Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #1
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Six weeks away and I've heard no real discussion on this issue.

    On March 7th there will be a special election in Sonoma County to pass (or not) taxes on the cannabis industry in our county. Details can be found on the SoCo gov't website here. (scroll down to Dec 20, 2016, the 5th issue- Cannabis Business Tax Ord [it is a PDF and I can't link to it directly] )

    Also found at the awesome resource Ballotpedia.

    I have no idea how this one will go. We have those that vote against ANY tax. We'll have those- both in and out of the industry that want to tax the industry. We'll have those, mostly in the industry, opposed to any taxes. On and on...

    So, I figured I'd start a discussion here. To be clear- I'm in the industry. Mom & Pop boutique orga..wait not allowed to use that word- the feds own it- grown without any synthetic inputs...a full time job and then some...and I could still make more in private industry.

    I don't think the taxes are perfect. The ability of them to be raised dramatically terrifies me. But that said, I will be voting for them.

    A simple truth many need to come to terms with- if these taxes don't pass - it will accomplish what the police and prohibitionists never could- it will destroy the SoCo cannabis industry. Without this tax- SoCo will not issue permits. Without a county permit- you can't get a state one.

    If this tax measure fails it will essentially mean every aspect of the cannabis industry will become illegal in 2018, with no legal way for businesses to operate under county or state law.

    This is something people need to educate themselves on and understand the full ramifications of what they will be asked to vote on.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  3. TopTop #2

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Thank's for posting the links. I'm not involved at all,being neither producer nor consumer, but I hope that this is a first step in a "not too long" road to legalization of all mind altering substances, with abuse being treated as a medical problem, not criminal. (Full disclosure - I show as moderately right libertarian on the other link you posted, which seems about correct).

    As for the topic on which we shall vote, I don't know enough about the economics of production to know if the taxing is reasonable, but a couple of thoughts occurred to me:
    1) Any tax based upon gross revenue is likely to have a disproportionate effect on smaller producers whose overhead is usually a higher percentage of gross.
    2) The idea of taxing land usage rather than gross production is typical of a bureaucracy looking for a simplistic item to measure, rather than doing the job precisely and measuring total production (which might involve an element of trust - can't be having that).
    3) Why is cannabis production treated in this way whereas that other popular mind altering substance is not? We do not have a tax on amount of land attributed to wine production.

    I'm not expecting anything real to change, and plan to vote in favor of the plan, as I think it's more important to get production legalized than worry about the detail of taxation which can be fixed at a later date.

    I'd like to read some different opinions.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  5. TopTop #3
    volksman's Avatar
    volksman
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    After reading the pages of requirements in the tax proposal, I think it is likely that this legislation will have the effect of pushing out the small cannabis-involved business person. Everyone has to make quarterly income reports and tax deposits, and these must have supporting paperwork. Income from different classes of business - herb, smoking supplies, edibles - must be reported. There are multiple schemes for designating the size of a grow area - in door/outdoor, individual plants, total garden area, large corporate fields - each with its own tax rate.

    This looks to me like a taxation model suited to an experienced corporate entity with an accounting department and available legal advice. The "little guy" who has to meet all these requirements evenings and weekends after coming home from her full-time day job is at a tremendous competitive disadvantage. On the other hand, Fortune 500 companies will buy up grow acreage, operate on a huge scale with friends in Sacramento to run interference, and sell their product in cute packages available at every gas station. I predict that the truly small grower will dodge the whole system, only now she will be risking penalties for tax avoidance and a host of other permit violations.

    Can someone please report here on what the experience has been in other "legal" states.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by 6 members:

  7. TopTop #4

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Seems to me tax should be at the final point of sale so farmers have a level playing field.

    Quote volksman wrote: View Post
    After reading the pages of requirements in the tax proposal, I think it is likely that this legislation will have the effect of pushing out the small cannabis-involved business person. Everyone has to make quarterly income reports and tax deposits, and these must have supporting paperwork. Income from different classes of business - herb, smoking supplies, edibles - must be reported. There are multiple schemes for designating the size of a grow area - in door/outdoor, individual plants, total garden area, large corporate fields - each with its own tax rate.

