Massachusetts bill to legalize + tax marijuana[views:7189][posts:32]_____________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 11:50am - arilliusbm ""] Not sure if anyone has posted this or heard this yet... but MA is now doing what CA proposed for marijuana. from http://www.norml.org http://blog.norml.org/2009/03/23/norml-bre...-bills-introduced-in-massachusetts/ Taxing & Regulating Marijuana: As we noted previously this week, a pair of bills — House Bill 2929 and Senate Bill 1801 — seeking to “tax and regulate the cannabis industry” have been introduced in the Massachusetts legislature. You can show your support for these measures at http://capwiz.com/norml2/issues/alert/?alertid=12975651 |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 12:33pm - niccolai ""] for persons over 21? bull shit. an 18 year old can die in your military, but he can't smoke a little pot. |
| _____________________________ [Mar 29,2009 1:05pm - pam ""] Hey, it's fucking something niccolai, way to be a negative nancy. Won't pass though. -Other Negative Nancy. |
| ___________________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 1:11pm - FuckIsMySignature ""] yay i cant wait to pay $20 more for pot! |
| _________________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 1:32pm - orgymaggotfeast ""] niccolai said:for persons over 21? bull shit. an 18 year old can die in your military, but he can't smoke a little pot. while i agree with that sentiment, i think the logic behind setting the age at 21 is because if they set it at 18, it may set a precident that would make people want to lower the drinking age to 18 as well. (which again, i also feel that if you can "go to war and fight - and possibly die - for your country, you should be allowed to enjoy beer - or whatever -) |
| _________________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 1:34pm - orgymaggotfeast ""] FuckIsMySignature said:yay i cant wait to pay $20 more for pot! better it be legalized. would you rather pay an expenisve fine for it, or taxes? (which - by the way - i have always strongly believed that legalizing and taxing weed and prostitution would be wonderful for the economy) not to mention the fact that they can still arrest you for dealing, growing, and/or having more than an ounce on you |
| _______________________________ [Mar 29,2009 1:36pm - sever ""] I don't see the correlation between drinking age and military age. They have nothing in common, and it's ridiculous that people try to argue in opposition to the drinking age with the military age as logic. That's like arguing that you you should make the speed limit on a dangerous backroad 55 mph because that's what it is on Rt 2. |
| ______________________________ [Mar 29,2009 1:38pm - Lamp ""] The one thing that has always made me skeptical about the legalization of weed is that any weed sanctioned by the government would probably be far less potent. But Orgy drives home the winning point. More expensive weed > much more expensive fines. |
| _______________________________ [Mar 29,2009 1:53pm - sever ""] I don't understand why everyone argues that legalization means government involvement in the industry. Yes, cig companies will probably try to sell spliffs and packaged joints, which understandably, will suck. But that doesn't mean that dispensary operations won't start popping up. This doesnt prohibit individual growing either. There is a much larger connoisseur market for cannabis than there is for tobacco, so I can envision a much less disgusting industry than the tobacco peddlers. |
| _______________________________ [Mar 29,2009 1:54pm - sever ""] All government is concerned about is tax dollars. Higher taxes on more potent weed is unavoidable, but that doesn't mean potent weed will cease to exist. You'll still be popping out 400 dollars a zip for the good stuff because of the taxes, but at least it would hypothetically be completely legal. |
| ______________________________ [Mar 29,2009 1:57pm - Lamp ""] You honestly don't think the government would try and legalize pot in a way that would prohibit people from growing their own and only permitting it to be bought at a store? |
| _______________________________ [Mar 29,2009 2:03pm - sever ""] It's possible but unlikely. I'm pretty sure it specifically states in the law that those participating in growing for personal use or non-profit transfers are exempt from taxation and licensing laws. |
| __________________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 4:04pm - corpus_colostomy ""] niccolai said:for persons over 21? bull shit. an 18 year old can die in your military, but he can't smoke a little pot. nor can he drink. seems basic. |
