Cannabis Industry Taxation- Special Election March 7th

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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 (https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Cannabis/Adopted-Medical-Cannabis-Program-Ordinances-and-Policies/). (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 (https://ballotpedia.org/Sonoma_County,_California,_Marijuana_Tax,_Measure_A_(March_2017)).

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.

[Chris Murray]

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.

[volksman]

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.

[Goat Rock Ukulele]

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


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.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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.

[rossmen]

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.

[Stuart]

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

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

... 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?

[Stuart]

-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.

[rossmen]

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?


...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?...

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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).

[rossmen]

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?

[Sieglinde]

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.

[Stuart]

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!

[Sieglinde]

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.


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!

[Stuart]

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?

[Stuart]

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?

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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...

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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 (https://links.govdelivery.com/track?type=click&enid=ZWFzPTEmbWFpbGluZ2lkPTIwMTcwMjA4LjY5NzM5MzMxJm1lc3NhZ2VpZD1NREItUFJELUJVTC0yMDE3MDIwOC42OTczOTMzMSZkYXRhYmFzZWlkPTEwMDEmc2VyaWFsPTE3Mzg3NDIwJmVtY WlsaWQ9V2VzdG9mMTAxQG1lLmNvbSZ1c2VyaWQ9V2VzdG9mMTAxQG1lLmNvbSZmbD0mZXh0cmE9TXVsdGl2YXJpYXRlSWQ9JiYm&&&100&&&https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/cannabistax). "

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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.

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.

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.

[Valley Oak]

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

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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 (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?121625-Public-Meeting-for-Cannabis-Industry-Taxation-Special-Election-March-7th&p=210511#post210511) on the matter.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

....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...

[rossmen]

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?


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...

[SonomaCountyGrowersAlliance]

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 isNeutral With Hardline Concerns on County Cannabis Tax

For more information visit: https://www.scgalliance.com/news/measurea/

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

... 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.

[rossmen]

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?


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?....

[Valley Oak]

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.

[Rustie]

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!

[jbox]

...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'....

Very good point. As a general contractor I know I never had to have a business license to operate in the County. It took me years after moving away from Berkeley to get the city to quit harassing me for a business license I didn't get because I did no work in Berkeley.

The politicians at the County have been breathlessly hankering to tax the be-jesus out of pot. At a candidates night I hosted Noreen Evans had to have a hankie handy while salivating about her pot for potholes McIdea. I must say that is probably a better idea than the current tax proposal which just goes into the general fund for whatever may float into the minds of the supervisors. All they care about is gaining the maximum amount of control and revenue while letting the entrepreneur do all the work and take all the risk.

I predict this will not solve any budget issues but will just drive up the cost and hassle of getting and growing weed. Really, the government wants to be everybody's unauthorized business partner while not providing anything of value to the "partnership". Same old BS. I'm voting no, if for no other reason than being against spending $400,000 for a special election rather than wait til the next one.

[Valley Oak]

Regarding taxation, I'm all in favor of it. As a matter of fact, I'm generally in favor of high tax rates, especially for the rich. That's why I have always strongly supported a very heavy progressive tax rate. (A progressive tax rate means that your percentage of taxable income rises as your income rises. For example, if you pay x% tax rate with a $50k annual income, then at $100,000 you should pay that same x% plus an additional 10% or 20%, etc.)

If the proposed pot tax is fair and reasonable then I will change my position and vote in favor of Measure A. But that was not my initial impression when I first read the proposition. I could be wrong though. Furthermore, as an important part of the judicial history in the U.S., a former Supreme Court asserted, "The power to tax is the power to destroy." Many people still believe that marihuana is evil and taxing it to death is a way to not only control but also to destroy the budding weed industry.

But again, if there is a good reason to support Measure A's pot tax then I will change my mind and cast my ballot in favor of it. But I haven't seen one yet. If there is a serious danger of a cannabis legal limbo that will rain hell on marijuana in general then and only then will I support Measure A. But how exactly would the 'legal limbo' unfold? I would like to know if it is indeed true. Please explain it to me.

Thank you in advance, Edward

[Evram]

I'd just quote what's on the Sonoma County Growers Alliance site (https://www.scgalliance.com/news/measurea/) as to why it recommends a no vote:


The top tax rate of 10% would exceed profitability
The taxes are subject to changes by a majority vote of the Supervisors
Excessive tax rates for License Types 2 & 3
The funds go to the General Fund of the County and are not targeted
Timeline for reporting and tax payments due before permits are obtained
The cost burden of industry implementation falls on early adopters
The short timeline presented for the tax scheme left little opportunity for discussion that led to a lack of confidence in the County proposal

[Barry]

I'd just quote what's on the Sonoma County Growers Alliance site (https://www.scgalliance.com/news/measurea/) as to why it recommends a no vote:




The Sonoma County Grower's Alliance as taken a "neutral position with hardline concerns on the measure". The list quoted in the prior post is their "hardline concerns", but they DO NOT recommend a No vote. They are NEUTRAL.

[Barry]

Here's the PD article about the tax:

<style type="text/css"> p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'} </style>https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2015-10-04_15-56-29.png
Sonoma County’s proposed cannabis business tax heads to voters

GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | February 11, 2017, 10:09PM

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2017-02-12_15-02-53.pngLegalizing marijuana in California was the easy part, given the cultural swing toward acceptance of the long-outlawed drug. Figuring out how to pay for regulation of the booming cannabis industry, however, could prove more problematic in Sonoma County and statewide.

A cannabis business tax, proposed by the Board of Supervisors to cover the cost of implementing regulations for the newly recognized crop, will go before voters countywide in three weeks in a special election that is causing angst among the people who depend on marijuana for their livelihood.

Measure A is the only countywide issue in the March 7 election, and mail-in votes are already being cast.

An approved tax, at the proposed initial rates would generate $6.3 million a year from cannabis businesses outside city limits. County officials say the funding is critical to usher the pot industry out of the legal shadows.

