(AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)
On the heels of The Gang of Four's stunning victory to tax money the sick and dying spend for medicine, Oaksterdam U has announced filing of their "Tax Cannabis 2010" initiative. Richard Lee owns Oaksterdam U as well as one of the four licensed dispensaries in the city of Oakland, Coffee Shop SR-71.
A copy of the "official" version of the initiative is not yet available on their website, though they state that Draft 14 is the version to be submitted on 27 Jul 09.
That patients are already paying for a doctor to get a recommendation, and state ID cards, and that many of them subsist on Social Security Disability, that they are by far the heaviest "consumers", and that their medicine is not covered by any prescription drug plan - this is not enough for the professors at Oaksterdamn U.
Not only did they manage through fourteen drafts to fail to exclude medical marijuana patients from the tax or any other provisions in the initiative, but they intend to ban dispensaries in towns that decide taxing money the sick and dying spend on medicine is wrong.
Section 2, Findings, Intents, and Purposes
A. Findings, item 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.
California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996 has an "any other clause" which allows doctors to recommend cannabis for any condition for which it provides relief.
Oaksterdamn U's "any other" clause instructs the government to tax and license marijuana in every possible way "without limitation". I sat in shock and awe for fifteen minutes when I read the phrase "without limitation". Why would anyone give the government explicit license to tax anything for any reason "without limitation"?
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.
In 2001 the top ten pharmaceutical companies in the Fortune 500 had sales in excess of the other 490 companies, i.e., they are the economy. What will be the effect of § 11302 (a) once the pharmaceutical lobby gets started on our elected and appointed officials?
There is little doubt the 434,000 signatures required to put Tax Cannabis 2010 on the ballot can be gathered. Most Californian's will probably sign anything that promises to legalize marijuana.
Tax Cannabis 2010 is a lose/lose proposition
Left unanswered is how taxing medicine legitimizes medical marijuana dispensaries, patients, the movement or anything or anyone else.
If, by some miracle, those who care about medical marijuana and marijuana legalization should prevail in pointing out the flaws of this initiative and it is defeated, then the media will declare it is a defeat for the legalization of marijuana rather than the defeat of a bad initiative.
Headlines across the country will declare "Marijuana Legalization Defeated in California".
With a legal mandate to tax, license, administer, regulate, and police cannabis "without limitation" dangling before them, where is the incentive for any politician to support Tom Ammiano's AB 390? Who among them would choose ethics, morals, and common decency over greed? And if Tax Cannabis 2010 should fail, they will use that as an excuse not to support AB 390.
More troubling is that as an initiative Tax Cannabis 2010 will be on the same level legally as The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and could well be used to carve exceptions or invalidate parts of it such that patients will be denied protections they currently enjoy.
One example is that Tax Cannabis 2010's prohibition of sales of marijuana in cities that do not impose a local tax on it because it is medicine could mean that dispensaries and collectives currently serving medical marijuana patients would be forced to close. It would put them in violation of state law and therefore subject to raid and prosecution by the federal government.
Tax Cannabis 2010's prohibition of sales unless taxed will be of equal legal authority as Proposition 215's prohibition against criminal sanctions for medical marijuana patients and their caregivers. It could precipitate another Supreme Court showdown with the federal government over Proposition 215. It could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Having a higher legal authority than acts of the state legislature, Tax Cannabis 2010 could be used to invalidate provisions in California Health & Safety code §§ 11362.7 - 11362.83 which were enacted as SB 420.
Ammiano's Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act legalizes marijuana, removing all criminal and civil penalties for adult use, cultivation, transport, sale, and possession in the State of California. It would set a state tax of $50 per ounce and would exempt medical patients from this tax. The figure from the California State Board of Equalization of $1.4 billion to be realized from this tax was based on estimated "recreational" purchases, not "medical" purchases. This is a distinction that seems to be totally lost on the media.
Ammiano's AB 390 would, conceivably, also allow facilities that serve only patients. This is something Tax Cannabis 2010 appears to prohibit when it demands that sales of marijuana in jurisdictions that do not levee taxes on such sales are prohibited.
Left unanswered by the sage professors at Oaksterdamn U, or anyone else, is what will happen when marijuana is reclassified at the federal level from Schedule I to Schedule II as proposed by Barney Frank's Medical Marijuana Patient Protection Act, HR 2835.
