Click Banner For More Info See All Sponsors

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish!

This site is now closed permanently to new posts.
We recommend you use the new Townsy Cafe!

Click anywhere but the link to dismiss overlay!

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 91 to 106 of 106

  • Share this thread on:
  • Follow: No Email   
  • Thread Tools
  1. TopTop #91
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Peacetown Jonathan: View Post
    ...
    Here are six compelling grassroots reasons why voters–and their friends and families–should vote AGAINST Sonoma County’s Measure A, the Marijuana Hypocrisy Tax, before or on March 7:

    1. Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and should be treated, regulated and taxed like wine. ...
    2. ...And a tax on the billion dollar wine industry. ...
    3. ... full legalization ...
    4. This tax is intended to increase “public safety” of the new regulations, meaning arresting more of the true victims of the victimless crime of marijuana than before. ...
    5. ...without time for opposition statements represents sleazy backroom County Supervisor politics at its worse. ...
    6. ...Only large cannabis agribusiness corporations will be able to afford the high taxes, accountants and lawyers that it will take to comply ...
    So to reply to the points:
    1) this ignores the fact cannabis is still a Schedule 1 drug on the federal level. The costs of preventing diversion and dealing with the black market side of the industry are very high. There are also going to be increased costs dealing with the reality of our current federal government. The state is going to need to (and is working on plans) to implement banking access (one of the largest problems caused by federal law) and implement an "organic" program- again- a program controlled by the federal government. There is also a need to fund scientific/medical research with cannabis.

    2)we are NOT talking about a 10% tax. This is a theoretical maximum. The real initial rates are far, far, far lower.
    And if you can point me to another agriculture crop in the US that can produce over $4 million wholesale on an acre please do...

    3) Not sure what your point is. Cannabis is no longer a criminal issue- it is a civil issue. For those that haven't been paying attention Prop 215 which we have been operating under for 20 years never made growing cannabis growing on a commercial scale legal- it simply provided a "positive defense" to an industry that operated without labor laws, environmental laws, taxes, etc....

    4) again- wtf are you talking about. Cannabis is now a civil not a legal issue. (in theory, I'll admit...not all DA's see it this way...and to be fair...there IS criminal activity)

    5) The county has been holding meetings for well over a year. Yes- at the end things were rushed in an attempt to be able to get permits issued on the local level in time for the industry to be able to get state licenses. If memory serves the regs were passed just before Christmas- giving a matter of weeks (with the holidays in the way) to get the booklet and ballots ready for a march 7 election. The industry had an inkling of what was coming- had plenty of time to prepare a response if they wanted to.

    6) I find this particularly ironic as all the big players I know oppose measure A because it is a progressive tax- the big boys pay far more than the family farms. And yet again- we have moved to civil, not criminal issues. And welcome to the real world...lawyers, CPA's, accountants, human resources, etc etc are all a part of any business.

    I'm sorry- you say "investigative journalist" but I have to ask... have you actually read the SoCo regs? MCRSA? Prop 64?. Have you looked into the regs and taxes in the emerald triangle? Santa Cruz? Monterey? Yolo? Nevada County?

    Have you researched the regs and taxes in OR, WA, CO etc?

    Because I have? I have thousands of pages of regs and taxes. Highlighted. Notated. Referenced and cross referenced. And, as a grower who has long been under the "cottage grow" ceiling... I support measure A. Yes, it could be better. It could also be much worse- which it likely will be if "the industry" gets to put up the $400K and pay for the 80K? signatures needed to get another special election (crafted for those paying for it) on the ballot in november.
    Last edited by Barry; 03-05-2017 at 12:31 PM.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  2. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  3. TopTop #92
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post
    I think all the backlash you are hearing is based from growers, and their friends and associates, that don't want to be taxed, just like any other business.
    I agree to an extent. There are also a lot of people who are scared- who have spent so many years with no safe access to pmrd, the waterboard, osha, etc etc... there are a lot of us put in an expensive and bad position by our government failing to do their damn job for the past 20 years.

    And for those of us that have already gone as legal as we can- for years we've been suffering under the IRS 280E - a nominal 70% tax rate that forbids most business deductions. (to be fair- with a good lawyer and cpa- grows can take some normal deductions- retail side not so much).