“Let’s legalize, let’s regulate and let’s tax,” said Shirlee Zane, the Board of Supervisors chairwoman. “They all come together, like it or not.”

If the tax fails to win majority support, however, county officials say they will have to abandon a July 1 startup date for accepting cannabis business permit applications, a step that could cost pot operators the chance to get in line for state permits at the start of 2018 and possibly expose them to criminal prosecution.

Continues here. (https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6640146-181/sonoma-countys-proposed-cannabis-business?artslide=0)

[Evram]

Point taken, nevertheless, those are the concerns. : )


The Sonoma County Grower's Alliance as taken a "neutral position with hardline concerns on the measure". The list quoted in the prior post is their "hardline concerns", but they DO NOT recommend a No vote. They are NEUTRAL.

[eyemusic]

I asked myself the same question when I read the ballot measure. Do wine grape growers have to pay a similar tax in unincorporated Sonoma County. Do raisers of meat cattle? If not, why tax cannibis growers?


...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?...

[kane]

I decided to vote no on the tax for the following reason; The County wants to set a tax rate without knowing what the actual burden will be of cultivation in the County.

I'd prefer we study it for two to three years, charging the growers a small amount to pay for this study, then base any future grower tax on REAL data of costs to our infrastructure and services.

Since I'm not a grower, the tax wouldn't burden me directly, but I am one who is leary of new taxes or increases in taxation as I can see the day coming, as a lower-income older person, when I will need to sell our beloved home due to the property tax burden.

It's a crazy system we have where we incentivize churn of real estate sales to trigger reassessments and higher taxes, at the cost of losing long-term residents. What about continuity of community? OT, I know.

[Sieglinde]

Not seeing any opposition to this on the ballot, I went ahead and sent my absentee vote in with a yes vote. I would think if the Growers Alliance opposed this, they would have put an arguement in the ballot. I suspect I am not the only voter who has already voted.

[rossmen]

Thanks for voting, and did you really do your due dilligence? Did you not notice the narrow window the county allowed to provide feedback on the ballot info? If you read here, plenty of dispute. We will see, mailing my vote today, and at least i researched and considered both sides.


Not seeing any opposition to this on the ballot, I went ahead and sent my absentee vote in with a yes vote. I would think if the Growers Alliance opposed this, they would have put an arguement in the ballot. I suspect I am not the only voter who has already voted.

[jbox]

The Sonoma County Grower's Alliance as taken a "neutral position with hardline concerns on the measure". The list quoted in the prior post is their "hardline concerns", but they DO NOT recommend a No vote. They are NEUTRAL.

Barry, don't you mean they are "neutral" (wink,wink):wink1:

[Barry]

Here's my take:

I think we should approve this first attempt of a cannabis tax and get the system up and running and see how it shakes out. I don't see any dealbreakers in the growers "hardline concerns". I think the tax should be adjusted to yield the maximum revenue for the county.

If the tax rates are too high the retail price will end up too high and the market will revert to the underground economy that it is well accustomed to, and tax revenue will fall.

As to the structure of the tax, that can also be adjusted once the market it up and functioning.

So let's get everything up and running, including the tax revenue, now and adjust it as needed. This is huuge change in many directions! It's going to take some time to find its equilibrium.

[rekarp]

Alcohol is taxed at $3.30 per gallon plus sales tax.


I asked myself the same question when I read the ballot measure. Do wine grape growers have to pay a similar tax in unincorporated Sonoma County. Do raisers of meat cattle? If not, why tax cannibis growers?

[eggplant]

I am a CBD medicinal user and my experience of medicinal marijuana growers locally are that they are small cottage industries that make very little profit and support their clients who are coping with pain from cancer, AIDS, PTSD and aging afflictions like arthritis. Measure A is a tax that will wipe out the small cottage industries to make way for Big Pharma, a greedy industry if I ever saw one. Here is information from a flyer that I found helpful:

Vote NO on A! This tax is fraudulent! We have no guaranteed it will be used for it's stated purpose.
1. The measure claims to raise funds to administer the Sonoma County Cannabis Ordinance. However, the proceeds from this tax if passed will be put into the county general fund for their discretion. If there is a tax it should be put into a dedicated fund, administered by Sonoma COunty Agricultural Board.
2. County claims the taxes will raise 6 million dollars. If the new industry is crippled or bankrupted it could raise Zero dollars and the Cannabis ordinance would place a crippling regulatory burden on an industry already struggling with state interference which will make medicines unaffordable. Please Vote NO on A!

[eggplant]

Unfortunately, going "underground" won't be so easy with the tax man breathing down your back = instead of helicopters we will have drones flying around out rural properties to see who is growing s small garden.


...If the tax rates are too high the retail price will end up too high and the market will revert to the underground economy that it is well accustomed to, and tax revenue will fall. ...

[Sieglinde]

Did I do my due diligence? For a measure with no perceived opposition, yes. I do not really get into the weeds of tax policy and since I am not in any sort of agricultural business, I had no way to judge the effects on profits. My main motivation was to get retail sells started and this tax looked like the way they were using to get the permitting and other processes started in order to enable retail selling of pot. (My motivation was as a possible sometime medical user who does not want to go to the expense of seeing a "pot doctor" and paying for the card, when I may just need an oil very occasionally)

The question of voter information is an interesting one. I belong to the League of Women Voters and we were taken by surprise by this election. So no forum will be available from us. Looks like there will be some sort of meeting about it on February 25th at the Glaser Center. https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Cannabis (https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Cannabis/)


Thanks for voting, and did you really do your due diligence? ...

[Tinque]

I first want to thank WaccoBB.net for providing a forum in which one can express their views, pros and cons. One can read and try to sort out the facts, lies, exaggerated and/or minimized information and be able to come to, hopefully, the best conclusion in how to proceed in waging our votes, give our support or our disapproval in all matters .