When marijuana becomes Schedule II it can be prescribed by a physician and will meet the legal definition of medicine. This should result in the state sales tax on medical marijuana being repealed. But who will pay to get it repealed? And who will pay to get rid of the local taxes spawned by The Gang of Four's Measure F? Patients? You don't expect "recreational" users to pay for it, do you?
After a ten-year siege of Troy the Greeks built a hollow horse with a soldiers hidden inside. They pretended to leave the horse as a gift and sailed away. The Trojans pulled the horse into the city. That night the soldiers from the horse opened the gates of the city, which allowed the rest of the Greek army to enter. Troy was defeated.
The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 is a Trojan Horse.
It is the new improved Marijuana Tax Act of 1937.
Green Cross issues press release condemning Oakland marijuana tax - Examiner.com | 26 Jul 09
Pot activists file ballot measure in California - The Monterrey Herald | 28 Jul 09
Selling out the medical marijuana movement? - Examiner.com | 24 Jul 09
Tax Prozac, not medical marijuana - Examiner.com | 20 Jul 09
Medical marijuana and psychiatric conditions - Examiner.com | 6 Jul 09
The Regulate, Control, and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010 (draft 14) - Tax and Regulate
The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 390) - Tom Ammiano
The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 - Schaefer Drug Library
The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 - Wikipedia
Comments
Read the thing again. You are making too much out of this "without limitation" language. The ordinance says that the city can recoup its costs from the program with "appropriate" taxes or fees. When it talks about the different things the city might be doing for which it might need to recoup costs a list of these activities is provided. Because of the possibility that some activity that should be covered is left out they put the standard "without limitation" language in there. It's just like saying "including but not limited to: administration; applications and issuance of licenses or permits." This does not mean there are no limitations on anything. It means that the provided list of activities for which they might need to recoup costs is not all inclusive. There might be something they forgot to include. This is standard language that does not mean what you think it means in this context.
Paying the state, which is entirely responsible for maintaining cannabis' black market value through prohibition, is galling to say the least. As long as one needs a physician's rec, a patient ID card AND CDL to get past the guard at the door-- taxing MEDICINE is unethical, uncompassionate, and immoral.
When cannabis is available wherever whiskey and cigars are dispensed I will have NO qualms about paying sales, excise, and any other reasonable taxes levied upon it for the benefit of our community.
Until that time, *medicinal* cannabis taxes and exorbitant state ID card fees amount to extortion and a protection racket.
Who is sick or dying? Most of the patients are are young males 18-34 just looking to get high. I would say one out of twenty patients migh have a problem and one out of a hundred with something seriously wrong with them. Marijuana should just be legalized. You should not have to pay for a recommendation or card let alone see a money grubbing doctor to get a plant that you or I can grow. Furthermore making it available to people over 21 is the way to go. If not you will get doctors like the ones at MediCann Inc who will write recs to anyone including 6 year old children and pregnant women. Last time I checked most people smoke marijuana and smoking anything is not good for your health. VOTE TO LEGALIZE!!!!!!
Legalizing marijuana by initiative is a very bad idea. Like prop 215 it will not provide protection against fraud and abuse. Ted acknowledges that med pot is a fraud--just people wanting to get high--but legalization is just going to increase the numbers of stoners. Growing 25 x 25 feet of pot will be way over the limit for possession, so how is selling home grown stuff going to be taxed? This prop was written by people with defective brains. The public will not buy it at all. And Amminano's bill will not pass because the legislators will not vote for it.
Legalizing mj is a very complicated policy issue--think about all the protections now related to tobacco and alcohol abuse which would have to be part of the legislation (and which still leave tremendous abuse of those substances).
Hopefully these efforts will expose the legalization movement for what they are--dopes.
@Dave
In parts of the world that have legalized or de-criminlized marijuana we have never seen a huge increase in the number of people who use marijuana.
And let's stop living in this fairy tale and face reality, keeping marijuana illegal isn't stopping anyone from using it. It's only increase the amount of violence in our streets (due to gangs selling it).
When compared beer or cigs marijuana is pretty damn safe. Obviously a large % of america smokes marijuana anyways and they don't bother anyone. It's time we stop making criminals out of our own citizens, it's time to stop letting violent drug caretls run the market, it's time to just legalize marijuana.
As for your question regarding how do we tax it? We do it the same way we tax fruits and vegetables. We can all grow our own fruits and vegetables but the vast majority of us don't because it's easier to go to the store. Marijuana would work the same way, the black market would be eliminated.