    This looks to me like a taxation model suited to an experienced corporate entity with an accounting department and available legal advice. The "little guy" who has to meet all these requirements evenings and weekends after coming home from her full-time day job is at a tremendous competitive disadvantage. On the other hand, Fortune 500 companies will buy up grow acreage, operate on a huge scale with friends in Sacramento to run interference, and sell their product in cute packages available at every gas station. I predict that the truly small grower will dodge the whole system, only now she will be risking penalties for tax avoidance and a host of other permit violations.

    Can someone please report here on what the experience has been in other "legal" states.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  9. TopTop #5
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Sorry I've neglected this thread...

    The current Board of Supervisors is not so friendly to the industry- more want "their" cut of the pie. So this is a lot to be concerned about.

    In theory, this, as currently imagined, is supposed to be a stop-gap measure. Supposedly the goal, the whole point of the way the system is set up- is to ultimately collect the taxes at the intentional bottleneck- the distributors whom through all the cannabis will need to pass.

    I'll be the first to admit things are far from perfect. Not even sure if they're that good for the best small operators in the industry.

    But I'm not sure what the other options are right now? Sadly, we have to trust that the county won't be stupid enough to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. A stretch I'll admit...but a constant source of income is a heavy, heavy motivator.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  10. Gratitude expressed by:

  11. TopTop #6
    rossmen
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    I will vote against it. Seems primarily designed to meet neighborhood concerns about past grower malfeasance, with a probable unintended consequence of corporate takeover and consolidation. Best to keep it loose during this time of rapid change so all parties can still play. This is the fastest hope for the price dropping below where the hideous environmental crime of indoor growing becomes unprofitable.
    Last edited by Barry; 02-05-2017 at 10:54 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  13. TopTop #7
    Stuart's Avatar
    Stuart
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    VOTE NO!
    A voter guide was just sent to me for Measure A on March 7, the Cannabis Industry Regulation Tax.I read the positions in favor, then looked for the viewpoint of the opposition.
    Could not find it.
    Looked again. And again.
    Was not there

    Confused, I called the Sonoma County Election Board and was told there were no opposition views submitted.
    This I found strange, and after asking about the process, I was told that it was in the Press Democrat for one day. With four additional days to reply. I read the paper every day and did not see it

    So, after a little more research, I found that this tax does not even guarantee to go to its stated purpose!
    THIS TAX IS FRAUDULENT

    My tax dollars are going to a special election, for one issue, AT THE COST OF $400,000 for taxation with no guarantee of where the money will be used, and WITHOUT ANY OPPOSING VIEWS IN THE ELECTION GUIDE!!! NEARLY ONE HALF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR ONE ISSUE AND NO OPPOSING VIEWS?

    What is going on???
    Please vote, if you don’t others may be hoodwinked by not being aware of this fraud!
    Vote NO.
    And pass this on to friends, family, and ask any dispensary or medical user to please pass it on and display NO ON A posters in their stores.

    Thanks,
    Stuart
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. Gratitude expressed by 7 members:

  15. TopTop #8
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Quote rossmen wrote: View Post
    I will vote against it. Seems primarily designed to meet neighborhood concerns about past grower malfeasance, with a probable unintended consequence of corporate takeover and consolidation. Best to keep it loose during this time of rapid change so all parties can still play. This is the fastest hope for the price dropping below where the hideous environmental crime of indoor growing becomes unprofitable.

    I am sorry, but I have no idea whatsoever what point you are trying to make here?

    You do realize that if this does not pass- the county will not be able to issue permits before the 2018 state permits come online? That you can't get a state permit without a county one first?

    You do realize if this fails- it will mean that in 2018 there will be no legal grows in Sonoma County (other then a personal grow limited to 100 sq ft and 3/6 plants) ?