I have been perplexed about this whole tax issue. I have read and re-read lots of peoples thoughts on this subject and I feel just like I did when the realization that Ashton Kutcher was not going to be publicly broadcasting that " Ha Ha ", everyone has just been PUNKED and that the REAL candidates are going to be revealing themselves and we can now really start with the "REAL" election.WHEW !

The whole political arena is such a huge " Hunger Game" and its easy to understand why people get discouraged and try to shy away, slowly but surely or at a complete cantor from the craziness.

I think, first and foremost, that it was absolutely irresponsible and very manipulative to put together an expensive, " special election" for most any issue, ( except if, suddenly, IT WAS a fact, that we were "punked" and we needed to get out and REALLY vote on some REAL candidates, or there was hundreds of walking dead people coming into our pearly gates for real ), but this was and is obviously a very deceiving and not thought out or manipulatively thought out bill, that in reality is an ultimatum to the growers, etc., a power play and I think, in the regards to making decisions that affect all of us, we all should participate in discussion, in argument , in favor, in disagreement and should of been hashed out between everyone beforehand to make it work for everyone.

Do I think there should be taxes... I think yes , but taxes in all areas should be regulated by the amount of money or cost to our environment and necessity.

I feel that if things went the way they I think are intended to be, that we would pay our so called dues to the areas in which we live in and are taxed which of course would be used for maintaining our roads , our libraries , our schools our homeless and of course we would see this money working for everyone on a daily basis. I don't know if anyone has driven down Pleasant Hill Rd but I have almost been thrown across the road as well as possibly or probably severely damaging my vehicle while attempting to get from A to B, due to the severity of the potholes . Where does that Lottery money go? Where does our tax money go?

Is it true that wineries do not get taxed, like this proposed plan being laid out for the cannabis industry people?
How do chemicals are used on the grapes compare to cannabis?

The whole thing needs much further discussion before it should be presented for a vote.
That $400,00 plus should have been spent in a responsible, environmental, community needed manner.
One should research how Oregon has/is successfully been managing in this business/trade .:idea:

[rossmen]

Retail sales will happen whatever we in soco vote. And the state will get money. Measure a is all about the local scene. The simple way to look is more tax better? Government for sure!

...My main motivation was to get retail sells started and this tax looked like the way they were using to get the permitting and other processes started in order to enable retail selling of pot. ...

[Evram]

Apparently Sonoma County growers alliance has settled on its position. "The SCGA has surveyed our membership and found an overwhelming response opposing Measure A. We urge our membership and other citizens to vote NO on Measure A."

[Shandi]

It seems that "adjusting or modifying" a tax is much more difficult than getting it aligned and fair at the beginning, which means due diligence on the part of those who will be taxed. This kind of action takes time, and many people have other priorities than to get involved in a tax they don't understand the effect it may have on them.

This is how we get people in office that would never get in if so many people weren't in survival. I don't see this changing in my lifetime, but I'm a witness to more and more people unable to find housing, for their most basic survival. Yes, there are food banks, but when you have no place to cook it, then what?

As a previous business owner, I don't see a wise step in "Getting it up and running first, then see how it shakes out." I've seen many businesses with this perspective. Many retail operations that I predicted (to myself) that would fail within a year or two, have left the scene. I can usually spot those when they first open, and do my predictions, while I secretly hope I'm wrong.

This tax issue will be voted on without any or very little knowledge of the consequences. Then a call will go up for changes, from those who experience it negatively. I don't know anything about the tax ramifications, and where the money will go, but someone can enlighten me, I'm sure.


Here's my take:

I think we should approve this first attempt of a cannabis tax and get the system up and running and see how it shakes out. ...

[Shandi]

I think you mean the Glaser Center; I've never heard of the Glazier Center.


... Looks like there will be some sort of meeting about it on February 25th at the Glazier Center. https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Cannabis (https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Cannabis/)

[Shandi]

No one with a medical condition needs to "see" a doctor anymore. I got my recommendation online for $50, and yes it works! It's good for a year, so if I'm running low on my medicine when the year is almost up, I'd just buy enough to take care of my occasional needs for the following year. Also, prices do vary on herb, tincures, creams, etc.

I bought a CBD cream at Mercy Wellness. It was a small jar for $16, which seemed expensive, but I don't use a lot. When I did some price checking online, I saw the very same thing for $45. So, it pays to price check...

...(My motivation was as a possible sometime medical user who does not want to go to the expense of seeing a "pot doctor" and paying for the card, when I may just need an oil very occasionally)...

[Barry]

Apparently Sonoma County growers alliance has settled on its position. "The SCGA has surveyed our membership and found an overwhelming response opposing Measure A. We urge our membership and other citizens to vote NO on Measure A."

Here's their full press release (https://www.scgalliance.com/news/measurea/):


SONOMA COUNTY GROWERS ALLIANCE ANNOUNCES STANCE ON MEASURE A
Industry Group Opposes County Cannabis Tax


Santa Rosa, Calif., February 13, 2017– The Sonoma County Growers Alliance (SCGA) is issuing its position on Measure A, the Sonoma County Cannabis Business Tax on Commercial Cannabis Business. SCGA OPPOSES MEASURE A. We are working directly with industry leaders and our membership to develop a fair and equitable tax structure to benefit Sonoma County. The SCGA has surveyed our membership and found an overwhelming response opposing Measure A. We urge our membership and other citizens to vote NO on Measure A.

SCGA has outlined several areas of concern with the proposed tax measure that gave the organization and its membership extreme concern:


The top tax rate of 10% would exceed profitability
The taxes are subject to changes by a majority vote of the Supervisors
Excessive tax rates for License Types 2 & 3
The funds go to the General Fund of the County and are not targeted
Timeline for reporting and tax payments due before permits are obtained
The cost burden of industry implementation falls on early adopters
The short timeline presented for the tax scheme left little opportunity for discussion that led to a lack of confidence in the County proposal

Sonoma County Growers Alliance is hosting a workshop (https://www.scgalliance.com/event/scga-workshop-transition-taxes/) for the community to discuss the County of Sonoma and Santa Rosa Tax proposal on March 3, at the Finley Center in Santa Rosa from 2-5PM.