    And to be fair- we have a lot of old hippies and alternative types, who regardless of whether they still imbibe are opposed to any taxation or control of the last remnant of the wild west. And a lot on the right just opposed to taxes in general. And a lot across the spectrum who just mistrust government in general- and hence any $ going to the general fund (regardless of the fact that a tax going to specific purposes requires a 2/3rds vote rather then 50%+1 )
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  4. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  5. TopTop #93
    Ronaldo's Avatar
    Ronaldo
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    I would feel better about this tax if a fair sized percentage of it went towards research on the use of marijuana as a medicine.
    As an example lets single out glaucoma…I would be a fool to use marijuana to control glaucoma at the risk of blindness. No one mentions what works best, CBD or THC, Indica or Sativa, or even the strain; to say nothing of dosage and potency.
    I would have similar reservations about using marijuana to treat other illnesses. Too many years have gone by without sound research into this marvelous weed. Consider how much suffering could have been alleviated in all the preceding years of medical marijuana's repression.
    Like so much in today's culture the issue seems to revolve around money and not peoples well being.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  6. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  7. TopTop #94
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Ronaldo: View Post
    I would feel better about this tax if a fair sized percentage of it went towards research on the use of marijuana as a medicine. ...
    That would be great, but it would also raise the bar from 50% to 66% approval to get it passed.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  8. Gratitude expressed by:

  9. TopTop #95
    Barry's Avatar
    Barry
    Founder & Moderator

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Here's the PD's wrap-up article on the tax.

    Note that they say the initial rates would be .5 to 5 percent, not the maximum rate of 10% the measure would allow.

    I support this measure.

    Barry



    Proposed tax on Sonoma County pot businesses goes to voters Tuesday
    GUY KOVNER
    THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | March 4, 2017,
    3:19PM

    Sonoma County cannabis business tax proposed to raise millions of dollars to cover the cost of regulating the legal marijuana trade goes to a vote Tuesday in a special election that feels low key compared to the packed, high-stakes balloting in November.

    Placed before voters by the Board of Supervisors and opposed by local pot growers, Measure A, the lone countywide issue on the special election ballot, has prompted no visible campaign from supporters.

    The United Food and Commercial Workers Union, with a membership that includes about 2,000 cannabis industry workers, has sponsored a 30-second television commercial opposing Measure A that is airing on cable news networks

    County officials have estimated voter turnout of up to 35 percent, which would match voter participation in the last election on a proposed countywide tax, in June 2015. That sales tax was intended to raise proceeds intended for road repairs, but the measure was thrashed by a 62 percent “no” vote.

    The failure was widely attributed to the 2015 measure being offered as a general tax, meaning the revenue goes into the county’s general fund and can be spent at the supervisors’ discretion.

    This year’s Measure A, also a general tax, says on the ballot it will “fund essential county services such as addressing (marijuana) industry impacts, public safety, fire, health, housing, roads, and environmental protection.” It needs a majority vote to be approved.

    The cannabis business tax would establish a levy of up to 10 percent of gross receipts on pot growers and related businesses located outside the county’s nine cities.

    At the initial proposed rates of 0.5 percent to 5 percent, the tax would reap $6.3 million annually. At the maximum 10 percent rate, it would generate $15.6 million a year.

    There are about 9,000 cannabis industry members in the county, including about 5,000 growers, according to the Sonoma County Growers Alliance, which represents local cannabis cultivators. The 260-member alliance is opposed to Measure A, largely because it considers the maximum 10 percent tax rate excessive.

    Supervisor Shirlee Zane, the board chairwoman, said Friday she is “optimistic that voters will overwhelmingly support Measure A.”

    County officials “worked tirelessly with stakeholders” to craft a “viable measure to put before voters,” Zane said in an email.

    She said that if the tax measure fails, the county will lack the resources to issue local permits for cannabis businesses, which are needed to obtain state licenses to operate under the new legal framework approved by voters.

    “Permits are the pathway for the industry to become lawful,” Zane said.