    And you do realize that the tax structure is far more onerous on large grows then it is on "cottage" .

    And while I agree about indoor grows- the current regs (which will be meaningess if this doesn't pass) require all grows to use clean energy and/or purchase carbon offsets?

    You're concerned about corporations taking over? Let this fail and watch every small to midsize good operator go under or get embroiled in civil fines that cost them everything. We'll be handing the entire industry over to rich outsiders.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  16. TopTop #9
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Quote Stuart wrote: View Post
    ... I was told that it was in the Press Democrat for five days.
    I read the paper every day and did not see it...
    First- sorry- but it was in the PD. And it is not the county's fault if no one submitted and opposition- we have county's+ of countless public meetings throughout the county- plenty of oppurtunity.

    As to the "guarantee" of where the money goes- you are familiar with CA law on tax masures? Taxes that go to the general fund only reguire 50%+1. Taxes going to a specific purpose require a 2/3 majority- hard to pull off in general. And what specific purposes should we tie the potential billions in tax revenue to? What to we do with the excess that can't be spent when there is so much need for those dollars in our community?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  18. TopTop #10
    Stuart's Avatar
    Stuart
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    -I did NOT say it was not in the PD, only that I did not see it ,being a regular reader, meaning that the average non reader would have no idea about this tax, nor did I. I had no opinion, and the quickie 5 day process made it so the public did not know, and was presented with no opposing views.

    Anytime I am not sure about the merits, I read both sides. This time there was only one side. Supporting the tax.

    -Re your general fund point, we agree. It IS going into the general fund. That is objectionable to me, especially with the deceiving headline.

    Vote No, and pass it on.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  20. TopTop #11
    rossmen
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    I think you get my point, I will vote no. You make an interesting point, 64 was designed to put the screws on the counties by the state. I didn't know that, yet it is so familiar. Every time I get in trouble with the county, for an unfair/meaningless/needlessly expensive law that's what they say, "the state requires us". So if it does not pass, and the county has to rush back to the drawing board in their interest to collect tax, would you recommend any changes? Or is the current proposal all good with you?

    Quote SonomaPatientsCoop wrote: View Post
    ...You do realize that if this does not pass- the county will not be able to issue permits before the 2018 state permits come online? That you can't get a state permit without a county one first?...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  21. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  22. TopTop #12
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Quote rossmen wrote: View Post
    I think you get my point, I will vote no. You make an interesting point, 64 was designed to put the screws on the counties by the state. I didn't know that, yet it is so familiar. Every time I get in trouble with the county, for an unfair/meaningless/needlessly expensive law that's what they say, "the state requires us". So if it does not pass, and the county has to rush back to the drawing board in their interest to collect tax, would you recommend any changes? Or is the current proposal all good with you?

    Again, I'm not quite sure what your point is?

    Let's be damn clear about something- for 20 years this industry has been skating by on a pathetic voter iniative and the state and counties unwillingness to do anything for fear of federal retribution.

    The industry can largely be devided into 2 parts- those who want to do the right thing- but have been cut off from access to normal government by the gray area, and those who want nothing to do with doing the right thing- whose only concern is profit.

    Regardless- both parties have been involved in violating zoning laws. Permitting. Water rights. Workmans Comp. Cal-Osha laws. workers rights. Countless envrionmental laws. The list goes on and on.

    I'll admit to being guilty of some of these violations- though wholly through a combination of ignorance and lack of safe access to government services.

    And back to the tax- if it does not pass- there's no going back. The cannabis industry WILL be illegal in sonoma county - making the Cole memo, if that even survives, meaningless. As much as CA has already become a target for the Trump administration- do you really want the entire industry in SoCo to be in violation of the one piece of paper offering us protection from trump and Sessions???


    And would I offer changes on the taxes? Of course. But what is on the table is more then fair- worse then Humboldt- but better then anything south or east of us.