Sonoma County Growers Alliance is a community group organized to educate, collaborate and advocate for patient, cultivator and community rights and responsibilities. SCGA works cooperatively with all individuals, businesses, and regulatory bodies to ensure that reasonable environmental, social and economic standards are set in place, helping cultivators within the community to participate and thrive responsibly.

Sounds to me likes the complaints from any other industry that doesn't want to be taxed (or taxed less).~ Barry :waccosun:

[Barry]

State Senator Mike McGuire chaired a public hearing on Feb 14 on the proposed Cannabis Tax.
The Governor of Colorado and other speakers who have experience with legalizing Cannabis testified.

You can see the full high-quality video by clicking on the image below.

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2017-02-15_16-10-39.png (https://senate.ca.gov/media/senate-governance-finance-committee-20170214/video)

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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.I am really not sure what your point is supposed to be?Cannabis IS a schedule I drug (worse then cocaine fwiw) under Federal Law. The "Cole Memo" during the Obama administration directed federal agencies not to enforce federal cannabis law in situations where operations where in compliance with state laws (you can trace the masive rise in, ahem, "backyard grows" in RR, AR, and even the cities to this rule.It is unknown if the "cole memo" will survive under Trump. FWIW- in his confirmation hearings, Sessions, on the topic of "legal" cannabis said it was not his job to chooses which federal laws to enforce- it was up to congress to change them. Regardless- the industry has a very powervul and adversial force as fed ag. And if the tax fails, and hence the county regulations can not go into force- the entire industry has their proverbial ass flapping in the wind. And for those that don't know, Federal sentences are 20 years for 50-99 plants and up to 40 years for up to 999 plants. (up to life beyond that). Plus financial fines. Add to this similiarly harsh sentences for "sales".And let us not forget- our Sheriff recently met with Sessions- along with many other sheriffs. And while immigration/sanctuaries was the hot topic reported, our sheriff reportedly was also discussing the cannabis industry (and not how to protect it).

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

It seems that "adjusting or modifying" a tax is much more difficult than getting it aligned and fair at the beginning, which means due diligence on the part of those who will be taxed. ....
While I agree with you in theory...we are also under very special circumstances here. To wit: if the tax doesn't pass, the county doesen;t issue permits in 2017. If the county doesn't issue permits, one can't get a state permit in 2018.

The industry becomes illegal under county and state law. Which, to an extent, we in the industry are somewhat used to. But now throw in the fact we have a Federal AG who has not only said "good people don't smoke marijuana" but in confirmation hearings regarding the cannabis industry said it wa not up to him to decide what laws to enforce, it was up to congress to change them.

For now the Cole memo, directing federal agencies to stand down when cannabis operations are in line with their state laws is our saving grace. If the tax measure fails- even this goes out the window.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

Apparently Sonoma County growers alliance has settled on its position. "The SCGA has surveyed our membership and found an overwhelming response opposing Measure A. We urge our membership and other citizens to vote NO on Measure A."


Hmm. As a member of SCGA I'll say they previously begrudgingly supported the tax- because the ramifications of it's failure were much worse. But since Tawni ogan got appointed to the head of the board of Heziekels Cal Growers Alliance out of Humboldt- which supports massive grows...a lot of positions have been seeming to change.

to wit- the focus on the higher tax for large grows in SoCo and a focus on the "top possible tax" - which few believe will ever come into play- it was a safeguard to prevent more expensive special elections.

I'll add- SoCo did their homework. They saw that in CO,OR, &WA taxes were set to high, discouraged people from coming into compliance and favored those with millionaire backers. SoCo did a good...far from perfect...but good job with this tax. It's somewhat higher then the emerald triangle in general- far less then what has been proposed of passed anywhere east or south of here.

I'll add- SCGA's "survey" was pathetic. It was tilted in its questions toward big growers and offered no discussion of the other options (or lack there-of). SCGA has a lot of meetings coming up soon...and I will be deciding if this remains an organization I can support. But for now it increasingly looks like they are abandoning the small growers...

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

...Did you not notice the narrow window the county allowed to provide feedback on the ballot info? ...
Narrow window? The county has been holding countless hearings on the regulations (of which taxes are part of) for well over a year.

The "narrow window" was due to the march window for a special election, on an issue that the regs were finalized in what, november sometime? With a need to get them passed in time for state regs.

For the people most affected by this...we had plenty of time and then some to give our input.

God, I hope some of these people cringing about the taxes are going to be willing to cough up some $$ to a gofundme account when the little organic, boutique grow that provides them with their "medicine" is suddenly facing 40 years under federal law and a half million in state/county civil fines.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

. I'm voting no, if for no other reason than being against spending $400,000 for a special election rather than wait til the next one.
I'm sorry- but that is NOT realistic. The state is supposed to start issuing permits Jan 1st 2018 (yes, looks like they are behind schedule). One can't get a state permit (which they must have in 2018) without a county permit.

The next general election is nov 2017. The county has to hire and train staff before permits can be issued. PMRD, just on general issues, is currently several months out on being able to act on anything.

If this does not pass, no permits (or the county has to scramble and pull millions from the general fund in the hope another tax passes). Basically- the cannabis industry in SO will likely become illegal under state/local law for ~ 2 years- even more worrisome given our current federal AG.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

...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?...Fair, and complicated question.

Beyond the tax issue- the cannabis industry is being regulated beyond any other industry. Some issues- such as water use and environmental impacts, we are being regulated first. Many of these regs are coming to the wine industry, ag, and homeowners over the next few years.

I was initially surprised- but came to understand, why some of the large wine interests and ag interests got involved in the meetings on the coming regs...

As to the taxes- fair point. Alcohol and tobacco are the closet analogies.

I'm unaware of any other ag crop with such potential for diversion to the black market. Alcohol is the only other one (grown in this state) with similiar social costs to consider. And cannabis is the only one in this state that the industry has caused billions of dollars in damage that needs to be addressed.