| ___________________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 5:05pm - grizloch‘slaptop ""] [Mar 29,2009 1:57pm - Lamp] You honestly don't think the government would try and legalize pot in a way that would prohibit people from growing their own and only permitting it to be bought at a store? What he said, there is absolutely no way that "legalizing" marijuana would mean that anyone can grow and sell it, everything that pot smokers do, save actually putting the smoke in their lungs, would still be illegal, the only shit that would be legal and taxable is weak strains at the local minimart (provided the honchos that own the stores don't find it immoral, a.k.a. the mass conservative protests and boycotts of their establishments would be a bigger loss than selling marijuana is a gain) I don't smoke pot, I have nothing to lose and everything to gain from taxing pot, but even if this is a step in the right direction, what most baked through pot smoking hippie types hope for will never, ever, happen, ever. |
| __________________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 5:50pm - corpus_colostomy ""] grizloch‘slaptop said:what most baked through pot smoking hippie types hope for will never, ever, happen, ever. and now the reciprocal logic: "what most 'educated', grounded, realistic types say wont happen will def happen." both statements are retarded. talking about the future with any degree of certainty, especially relative to this country's future = fail. |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 11:04pm - niccolai ""] corpus_colostomy said: niccolai said:for persons over 21? bull shit. an 18 year old can die in your military, but he can't smoke a little pot. nor can he drink. seems basic. Not comparable. Drinking is actually dangerous. people under 21 are statistically very likely to drive drunk. That perticular age group is statistically likely to be involved in an accident even without alchohol presant. (which is why car insurence is so high for people under 21) Legalizing alchohol for that age group would obviously increase the likelihood of fatalities in an age group thats already accident prone. Pot isn't as harmful behind the wheel of a car. |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 11:06pm - niccolai ""] sever said:I don't see the correlation between drinking age and military age. They have nothing in common, and it's ridiculous that people try to argue in opposition to the drinking age with the military age as logic. That's like arguing that you you should make the speed limit on a dangerous backroad 55 mph because that's what it is on Rt 2. once again, not comparable. pot doesn't kill people. legalizing an outrageous speed limit on a dangerous road is likely to cause fatality. pot isn't dangerous to a 20 year old marine, nor a 21 year old marine. |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 11:11pm - niccolai ""] also, i don't see the government getting too involved with controlling potency and oversight. that's something the agricultural and tobacco will produce, the government will just tax it. if the government grew the weed themselves, it would cut into into industry, create syn tax, and not bennefit the economy in any way, just the empire. soviet russia anyone? in order for it to work, 3rd party companies would haveto grow the plant, and on a large enough scale for everyone to benefit from it in the form of hemp oil, ethanol, and drug use. This would create jobs, stimulate economy, expand buisiness, and generate tax revenue. This won't likely happen on a respectable scale in the near future due to the mid west's dependency on corn subsidies for ethonol, and our healthcare industried greed. in the mean time, it would be nice if people over 18 could get a little high and lower the amount of state taxes I pay at the same time. |
| ________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 11:52pm - sever ""] niccolai said: sever said:I don't see the correlation between drinking age and military age. They have nothing in common, and it's ridiculous that people try to argue in opposition to the drinking age with the military age as logic. That's like arguing that you you should make the speed limit on a dangerous backroad 55 mph because that's what it is on Rt 2. once again, not comparable. pot doesn't kill people. legalizing an outrageous speed limit on a dangerous road is likely to cause fatality. pot isn't dangerous to a 20 year old marine, nor a 21 year old marine. I never mentioned pot there. My example was poor, I'm not denying that haha, but I was just saying, drinking age is a completely different issue than military age. The age someone is responsible enough to fight isn't necessarily the same as being responsible enough to get stupid and stay out of trouble. it should be common knowledge that i'm a huge stoner by now hahah. if anything, i'd be making posts in favor of pot. |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 29,2009 11:56pm - niccolai ""] you're right about that, you can't use the military age as a good reason for lowering drinking age, but it is legitimate when talking about pot, since it's not really harmfull. You should be able to smoke weed at 18, since you're no longer in your parents legal care. You're responsible for your own well-being at that point, and you're not likely to cause fatalities under the influence. So yes, I think if you're old enough to kill for your zionist government, they should return the favor and let you loosen up with a little puff puff give. |