In regards to taxing patients. I'm a patient myself and at first I was upset about having to pay even more money for my medicine.
In the long run I think it's worth it though, it makes the whole medical marijuana situation in oakland more legit.
The extra cost in taxes isn't much anyways, I bought my normal amount of medicine yesterday and it was only 16cents more expensive.
Also, there are always dispensaries willing to work with low income patients. If you are really having money problems and still need your meds there are dispensaries that will make sure you get your meds at a price you can afford.
These clubs make enough money that a tax would not effect them in anyway. Take Harbor Side Health Care in Oakland. They see around 1000 patients a day! The minimal purchase is $20. So that is $20,000 dollars at least a day they have in income. The tax we have should be much larger so that CA can benefit from this. With that being said why do people have to see doctors to get the ok to smoke pot? There is nothing medical about it and when doctor's like Jean Talleyrand and others give recs to pregnate women and young children and I mean young like 6 years old the system has failed us miserably just because some doctors want to get rich. If people want to get high I say let them and let the state benefit from this. Vote to legalize and put money grubbing doctors out of buisness!@
In the meantime, enjoy some music in the beautiful California hills. examiner.com/x-6741-SF-Family-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Blessing-the-Children-Reggae-Fest-tickets-still-available
If California legalizes, it won't be that long before other states follow suit. The "Tax Cannabis 2010" initiative may not be perfect, but I would sure vote it if I were a Californian. It's a reasonable framework of laws, and it leaves things open such that the government can have less restrictive laws.
Craig worries about the "without limitation" language, but as I said in my first post he's confused on statutory interpretation and that language does not mean what he thinks it means. He worries that mmj dispensaries might not be allowed in some counties or cities. That is the case under present laws. His fears are overblown.
If this initiative makes it on the ballot, I hope everyone for legalization will vote for it. It may not be perfect but the laws can be tweaked later. Right now what we need to do is get a state to legalize, and that's more likely to happen in California than any other state. Nitpickers like Craig will add many years to the time it takes to legalize.
It seems to me that by bashing me you confirm everything I've implied.
Why don't you argue the merits of your limitless control and taxation over Ammiano's thoughtful limits, regulation and education?
You could start with why you don't think marijuana is medicine and therefore should be taxed.
Who decides what is appropriate? The pharmaceutical lobby?
Here's a question for you. If "without limit" is so common a phrase, how come Ammiano's bill doesn't contain it once?
Having the resources to launch an initiative, why did you launch one so radically different from AB 390?
"Here's a question for you. If "without limit" is so common a phrase, how come Ammiano's bill doesn't contain it once?"
I don't know. I like the phrase "including but not limited to" better than "without limitation" because it avoids confusion. If I had to write this proposed law I wouldn't have used the language they used. I've seen that language in plenty of other legislation though and know what they meant and how it would be interpreted by courts. I've seen this type of language interpreted in many appellate cases where parties were arguing over what language in statutes means.
"Having the resources to launch an initiative, why did you launch one so radically different from AB 390?"
I didn't launch anything, nor do I have the resources to launch a voter initiative. I don't even live in California. I've never even been there. I'm just a small town lawyer in a Southern state who believes we are doing more harm than good trying in vain to keep up the ban on marijuana.
"It seems to me that by bashing me you confirm everything I've implied."
I don't mean to bash you. I'm just upset to see medical marijuana advocates fighting against marijuana legalization.
"Why don't you argue the merits of your limitless control and taxation over Ammiano's thoughtful limits, regulation and education?"
There is no limitless control contemplated in the initiative. It limits the government's power to mess with people over pot. It may not be perfect, but I'd be delighted to see it pass. The laws can be tweaked later. If Cali legalizes it will happen quicker in my state.
I think we are blowing a fortune and causing a lot more harm than good trying in vain to keep up the ban on marijuana. I am convinced that we would be better off as a nation if we legalized it and regulated it similar to alcohol. Medical marijuana is not my issue. I think some people need it though it's wrong for government to keep it from them.
to be continued...
"You could start with why you don't think marijuana is medicine and therefore should be taxed."