I'll say, SoCo did a good job with this tax measure- at least as it is initially to be implemented. They looked closely at the (higher) tax rates in CO, OR, and WA and saw the problems it caused.

Am I (being in the industry) thrilled with it? no. But it's more then good enough. And the alternative (no permits- being illegal for 2+ years under Trump/Sessions) is not an option. If this fails... I become unemployed- I will not risk my family under the current federal government.

I prefer it pass- and then both the industry and the populace keep up pressure to insure the BOS doesen't kill the goos that laid the golden egg.

[Sieglinde]

Too late for early voters who have already mailed their ballots. I think they should have written an opposition argument for the ballot and then mailed letters to the Press Democrat and the other newspapers in the county.

"The SCGA has surveyed our membership and found an overwhelming response opposing Measure A. We urge our membership and other citizens to vote NO on Measure A."

[Sieglinde]

I did. I really don't know how to spell it so I should have looked it up. I am not at all familiar with who it was named after and have never been to it.


I think you mean the Glaser Center; I've never heard of the Glazier Center.

[Sieglinde]

I thought the medical card cost $150.

No one with a medical condition needs to "see" a doctor anymore. I got my recommendation online for $50, and yes it works! ...

[hanford]

Wake up greedy pot growers ,times are changing and your big profit ticket is over . The future is going to hold many changes and all the "med pot patients" are going to have to get a pill ,non get high medicine.
too bad for the check out on reality crowd.,there is good and bad in any changes but the crime, gangs, polutuion, destruction of wildlands ,openspace, habitat for the single purpose of greedy criminals who are equal to corporate grape growers,have no place in a fair ,safe healthy society.
Yes tax,Yes regulation start now.

[Sieglinde]

Calling people names gets you nowhere. Even though you disagree with the legalization of pot, the state needs to deal with it in an orderly manner. Whether this tax is the answer is why there is a debate but your attitude is not helpful. The legalization of pot ought to reduce crime related pot sales and the attendant crime surrounding them. Do you think any Speakeasys existed once Prohibition was lifted? Only as fun retro bars but not underground establishments. Medical marijuana comes in many strengths and types. Many folks are not getting high from rubbing some oil on their skin or taking a drop under the tongue.


Wake up greedy pot growers ,...

[Evram]

Really? Really??


Wake up greedy pot growers ,times are changing and your big profit ticket is over . The future is going to hold many changes and all the "med pot patients" are going to have to get a pill ,non get high medicine.
too bad for the check out on reality crowd.,there is good and bad in any changes but the crime, gangs, polutuion, destruction of wildlands ,openspace, habitat for the single purpose of greedy criminals who are equal to corporate grape growers,have no place in a fair ,safe healthy society.
Yes tax,Yes regulation start now.

[rossmen]

You keep putting out this info like it is fact. But it reads nothing like 64. Why would the state not issue permits for local pot business? They want the taxes required in 64. I'll keep researching and let you know for sure. Btw, 5 days for opposition arguments? Narrow window is a very kind description.


I'm sorry- but that is NOT realistic. The state is supposed to start issuing permits Jan 1st 2018 (yes, looks like they are behind schedule). One can't get a state permit (which they must have in 2018) without a county permit.

The next general election is nov 2017. The county has to hire and train staff before permits can be issued. PMRD, just on general issues, is currently several months out on being able to act on anything.

If this does not pass, no permits (or the county has to scramble and pull millions from the general fund in the hope another tax passes). Basically- the cannabis industry in SO will likely become illegal under state/local law for ~ 2 years- even more worrisome given our current federal AG.

[rossmen]

I am so glad pot is now legal in caly. The old days of cruel oppression, vicious prosecution, and senseless demonizing of the pot using, growing, and distributing public are fading fast! And yes! The crime and environmental insanity of growing this beautiful, fun, and powerfully medicinal plant in hiding will be gone! Freed from the market distortion of racist criminalization it will be less costly and easier to purchase, despite continued efforts by governments to stand in the way, keep the price high, and suck up profit with taxes.

[Stuart]

What seems odd to me is why dispensaries, labs and transport are EXCLUDED from this tax?
This is just a tax on growers, from my understanding.
Please see my above thoughts and comments re my objections:
-$400,000. Yes, nearly a half a million dollars for a single issue ballot!
-No opposing views in the voter guide, which is paid for by taxpayers!
-No guarantee any of the money will be spent on the stated intentions
-Why just on growers and not the sellers, i.e. dispensaries, transport, labs?

Vote NO, and make sure you do vote. Pass it on, not too many folks aware of what is going on

[Evram]

.... Looks like there will be some sort of meeting about it on February 25th at the Glaser Center. https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Cannabis (https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Cannabis/)
The meeting is next Tuesday, Feb 21st (not 25th!)

Here's the information from the county website: https://sonomacounty.ca.gov/CAO/Cannabis/

[occihoff]

Also, it is quite easy to grow plenty of marijuana for yourself or a few others in just one or two pots or in the earth in a sunny spot indoors or outdoors. Once the fear of "getting caught" is alleviated, buying marijuana from a dealer will become less necessary as many people or their friends save seeds and grow a little for themselves. It's a pretty plant, too.

[lgr]

A chicken in every pot and pot in every patio! :yippee::yippee:

Update of the 1928 Republican campaign slogan promising a new era of prosperity if Hoover were elected.

If not prosperity, then surely more tolerance and civility!

[Sieglinde]

It has a rather pungent smell. Is there a way to mitigate that for your neighbors sake?


Also, it is quite easy to grow plenty of marijuana for yourself or a few others in just one or two pots or in the earth in a sunny spot indoors or outdoors. Once the fear of "getting caught" is alleviated, buying marijuana from a dealer will become less necessary as many people or their friends save seeds and grow a little for themselves. It's a pretty plant, too.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

A quick(ish) update...

After some discussins with some folks...some "clarification" on SCGA's "No" recommendation.

