week certified Measure 13, the South Dakota Safe Access Act, for the November ballot.

If approved by voters, Measure 13 would exempt state criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana or six plants by authorized patients — making South Dakota the fifteenth state to legalize medicinal cannabis use. Proponents of the measure, the grassroots South Dakota Coalition for Compassion, collected over twice the number of signatures necessary to place the proposal on the 2010 ballot — a feat that they believe is indicative of medical marijuana’s growing support in the Great Plains. In 2006, voters narrowly rejected a similar proposal – marking the only time that citizens have rejected a statewide medical marijuana legalization proposal.

The stakes are arguably even higher in California, where election officials last night confirmed that the Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 will appear on the November ballot.

If approved, the measure will allow adults 21 years or older to possess, share or transport up to one ounce of cannabis for personal consumption, and/or cultivate the plant in an area of not more than twenty-five square feet per private residence. It will also permit local governments the option to authorize the retail sale of marijuana and/or commercial cultivation of cannabis to adults and to impose taxes on such sales. Personal marijuana cultivation or not-for-profit sales of marijuana would not be taxed under the measure.

The measure will not alter or amend any aspect of the California Health and Safety code pertaining to the use of marijuana for medical purposes, when such use is authorized by a physician.

You can read more about this proposal here.

According to an April 2009 California Field Poll, 56 percent of state voters back legalizing and regulating the adult use and sale of cannabis.

Other states are in play as well. Ballot drives in Washington and Oregon are ongoing, and numerous municipal measures are also pending. Meanwhile, in the nation’s Capitol, DC council members are discussing allowing authorized patients to grow their own marijuana legally — despite the federal ban.

No matter how you look at it, this November is shaping up to be the most important month for marijuana law reform ever.

Let the battles begin.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

H0llyw00d

  • Guest
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2010, 08:41:23 PM »
Lol.  Regulate this beautiful plant!

Before you know it, people will be smoking cannabis and learning the truth and maybe even saving their lives by BEATING CANCER with it!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7331006790306000271#



B-E-A-U-T-I-F-U-L!!!

Offline Adveser

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #12 on: August 09, 2010, 03:04:53 AM »
Personally, I could care less if it were made legal or not for recreation because it is extremely easy to get a legal doctor's note in California, complete with clinics that exclusively issue the license. It is already legal, but with the loophole that a guy will give you full legal authority to consume marijuana for 125 bucks.

Offline phosphene

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,826
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2010, 03:44:10 AM »
http://spiritualeconomicsnow.net/?p=131

Legalities

I notice people continue to talk about “legalities” which apply only to legal fictions such as corporations and trusts.  I also hear, “It’s the law”, yet, no one has ever shown me any alleged “law”.  I’ve seen codes, rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances, by-laws, constitutions, acts, bills, legislation, policies, and treaties, none of which applies to men and women, but I’ve never seen any law.”  I suppose that is because no law can exist without the consent of the people and no one could ever agree to any of the nonsense they try to pass off as “law”.  My favourite is when I hear people say that they want marijuana “legalized”.  It is already “legalized” as it is under the jurisdiction of the statutes, codes, acts, etc. because it has been named. What these people really want is to get the plant, known as cannabis, OUT from under that jurisdiction. So they want it DE-legalized.  The way to do that is to quit acknowledging NAMES!  Again, there is nothing wrong with a man growing, possessing, smoking a plant created by God, as man has dominion over all the earth and every living thing upon the earth. But, as soon as one puts a “name” to either the man or the plant, he has just “legalized” it.
"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."--Joshua

Offline novaboy2kbeta

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • Infowarsuk
Re: The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2011, 12:16:39 AM »
Drug-driving roadside tests 'on the way' says government

infowarsuk.com
infowarsuk.com