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

  10. Gratitude expressed by:

  11. TopTop #96
    Martin
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    I voted no for this measure. It's a blank check for our County Supervisors so they can pick whatever tax rate they want. The tax does not go solely to monitor/govern the pot industry. The multiple taxation for each person that handles pot from the farmer to the end user is bad. I feel the County is trying to kill the cottage industry that it has been in this county for decades. The County Supervisors also voted that growers must use commercial or agriculturally zoned property which will takes the industry out of the hands of our current growers and invites big industry to take over. Your weed will not be grown in our fields, it will be grown in warehouses by corporations. Taxation for this industry is good, open ended excessive greed on the part of our government is not. Give us a ballot that protects the local farmers and the health of our local economy.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by rossmen: View Post
    I'm not a grower, friend or associate. Of course pot will be taxed, but A is license to tax at 10% for every step plus, on top of state and sales taxes. As explained here this is about laws passed before 64. Legalize it doesn't mean make government the dealer instead of the cop, A is over the top!
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  12. Gratitude expressed by 3 members:

  13. TopTop #97
    jbox's Avatar
    jbox
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Ronaldo: View Post
    I would feel better about this tax if a fair sized percentage of it went towards research on the use of marijuana as a medicine. ....
    So you want our Sonoma County tax dollars to be spent on research? That is really quite funny, or maybe you are just unclear on the concept?
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  14. Gratitude expressed by:

  15. TopTop #98
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Can anyone with a better understanding of the shadowy world of PAC's unravel who is actually behind the hundreds of "No on A" signs lining river road, 116, and elsewhwere.

    As has become common with such groups- hiding behind an innocuous sounding name: "Coalition for responsible permitting "

    Also listing an ID #:
    1384772


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

  16. TopTop #99
    rossmen
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Supervisor zane gets the most critique of all the bos. This article demonstrates why. She straight up lied about a. As explained on this thread 64 promised state permits without need for county permits. This whole situation is a lawyer chum pool. The reason why ag interests have thrown in for no on A is because the county wants the money to beef up pmrd.

    The current industry has been recriminalized by additional county zoning restrictions. So the county asks voters for permission to extract up to 10% from remaining and future players to hire more revenue enforcers. Of course we are promised a little something extra.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Barry: View Post

    Proposed tax on Sonoma County pot businesses goes to voters Tuesday
    ...
    Continues here
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  17. Gratitude expressed by:

  18. TopTop #100
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by rossmen: View Post
    Supervisor zane gets the most critique of all the bos. This article demonstrates why. She straight up lied about a. As explained on this thread 64 promised state permits without need for county permits. This whole situation is a lawyer chum pool. The reason why ag interests have thrown in for no on A is because the county wants the money to beef up pmrd.

    The current industry has been recriminalized by additional county zoning restrictions. So the county asks voters for permission to extract up to 10% from remaining and future players to hire more revenue enforcers. Of course we are promised a little something extra.

    you lost me there. This has nothing to do with Prop 64- which is still a looooong way from coming into play.

    This has to do with MCRSA - Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act.

    For those who don't understand the larger picture- prop 215 and SB 420 never legalized commercial production of medical cannabis- it only provided a legal defense. For 20 years the industry got to get away without having to abide by zoning regualations, environmental laws, labor laws, taxes etc etc.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  19. Gratitude expressed by:

  20. TopTop #101
    rossmen
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Thats not what zane said. I don't get why you name 64 as back burner. Don't more recent laws trump older laws, especially when they are constitutional amendments approved by the citizenry? Why should voters throw more meat into the shark tank? Is that going to settle anything?

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop: View Post
    you lost me there. This has nothing to do with Prop 64- which is still a looooong way from coming into play.

    This has to do with MCRSA - Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act.

    For those who don't understand the larger picture- prop 215 and SB 420 never legalized commercial production of medical cannabis- it only provided a legal defense. For 20 years the industry got to get away without having to abide by zoning regualations, environmental laws, labor laws, taxes etc etc.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  21. Gratitude expressed by:

  22. TopTop #102
    Icssoma's Avatar
    Icssoma
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    vote vote VOTE!!! TODAY.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  23. Gratitude expressed by:

  24. TopTop #103
    Icssoma's Avatar
    Icssoma
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    The supervisors have done a lousy job on this issue. they have already brought in 2 large outside companies (out of state). one of the larger local grow businesses is starting up in San Luis Obispo, as the gov't there is welcoming.
    i have little faith in the supes (even road repair is primarily patches, so the problems are rarely fixed, & much of the labor is local jail crews which get paid little, less than $.30 per hour).
    tax makes sense, but let's put something on the table that says 5% at each level.
    i understand residential concerns, but i don't understand the problem w. small grows, cottage operations, in unincorporated areas where there are land buffers--seems like a sweeping plan that is poorly thought out.
    (wasn't the PD the paper that covered the CannaCraft police bust in a very one sided way.
    since the charges were dropped why wasn't the medical equipment returned by the SRPD?).
    i believe we can do much better. start w. that 5% across the board tax and clean up some of the issues, & i will happily vote yes. today i will vote no. i wish i felt more upbeat about the supes & the process.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  25. Gratitude expressed by 2 members:

  26. TopTop #104
    Dorothy Friberg's Avatar
    Dorothy Friberg
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Well, my guess is that those signs are there for plantation owners who do not WANT to be taxed.

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by SonomaPatientsCoop: View Post
    Can anyone with a better understanding of the shadowy world of PAC's unravel who is actually behind the hundreds of "No on A" signs lining river road, 116, and elsewhwere....
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  27. TopTop #105
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by rossmen: View Post
    Thats not what zane said. I don't get why you name 64 as back burner. Don't more recent laws trump older laws, especially when they are constitutional amendments approved by the citizenry? Why should voters throw more meat into the shark tank? Is that going to settle anything?
    Again, you lost me. Prop 64 is not a constitutional amendment.

    The states focus is on getting MCRSA up and running- the regulation of the medical cannabis industry. State permitting will (in theory) start jan 1 2018. There was hope that much of prop 64 regulations could be built off this infrastructure- potentially allowing much of the medical industry to transition to adult use with some simple paperwork.

    Now- with statements from the Trump admin...things are more complicated and there is a strong interest- from both the industry and those in government to keep the two seperate.

    IF you followed CO, OR, WA... the process of setting up adult use...and transitioning from a medical system...was very slow, painful, and an almost constant one step forward/two steps back.

    I'll add here- I voted against prop 64. It was very poorly written and created undue chaos and cost just when the state was (finally) trying to get medical right. Regardless- we are a good year, probably 2...maybe more depending on what Trump does from having any Adult Use system in this state.

    And again- these taxes- and regulations have nothing to do with prop 64/adult use... other then the reality that we are the guinea pigs for how the "legal" market will ultimately be regulated and taxed.

    And please point me to what statement from Zane you are referring- because as someone who attended pretty much every county meeting on the subject- everyone from pmrd to the BOS, and everyone in between regularly state they were ONLY dealing with medical- adult use/prop 64 would be something to be dealt with later.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

  28. TopTop #106
    SonomaPatientsCoop's Avatar
    SonomaPatientsCoop
     

    Re: Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

    Quote Posted in reply to the post by Icssoma: View Post
    The supervisors have done a lousy job on this issue. they have already brought in 2 large outside companies (out of state). one of the larger local grow businesses is starting up in San Luis Obispo, as the gov't there is welcoming.
    >snip<
    tax makes sense, but let's put something on the table that says 5% at each level.
    i understand residential concerns, but i don't understand the problem w. small grows, cottage operations, in unincorporated areas where there are land buffers--seems like a sweeping plan that is poorly thought out.
    >snip< .

    Late response I know.

    But I'm a little confused as to most of your comments.

    Out of state players? Are you talking about MN et al- which have applied for or received permits in Santa Rosa- which has nothing to do with the county/BOS ? Because the only big out of county/state operations I'm aware of got shut down by PMRD...and the county is not issuing permits until at least July.

    And again- the tax rate for grows is NOT 10%- that is a theoretical max. The proposed tax for grows is well under the 5% tax for processors- and for cottage grows way, way, way under the 5%.

    I fully agree BOS f****d up royally banning grows in unincorporated RR and AR. That said, to play devils advocate- the "industry" also f****d up. Let's be honest- as the feds backed off- and the state/county had no regulations- we saw an explosion of as****s blowing up their backyards and pissing off their neighbors...and causing all sorts of problems. The BOS should have let regs take out the bad players. And the good players WILL work to change the current situation.
    | Login or Register (free) to reply publicly or privately   Email

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-02-2016, 03:53 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-09-2015, 01:19 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, 09:28 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, 04:03 PM

Bookmarks