It seems SCGA has a grand plan to raise the nearly $400K from "the industry" to place this issue on the ballot again in November. I'm sure some small portion of this will come (ahem, be extorted) from us paniced small farmers who don't want to become illegal overnight. The rest will surely come from the ballers of "the industry" who will demand to be taxed at the same rate as the small players.

Optimistically, this would mean SoCo might start accepting permit applications Fed 2018. Which still means permits issued 4 months later. Then the State processe- for the small players, who don't have teams of lawyers and $$ to fight- they'd be illegal all of 2018.

Let's be clear here- we have players who have been getting filthy rich violating both the spirit and the letter (very few letters) of the law for years, now trying to use fear and uncertainity against the people who have been trying to do the right thing all these years. Despite the counties attempts to level the playing field and hamper the big players, we are >< this close to handing the entire industry over to them.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

You keep putting out this info like it is fact. But it reads nothing like 64. Why would the state not issue permits for local pot business? They want the taxes required in 64. I'll keep researching and let you know for sure. Btw, 5 days for opposition arguments? Narrow window is a very kind description.

We are NOT talking about Prop 64- which is a LONG was from implementation. We are talking about MCRSA (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act) - which supercedes the pathetic 215.

Quick sidenote- Trumps Sean Spicer today said that the Trump administration views "medical" and "recreational" cannabis VERY differently- and hinted strongly they DOJ will be cracking down on "recreational" cannabis- ie: prop 64.


Back to the point- in 2018 all medical cannabis grows will require a state permit. Which requires a county permit first. (and county permit here (and pretty much everywhere in nor-cal) requires compliance with the North Coast Regional Water Board.

I'm not quite sure what your point is? It seems you are the one not paying attention...

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

What seems odd to me is why dispensaries, labs and transport are EXCLUDED from this tax?
This is just a tax on growers, from my understanding....
Simple answer- once the state puts "Track and Trace" into effect in 2018 the tax will shift to the distributor. For now the grow is the only place the county can place the tax without millions escaping through diversion to export. Why should labs be taxed when they are going to have a thousand fold increase in business with all cannabis having to be tested, and will only increase cost to growers? Likewise why tax transport- which will only serve to increase tax to growers? Dispensaries are already under brutal taxes from the feds (Google 280E, a nominal 70% tax...no deductions for normal business costs).

And yes- an expensive election. No other option- the next general election is nov 2018- which would result in 2+ years of an illegal industry.
It is not the counties fault no one submitted an opposition.
And not the counties fault the state requires a 2/3rds vote to put the $ to a specific purpose rather then a 50%+1 vote to pass a general tax.

[rossmen]

We are NOT talking about Prop 64- which is a LONG was from implementation. We are talking about MCRSA (Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act) - which supercedes the pathetic 215....Doesn't 64 supercede mcrsa? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I really am here to just learn. Sorry you find my stupid challenging questions annoying. I suspect pot law is confusing for everyone since it is changing so quickly and highly politicized. Must be a difficult business to be in.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

Doesn't 64 supercede mcrsa? Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I really am here to just learn. Sorry you find my stupid challenging questions annoying. I suspect pot law is confusing for everyone since it is changing so quickly and highly politicized. Must be a difficult business to be in.


Nope- 64 does not supercede MCRSA- they are two completely different animals. Set up and regulation under 64 is still a ways off (and will likely be slowed even more by Spicers comments yesterday).

For the forseeable future, all we are talking about is medical cannabis- not "adult use"/Recreational.

No apologies needed, except maybe from me. Stressful times, especially loosing hundreds and hundreds of hours of work time to having to attend meetings, write letters, and network with people. So sorry if I come across harsh or arrogant at times...

[Barry]

Here's the SonomaWest article on the cannabis tax proposal:

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2017-02-27_17-25-20.png (https://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_west_times_and_news/)
Measure A seeks tax on cannabis
By Amie Windsor Staff Writer [email protected] Feb 26, 2017

Thttps://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2017-02-27_20-37-55.pngax could generate $6.3 million

Should cannabis be taxed at 10 percent?

That’s the question the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors is asking constituents on March 7 during a special election.

In the simplest of terms, Measure A would impose a business tax on both medical and recreational cannabis businesses located in unincorporated Sonoma County. The tax would be applicable to all commercial cannabis-related businesses, from the grower through supply chain operators. The funds collected from the tax would feed into county’s general fund.

Proposed tax rates are as follows: for operators, including manufacturers, nurseries, distributors, transporters, labs and dispensaries, the maximum tax rate is 10 percent of gross receipt sales. Starting points for supply chain operator taxes would be 5 percent for manufacturers and 0 percent for all others. Measure A also imposes a cultivation tax at maximum rates of $10 per square foot for outdoor cultivators, $38 per square foot for indoor cultivators and $22 per square foot for mixed-light cultivators.

The county tax would be tacked onto taxes already imposed by the state. Under Proposition 64, the Adult Use Marijuana Act that legalized recreational cannabis in November, the state will tax nonmedical sales at 15 percent. Additionally, Prop. 64 imposes a cultivation tax on all cannabis at a rate of $9.25 per ounce for flowers and $2.75 per ounce for leaves.

The county has said the funds will be used to “address the risk and adverse impacts of legalized cannabis in Sonoma County while also maintaining the existing general governmental services that the County funds,” according to a staff report dispersed at the Dec. 6 Board of Supervisors meeting. The staff report states that fees imposed on cannabis businesses can recover costs associated with issuing permits, inspections and compliance monitoring. However, the fees cannot be used to fund other costs such as code or law enforcement, policy development, health impacts and education and potential environmental cleanup.

That’s where the tax comes in.

The county plans to use the tax to address costs associated with the new industry in order to ensure funding is not funneled away from other vital county services. However, as a general tax with no specified expenditures attached to it, the county can use the revenue generated from cannabis sales and cultivation — estimated to be roughly $6.3 million — on any county initiative. Examples include roads repair and improvements, according to a fact sheet distributed by the county’s cannabis ad hoc committee.