    Time to join the real world...or go home. Or admit you're a republican at heart (abolish all taxes and regulations).
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  23. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  24. TopTop #13
    rossmen
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    I am here to learn, I've always been for marijuana decriminalization. Though I'm not in the industry i know many people who are and wonder how legalization will affect us all. My guess is that in 5 or 10 years most of the people doing it now will be doing something else. All the growers i asked about voting for legalization voted no. The good thing about this is it will all be grown in farms and gardens under the sun. There will be less crime and crazyness to. The bad thing is a whole world of alternative livelihood and culture will disappear.

    I am not here to convince you or anybody of anything. Where do you see the world of ganja going? I know 64 has a 5 yr restriction on cultivation plot size to give present growers a chance to scale up. But its hard to imagine this, or soco having its tax package in place, making much of a difference once the legal and regulated market really gets going. Won't most weed be grown in places like winters on 100+ acre farms?
    Last edited by Barry; 02-07-2017 at 12:58 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  26. TopTop #14
    Sieglinde's Avatar
    Sieglinde
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    I hope that this helps regulate it to prevent illegal pot grows that usually are contamnating water and other resources. As for the use of the tax, I really don't care where the money goes though Noreen Evans' slogan of "Pot for Pot Holes" sounded like a good idea.

    I cannot speak for the League of Women voters but I think we were caught by surprise by the election so there will not be a forum. Instead of complaining, set up a forum.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  28. TopTop #15
    Stuart's Avatar
    Stuart
     

    Edited posting

    THIS ORIGINAL POSTING I MADE WAS INCORRECT, APOLOGIES RE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT
    And no opposing views!
    Please write to the PD TODAY, do Op Ed pieces, contact dispensaries and have them post VOTE NO ON A March 7!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  29. Gratitude expressed by:

  30. TopTop #16
    Sieglinde's Avatar
    Sieglinde
     

    Re: No language translation-ballot is illegal!

    I checked the requirements page and only a certain number of precincts in Sonoma county are required to have Spanish language ballots so your precinct may have not been one of them. My precinct has Spanish language voter guides available at the polling places.

    My main question about this thing is why was there not opposition argument in the ballot? The answer is that no one stepped forward.

    Quote Stuart wrote: View Post
    There is no language translation on Measure A voter guide
    This is illegal
    And very suspicious
    And no opposing views!
    Please write to the PD TODAY, do Op Ed pieces, contact dispensaries and have them post VOTE NO ON A March 7!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  31. TopTop #17
    Stuart's Avatar
    Stuart
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Correct on the language translation requirement!

    Process and details:
    -on ONE day, under Legal Notices in the Press Democrat, the public was offered five days to submit opposing views. Dec 14 it was published, Dec 19 the deadline. Legal but in the dark for the public.
    Why a special election for this one issue ramrodded through? The Board of Supervisors approved it, costing taxpayers gobs of dough. I await from them the names of the Supes who approved this special election.
    The process is legal, but it stinks.

    VOTE NO on March 7, and post signs in public areas. No one knows about this. As a taxpayer, to have to fund $400,000 for a special one issue election without any knowledge of it, and to have to pay for the printing and mailing of the viewpoint of the Supes without any opposing views I find very undemocratic.

    Supe Hopkins was not part of this process, but I would think any and all other non 5th District Supes should be asked what warrants nearly one half a million dollars for a special one issue election?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  32. TopTop #18
    Stuart's Avatar
    Stuart
     

    $400,000. cost for the election

    This Special, one issue election, is costing taxpayers about $400,000. the estimate submitted by the Board of Elections to the Board of Supervisors who passed it....
    Supe Hopkins was not part of this process, but I would think any and all other non 5th District Supes should be asked what warrants nearly one half a million dollars for a special one issue election?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  33. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  34. TopTop #19
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: $400,000. cost for the election

    Quote Stuart wrote: View Post
    This Special, one issue election, is costing taxpayers about $400,000. the estimate submitted by the Board of Elections to the Board of Supervisors who passed it....
    Supe Hopkins was not part of this process, but I would think any and all other non 5th District Supes should be asked what warrants nearly one half a million dollars for a special one issue election?