Like I was saying, I think it is a medicine for some people with certain conditions and government should not keep it from people who need it. The medical marijuana movement kind of bothers me though. Anyone in California can get an mmj card. I have a step brother in Cali with one and he laughs about how easy it was for him to get it when there isn't a thing wrong with him. It's a joke for so many people. And then there are plenty of people I'm sure who convince themselves that there is something wrong with them and they absolutely need to smoke marijuana morning, noon and night. I don't like the dishonesty of the whole thing. If you are going to smoke pot, smoke it because you like it, not because you need it, unless you really need it.
too be continued...
continued from last post...
I think it would be a lot healthier if it was just legal and regulated like alcohol. Doctors would in some limited circumstances recommend that patients smoke marijuana, but it wouldn't be anything like today with these mmj recommendation mills that will give anyone with a couple of hundred bucks a recommendation. It wouldn't be a scam, or a bogus excuse to overuse marijuana.
If we can actuially get marijuana legalized in this country the prices will drop through the floor. Government will tax the heck out of it, but people will still probably be able to grow a little. Sin taxes wouldn't apply to medicinal marijuana sold in pharmacies. Medical users would be better off. We'd all be better off if it was just legal and regulated like alcohol.
I hope I answered your question. Medical marijuana is real medicine but a lot of the dispensaries in Cali are more like coffeshops in the Netherlands than medical providers.
5x5=25 sq ft
25x25=625 sq ft (which somehow equals 25 sq ft according to Dave's math. Dave, you didn't learn math from a locksmith did you?)
See how much our US Cities, States, Country and households could save on taxes if Marijuana were decriminalized, then sign the petition.
MarijuanaLobby.org
Change we can engage in...
On the issue about the language in the initiative, please Google "including without limitation" and "including but not limited to". You will find statutes and contracts using this language interchangeably and caselaw and other writings where this language is discussed. It is common practice in contracts and statutes where the word "including" is followed by a list of items to put "without limitation" or "but not limited to" after the word "including" so that it is clear that the list is not exhaustive. If a lease says the tenant is to pay for damages he causes to the property "including holes in the wall and carpet stains" we don't want the tenant coming back and saying, "You didn't say anything about broken windows in the lease." The language is probably not necessary because most courts view the word "including" in this context as being illustrative rather than restrictive, but lawyers still add this language out of an abundance of caution.
Hey guys have you looked at the other Initiative? californiacannabisinitiative.org
JackTheGrower:
That's a different initiative. There are two that have been filed. In both instances they have several hundred thousand signatures to collect before either could make it on the ballot. I don't know what happens if both make it on the ballot and both pass. I know I'd vote for both of them if I lived in California.
It may be that neither initiative makes it on the ballot and all hopes would have to be pinned on Tom Ammiano's bill. I think that a ballot initiative stands a lot better chance of becoming law than a legalization bill in the legislature, so I hope that at least one if not both of these initiatives make it on the ballot.
Even if none of this goes through it will still be good for the debate in this country. The vote in a ballot initiative would likely be very close. It would be hotly contested and the whole nation would be involved in the debate if either or both initiatives make it on the ballot. Ammiano's bill helps the debate too. It's all good.
Having two initiatives could be a problem though. If half of those for legalization vote for one and the other half vote for the other that would cut 56% support for legalization down to 28% support for either of these initiatives. If both somehow make it on the ballot there needs to be a strong "vote for both" push. Again though I have no idea what would happen if both passed.
It may be best for one group to back out and throw their support over to the other group. I like how open and unrestrictive the initiative you mentioned is, but I don't know that the public would go for no limitations on the amount people could grow for personal use. The more narrowly tailored initiative probably stands a better chance of passing, even though it has some provisions some people don't like. No legalization initiative will please everybody, but people need to understand that the laws can be tweaked later with the exceptions they want. Now is not the time for us to fight over the small stuff.
Spot on Mr. Canada.
I would recommend that all activists consider the merits of the MERP Model which treats personal cultivation as an inalienable right not subject to tax or regulation. Such a model will provide free medicine to the sick while insuring that commercial sales never make more than a "normal" profit. No more $40 and hour for Cannabis "trimmers." It is obvious that the "cannabusiness" interests are attempting a historic "bait and switch" as you indicate.
For more on MERP:
MERP Headquarters
The Marijuana Re-Legalization Policy Project (MRPP)= "MERP"
Goto newagecitizen and then click on merp.
The model used with alcohol should be fine. Make your own without a permit as long as no dangerous machinery (distillery) is involved and it is not sold. Permit required for sale or dangerous equipment. Simple.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!