Although there is no formal opposition language on the ballot, ...

Continues here
(https://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_west_times_and_news/news/measure-a-seeks-tax-on-cannabis/article_c730518c-fadd-11e6-b752-e3a9bd30c6a0.html)

[Sieglinde]

I wonder if it goes into the General fund because there is less of a supermajority needed to pass a general fund tax proposal. I do prefer to see taxes on specific industries go to deal with the issues around those industries. But the slogan Pot for Pot Holes really did mean that the tax was thought of as going into the general revenue.


Here's the SonomaWest article on the cannabis tax proposal:
...
The county plans to use the tax to address costs associated with the new industry in order to ensure funding is not funneled away from other vital county services. However, as a general tax with no specified expenditures attached to it, the county can use the revenue generated from cannabis sales and cultivation — estimated to be roughly $6.3 million — on any county initiative. Examples include roads repair and improvements, according to a fact sheet distributed by the county’s cannabis ad hoc committee. ...
(https://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_west_times_and_news/news/measure-a-seeks-tax-on-cannabis/article_c730518c-fadd-11e6-b752-e3a9bd30c6a0.html)

[Barry]

I wonder if it goes into the General fund because there is less of a supermajority needed to pass a general fund tax proposal.
I presume so.


But the slogan Pot for Pot Holes really did mean that the tax was thought of as going into the general revenue.
That was Noreen Evan's slogan. She wasn't elected. The current tax proposal was made before Lynda Hopkins was seated on the BOS.

[eggplant]

Sunday's Press Democrat Letter to Editor:
Passage of Measure A would result in more pot being grown in the county on even-larger factory farms, more exposure of our children to this dangerous THC drug and more crime in the county as most pot growers are forced deeper underground. It would weaken the local economy, send our money to out-of-state corporate interests and make CBD, the only effective epilepsy medicine, harder to get.

Passage of Measure A would give the empire-building county more money to rescue its pensions, pay for more bureaucratic bloat and more law enforcement to fight an increase in prohibition-driven crime (as opposed to pot-driven crime) and to spend on anything else they want.

We rightly rejected other general fund tax measures like the so-called road-repair tax a couple of years ago.They are up to the same misleading tricks - rushing into spending $400,000 on a no-opposition-statement election designed to circumvent the two-thirds-majority rule. Has anything changed so we can now trust them to spend the tax revenues the way they promise? Nothing I can see.

Make sure you vote, and make sure you vote NO. - ALEXANDER CARPENTER, Santa Rosa

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

I wonder if it goes into the General fund because there is less of a supermajority needed to pass a general fund tax proposal. I do prefer to see taxes on specific industries go to deal with the issues around those industries. >snip<


Indeed, that is the case. CA really shot themselves in the foot requiring a 2/3's vote for taxes for special purposes as opposed to 50%+1vote for general fund.... especially given the general animosity towards taxes and the general fund.

But...to be clear, we are talking about a tax whose revenues are going to grow exponetially over the next decade...and putting it to a specific purpose would likely have been a mistake in that light.

But of course- we all like to whine. Not many actually want to pay attention and be involved- and actually hold our government accountable (or even share their views with them). It's far easier to whine in the comments section of the PD. What's the old line about people getting the government they deserve?

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

>snip<
Should cannabis be taxed at 10 percent? >snip<


(https://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_west_times_and_news/news/measure-a-seeks-tax-on-cannabis/article_c730518c-fadd-11e6-b752-e3a9bd30c6a0.html)


I do find the article dishonest and fear-mongering. The proposal is not a 10% tax - that is what the BOS, in theory, could raise it to at some point in the future.

And yes- I'd be much happier if there was language requiring a supermajority rather then simple majority in the BOS.

That said- the initial proposed rates are relatively fair for the state. Better then the rates (or at least initial rates) in OR, WA, and CO.

This industry still battles the perception that we're all rich. I made more money, by far, in the private sector. But I've also abided by the spirit of prop 215 and sb420...and to be fair- erred on the side of caution of these laws that never made what we do legal- just gave us, at least some, "legal defense". While a lot got rich rolling the dice and going big, while many more brought in a lot of extra income- both often by producing for out of state markets in defiance of both the intent and the letter of the law.

I'll admit- I'm scared s*****ss. I welcome the regs and taxes. But also admit it is a steep curve, and that I'm going to have a very, very rough couple of years. But If I can make it through this journey into the "real world"... I'll have the ability to expand without putting my family and my workers at risk.

I don't think we will ever see the 10% tax rate for small farmers- not unless the new realities show it can be supported. A major problem right now is that for the last two decades keeping records was a huge risk. So there is very little clear data for this industry. This will change over the next few years- and the county will realize that for most "family farms" the taxes are a very real burden. They will also likely realize that for the financially backed huge grows, with their economies of scale and low wages, that higher taxes ARE appropriate.

[sharingwisdom]

All signs point to a corporate takeover of the marijuana industry by Bayer, Monsanto (https://www.defenddemocracy.press/all-signs-point-to-a-corporate-takeover-of-the-marijuana-industry-by-bayer-monsanto/)

Following months of negotiations and various offers, Germany-based Bayer has finally sealed the deal with Monsanto, purchasing the seed giant for $66 billion. The merger is reported to be the largest all-cash deal on record.


The purchase means a lot of things, and none of them good for consumers. For one, it strengthens the monopolization of the world’s food supply. It also means more genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and chemicals to be doused on them.


Now, some are predicting the merge could also mean the takeover of the marijuana industry. Monsanto has an intimate business relationship with Scotts Miracle-Gro, “a convicted corporate criminal– and Scott’s Miracle-Gro is trying to take over the marijuana industry,” according to Big Buds Mag.

Continues here (https://www.defenddemocracy.press/all-signs-point-to-a-corporate-takeover-of-the-marijuana-industry-by-bayer-monsanto/)

[Sieglinde]

Excellent points. If we don't like how the tax is being spent, we run for Supervisor, support candidates we prefer, go to Board of Supervisor meetings etc. The argument that the revenue goes into the general fund is probably not the best argument for or against this measure.