    This is nothing unusual- elections cost massive amounts of money- from printing voters guides and ballots- and mailing them to every voter in the county, to the costs of tallying the vote etc etc.

    What choice was there? They can not pass a tax without a public vote. They could not very well call for a tax in the nov election when they hadn't even had time yet to figure out the regulations for the industry and no one would be clear on what they were voting for. And the next general election isn't until nov 2018.

    The realities of government.

    And let's be clear- we are talking about a tax that will bring in BILLIONS over the coming years...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  35. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  36. TopTop #20
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    There will be a public meeting at the Glaser Center in Santa Rosa , Feb 21st 6-8pm

    from the county mailing list:
    "Community Meeting and Survey
    County of Sonoma & City of Santa RosaFebruary 21, 20176:00 pm – 8:00 pm Glaser Center 547 Mendocino Avenue Santa Rosa, CA 95401

    The workshop will provide an overview of the County’s Cannabis Business Tax measure that will be voted on by Sonoma County residents in the March 7, 2017, special election, as well as an update from the City on the development of its proposed tax ordinance. The County and City will be available to answer questions and are also taking feedback on how to set the starting rates, which operators to tax, how the tax is spent and more.

    Talk to us about the tax! Take our survey to provide feedback on setting rates, which operators are subject to the tax, how the tax is spent and more: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/cannabistax. "



    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  37. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  38. TopTop #21
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Quote Stuart wrote: View Post
    I await from them the names of the Supes who approved this special election.
    The process is legal, but it stinks.
    Why await the names- it is a matter of public record. But a hint from someone who attended the majority of the public meetings that have been going on for over a year- they all approved it.

    [edit]To be fair- there were 1 or 2 who wanted to wait and see if they could combine the election with Santa Rosa who were/are? planning on having a special election in june for taxes on the industry. But if memory serves the cost savings would have been well under $50k ($20k pops to mind). And Santa Rosa is already issuing permits- the county won't until the tax passes- and the realities (PMRD is 4 months backlogged, and it would take months to hire/train new staff to issue cannabis permits) meant the county would not be able to issue permits in time for the state to issue permits in 2018. As it is- if this passes, our saving grace is the state is behind schedule as well. [/edit]

    Now- I hope you will attend the public meeting I posted above and voice your concerns. Please be sure to include all the issues you care about that the billions in tax revenue should not go to over the coming decade.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  39. Gratitude expressed by:

  40. TopTop #22

    Cannabis Tax: Yes or No?

    Sonoma County voters will vote this March 7 on a local cannabis tax. How should we vote; yes or no?

    I will vote no because it is a clearly hostile measure written with the mentality that cannabis is still a vice, much like alcohol or tobacco. For starters, you NEVER tax gross income. But that is precisely what Measure A proposes; a 10% tax on "gross receipts." Here is the text on the printed ballot:

    "Shall an ordinance be adopted imposing a cannabis business tax in unincorporated Sonoma County on cultivation up to $38 per square foot (annually adjusted by CPI increases) or 10% on gross receipts, and on other cannabis businesses up to 10% on gross receipts, to fund essential county services such as addressing industry impacts, public safety, fire, health, housing, roads, and environmental protection, with funds staying local and subject to audits, generating undetermined revenue until repealed?"

    This proposition is sooo abusive in so many ways! It's just plain wrong, period. There is nothing good about this at all. The people who wrote up this legal lynching of cannabis growers perceive this as a "sin tax" and hope to tax the budding marijuana industry into oblivion.

    Marihuana Is Medicine!

    VOTE NO ON MEAUSRE A!

    Edward
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  41. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  42. TopTop #23
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Well, first, I'll ask- what is the alternative? If the tax doesn't pass the cannabis industry becomes illegal...and even better becomes fair game for Sessions et al...

    The tax rate is actually fairly low to start with- there is a maxium which they *can* raise it to. And until all the state laws come into play, specifically "track and trace" and the distributor system taxes will be by sq ft. And the taxes will not apply until 2018.