Indeed, that is the case. CA really shot themselves in the foot requiring a 2/3's vote for taxes for special purposes as opposed to 50%+1vote for general fund....

[Sieglinde]

The corporate take over of a popular product does not surprise me. But we have Kraft brew beer, Estate wines and other very local products here. And that sells products. People are looking for terrier even in cider now. So we could sell estate grown equivalent pot in the Emerald Triangle. Think of the difference between Budweiser Beer and Russian River Beer. Folks don't wait in line for a Bud. But Bud is popular and sold everywhere. So the same could be done with pot.


All signs point to a corporate takeover of the marijuana industry by Bayer, Monsanto

https://www.defenddemocracy.press/all-signs-point-to-a-corporate-takeover-of-the-marijuana-industry-by-bayer-monsanto/

[Barry]

The proposal is not a 10% tax - that is what the BOS, in theory, could raise it to at some point in the future.

This is a very important point! The tax rates in the measure are "MAXIMUM RATES". It's not clear to me if they will be initial rates or that this BOS will need to set them if them if the measure passes.

The proposed law clearly specifies "The Board of Supervisors may, by ordinance, decrease or increase the tax rate up to the maximum authorized rates at any time thereafter."

So any quibbling about what the right rate can be addressed by our supes at a later date. This measures just sets the maximum rates that can be accessed.

I think it is a good thing that cannabis be taxed, and I think the MAXIMUM rates that this measure establishes are a reasonable cap. Again, if the rates are too high, it will reduce revenue and bolster the black market. This measure gives the BOS the power to adjust the rates as this nascent legal market develops.

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.

[Peacetown Jonathan]

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2017-03-03_18-20-57a.png

Six Reasons to Vote No on Measure A, the “Marijuana Hypocrisy Tax”

https://www.sonomaindependent.org/six-reasons-vote-no-measure-marijuana-hypocrisy-tax/

COMMENTARY: Alcohol is far more harmful than cannabis. A 10% tax on grapes & wineries would yield far more money for the County. But that will never happen.

Jonathan Greenberg
(https://www.sonomaindependent.org/author/editor/)March 2, 2017

https://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2017-03-03_18-59-24.pnghttps://www.WaccoBB.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2017-03-03_18-55-31.pngcohol is far more harmful than cannabis. (https://www.salon.com/2015/07/08/7_facts_that_prove_alcohol_is_way_more_dangerous_than_marijuana/) A 10% tax on grapes & wineries would yield far more money for the County. But that will never happen. Why, then, should we force the emerging cannabis industry into a huge tax and regulatory environment that would penalize local small growers, force many underground, and escalate the unwanted police, prison and probation war on marijuana?


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. The unspoken truth is that cannabis will ALREADY be taxed like alcohol, from the existing 9 to 9.5% sales tax (which fills the coffers of local, county and state government). In addition, legal cannabis businesses, like wineries, will pay real estate, corporate, income and payroll taxes just like every other normal businesses. There is no rationale for forcing those in this embryonic, fast growing, jobs creating industry to be singled out and be taxed extra.
Hypocrisy busting time: Imagine a 10% tax on hundreds of millions of grape growers across the County. And a tax on the billion dollar wine industry. This would raise at least ten times the $6 million which Measure A aims to collect. Yet we know that our Supervisors would never even discuss placing such a measure on the ballot. One explanation for this double standard: hypocrisy.
The public has spoken: about 60% of Sonoma County voters cast their ballots for full legalization last November. We, the People, want Sheriff Dept. SWAT teams to bust down fewer doors and terrorize and imprison fewer of our neighbors, not more of them.
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. Enough already! Growers want cannabis to be treated like grapes and agriculture, (https://www.merryjane.com/news/mendocino-ballot-af) subject to civil fines and inspections, not militarized raids and outrageous asset forfeiture laws (https://endforfeiture.com/). We want a peace dividend from stopping the escalation of prison, probation and police costs, not more reasons to bust our fellow Americans.
The way this got on the ballot without time for opposition statements represents sleazy backroom County Supervisor politics at its worse. When was the last time we saw that happen? Yet the Sonoma County Grower’s Alliance (https://www.scgalliance.com/news/measurea/) and its members overwhelmingly oppose Measure A. This suspicious process alone is sufficient reason to vote against this Marijuana Hypocrisy Tax.
Taxes like those imposed in Measure A defy the widely shared objective that Sonoma County citizens have to support locally owned small businesses. Only large cannabis agribusiness corporations will be able to afford the high taxes, accountants and lawyers that it will take to comply with the Marijuana Hypocrisy Tax. Small local farmers will be driven underground, where their “noncompliance” will lead them into the armored jaws of our criminal injustice system. This is the opposite of what We, the People, voted for on last November.

[rossmen]

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!


This is a very important point! The tax rates in the measure are "MAXIMUM RATES". It's not clear to me if they will be initial rates or that this BOS will need to set them if them if the measure passes. ...

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.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

...

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:



Cannabis is less harmful than alcohol and should be treated, regulated and taxed like wine. ...
...And a tax on the billion dollar wine industry. ...
... full legalization ...
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. ...
...without time for opposition statements represents sleazy backroom County Supervisor politics at its worse. ...
...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.

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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 )

[Ronaldo]

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.

[Barry]

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.

[Barry]

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

<style type="text/css"> p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'} </style>https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2015-10-04_15-56-29.png

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

39454Sonoma 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 (https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6731232-181/proposed-tax-on-sonoma-county?artslide=0)

[Martin]

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.


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!

[jbox]

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?

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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

[rossmen]

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.


https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2015-10-04_15-56-29.png
Proposed tax on Sonoma County pot businesses goes to voters Tuesday
...
Continues here (https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6731232-181/proposed-tax-on-sonoma-county?artslide=0)

[SonomaPatientsCoop]

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.