    As to the taxing of gross receipts- I must point out that the intent is to tax, per pound, at the distributor level. A model very much based on the European Unions VAT (Value added tax), which I will also point out has been promoted by many progressives and liberals in our country. A simple tax that avoids massive amounts of paperwork (and the high priced professionals required) that is placed on products and goods at each stage of value being added to something.

    Before you make up your mind I'd highly recommend attending the public meeting- or the Sonoma County Growers Alliance meeting towards the end of the month on the matter.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  43. Gratitude expressed by 5 members:

  44. TopTop #24
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Tax: Yes or No?

    Quote Edward Mendoza wrote: View Post
    ....Marihuana Is Medicine! ....

    Yes. And no. As someone in the industry I'll admit it can be medicine. I'll also admit- that as medicine the way forward is likely to be in forms we hardly recognize.

    And I'll also admit- for my hundreds of collective members who rely on our wide variety of quality bio-grown cannabis- a small percntage will remain "medical" cannabis patients going forward. The state IS going to move towards medical requiring a primary care physician- not a script doc. And the state will likely move i line with WA, OR, CO and elsewhere where there will be a number of qualified conditions backed by science- not the "any condidition the (script) doctor "believes" will help". Never mind that with prop 64- the vast majority of "patients" will no longer bother with the hassle and expense of a recommendation.

    I'm sorry- I voted against prop 64- but it really helped seal the fate of true medical patients. I'm not happy about it at all- but the tax issue has zero to do with this.

    The old days of pretending all weed was "medical" and that we could do whatever we wanted- ignoring permitting, taxex, environmental laws, worker protection laws... they are gone. Welcome to the real world every other business has to deal with...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  45. Gratitude expressed by 4 members:

  46. TopTop #25
    rossmen
     

    Re: Cannabis Tax: Yes or No?

    Yes, medical is real, and most are recreational. Then there are people with addictive tendancies like me, where a small infrequent amount is medicinal. The world is a complicated place.

    I don't get why you support this, as you describe "stop gap", tax measure. It seems like a common regulatory stategy, where industry participants fight for share, ie big fish eat the little ones. Why should citizens support this?

    I have named my biases, people i know will be shut out, it will slow the price drop which will make indoor unprofitable, its regulation out of date at implementation, in the long run makes no difference. Why not vote to slow the change, rather than jump on the bigfish, soco tax grab, old nimby bandwagon?

    Quote SonomaPatientsCoop wrote: View Post
    Yes. And no. As someone in the industry I'll admit it can be medicine. I'll also admit- that as medicine the way forward is likely to be in forms we hardly recognize.

    And I'll also admit- for my hundreds of collective members who rely on our wide variety of quality bio-grown cannabis- a small percntage will remain "medical" cannabis patients going forward. The state IS going to move towards medical requiring a primary care physician- not a script doc. And the state will likely move i line with WA, OR, CO and elsewhere where there will be a number of qualified conditions backed by science- not the "any condidition the (script) doctor "believes" will help". Never mind that with prop 64- the vast majority of "patients" will no longer bother with the hassle and expense of a recommendation.

    I'm sorry- I voted against prop 64- but it really helped seal the fate of true medical patients. I'm not happy about it at all- but the tax issue has zero to do with this.

    The old days of pretending all weed was "medical" and that we could do whatever we wanted- ignoring permitting, taxex, environmental laws, worker protection laws... they are gone. Welcome to the real world every other business has to deal with...
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  47. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  48. TopTop #26
    SonomaCountyGrowersAlliance's Avatar
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    The Sonoma County Growers Alliance has a page up on our site dedicated to Measure A. It includes a video interview on KSRO as well.

    SCGA is
    Neutral With Hardline Concerns on County Cannabis Tax

    For more information visit: http://www.scgalliance.com/news/measurea/
    Last edited by Barry; 02-12-2017 at 10:10 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  49. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  50. TopTop #27
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Tax: Yes or No?

    Quote rossmen wrote: View Post
    ... Why not vote to slow the change, rather than jump on the bigfish, soco tax grab, old nimby bandwagon?
    Because I don't see any other option...and while I have issues with this (more the open ended potential future abuse then as it will apply in the next couple of years) I don't see any other way forward?

    Many think 215 "solved" everything- hell- I lie to myself like that too. Then I have a coronary when the choppers come...like clockwork (july 1st guaranteed and first 10 days of september where we are).

    And with Sessions as AG... I NEED the piece of mind of being compliant with state laws- something that will be lost if this doesn't pass. I've spent too many years putting my freedom and the safety of my family on the line to provide people with their medicine and their recreation.

    And, there are actually some of us that want the regulations to kick in- as scary as they are. We are tired of the "ballers" who abuse their land, their workers, the plant...to produce hundreds or thousands of pounds of cannabis they could never sell in the discerning CA market- but who are getting rich flaunting the letter and the intent of 215 producing "weed" for export to the rest of the US.

    These regulations- and the taxes, are a work in progress. And there is great opportunity to remove the "bad actors" while supporting the good ones. But for what I see right now- failure to pass this tax and bring the regulations into effect- is only going to empower the bad actors- and kill the good folks who actually want to do the right thing.
    Last edited by Barry; 02-12-2017 at 10:13 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  51. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  52. TopTop #28
    rossmen
     

    Re: Cannabis Tax: Yes or No?

    You keep writing that if this doesn't pass then people in sonoma county won't be able to get state licences. I just read 64 and it reads the opposite, it allows local control, does not require it. And if a community wants to ban then there has to be a vote. Maybe the county is putting out bad info because they want the tax money?

    Quote SonomaPatientsCoop wrote: View Post
    Because I don't see any other option...and while I have issues with this (more the open ended potential future abuse then as it will apply in the next couple of years) I don't see any other way forward?....
    Last edited by Barry; 02-12-2017 at 10:14 AM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  53. Gratitude expressed by:

  54. TopTop #29

    Re: Cannabis Tax: Yes or No?

    The pro-tax folks also argue that the federal attorney general, Sessions, will enforce California state laws, or the lack thereof. Federal authorities have competence ONLY in enforcing federal laws, not state; it is in the founding documents of the U.S.

    State authorities are responsible for enforcing their own state laws, not the federal govt.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  55. Gratitude expressed by:

  56. TopTop #30

    Re: Cannabis Tax: Yes or No?

    Quote SonomaPatientsCoop wrote: View Post
    Welcome to the real world every other business has to deal with...

    That's a powerful statement, and both in theory and function I agree with the sentiment. The next step in my mind is to ask the earnest question: Is a similarly structured business tax in place for unincorporated Sonoma County cultivation of produce, wine grapes, ornamental plants, cut flowers, hay, straw, grain etc? And as a side question: Is unincorporated Sonoma County land used for the raising of live-stock or fish farms (though technically these are not land cultivation industries) also subject to a similar tax?

    I'm looking forward to hearing from folks who know about this. And if the answer is yes my next question would be – Why can't we use the already existing tax structure for cannabis cultivation?

    If there is no such existing business tax for these other land cultivation industries then I think it fair to suggest that this proposed tax is not “the real world every other business has to deal with”. From that perspective, in my opinion, it's appropriate to question the motives and intentions behind this 'selective business tax'.

    Waiting to hear about similar existing tax structures in Sonoma County – Thanks!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  57. Gratitude expressed by 8 members:

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-02-2016, 04:53 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-09-2015, 02:19 PM
  3. Housing Sweet Woman & Dog Seeking Temporay Housing June 7th through July 7th
    By wildheart in forum All Marin County Posts
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-07-2015, 10:28 AM
  4. Someone makes my argument vs. "taxation is theft" articulately!
    By podfish in forum National & International Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-06-2011, 05:03 PM

Bookmarks