| ___________________________________________ [Mar 30,2009 1:30am - grizloch‘slaptop ""] obviously SOMEONE hasn't seen any of the "above the influence" public service announcements... in addition, if you're operating under the assumption that the government wouldn't regulate the quality of the product that third party companies would produce, you're high... just because the issue isn't morally charged for you doesn't mean that all of the parents that buy into the psa bullshit aren't going to flip shit about it once again, I have no personal or moral attachment to either argument, I'm just stating the facts of the non-stoner (not my own) predisposition against the unregulated-weed dream world that some people wish they could live in, using 'educated' estimations toward the future based on the attitude and practice of the majority of this country's ludicrously and consistently irrational population in the present and past I suppose we can't help but dream though, good luck Massachusetts' marijuana enthusiasts, truthfully I hope it works out for you |
| __________________________________ [Mar 30,2009 1:46am - niccolai ""] I'm speaking idealistically, I guess. |
| ______________________________ [Mar 30,2009 2:12am - Lamp ""] I would agree with what you think will happen with pot legalization if the government did practical things all the time but I just don't have enough faith in government to make marijuana laws that make any sense. |
| _______________________________________ [Mar 30,2009 10:13am - orgymf@work ""] sever said:I don't understand why everyone argues that legalization means government involvement in the industry. Yes, cig companies will probably try to sell spliffs and packaged joints, which understandably, will suck. But that doesn't mean that dispensary operations won't start popping up. This doesnt prohibit individual growing either. There is a much larger connoisseur market for cannabis than there is for tobacco, so I can envision a much less disgusting industry than the tobacco peddlers. maybe...but chances are, it will be illegal to sell homegrown weed once it's legalized (just like it's illegal to sell homebrewed beer)....but i am sure you'll be able to grow your own |
| _______________________________________ [Mar 30,2009 10:14am - orgymf@work ""] sever said:I don't see the correlation between drinking age and military age. it's simple, if you are old enough to "die for your country" why the fuck can't you have a drink or a toke? dying by gunshot or carbomb is far worse than liver damage. logic seems simple/solid to me |
| _______________________________________ [Mar 30,2009 10:19am - orgymf@work ""] niccolai said: corpus_colostomy said: niccolai said:for persons over 21? bull shit. an 18 year old can die in your military, but he can't smoke a little pot. nor can he drink. seems basic. Not comparable. Drinking is actually dangerous. people under 21 are statistically very likely to drive drunk. That perticular age group is statistically likely to be involved in an accident even without alchohol presant. (which is why car insurence is so high for people under 21) Legalizing alchohol for that age group would obviously increase the likelihood of fatalities in an age group thats already accident prone. Pot isn't as harmful behind the wheel of a car. pot is more harmful than most potheads want to believe and less harmful than most anti-pot ads want you to believe. period. see that resin in your bowl/bong/whatever? that's tar. it's in your lungs too. by the way, ANY smoke (cigs, pot, crack) is bad for you. and although many pot smokers think they drive better when stoned, i have seen many many potheads who believe exactly that, and they drive like retards when they are baked, accidentally blowing stop lights, less attentive, etc. stop trying to make it seem innocent and harmless. but regardless of that, it should be legal and taxed, and 21 should be the age (unless they lower the drinking age) |
| __________________________________ [Mar 30,2009 10:20am - darkwor ""] As part of the provisions of the bill, homegrown weed for personal use/sales will NOT be taxed. Obviously if they can't enforce it now... This may affect market price for independent growers/sellers. Supplies will be higher and demand will be lower. Do the math. |
| __________________________________ [Mar 30,2009 10:30am - darkwor ""] For all you under 21ers...you'll still have no problem getting weed, my personal belief is you shouldn't smoke under 21 anyway, I wouldn't let my non-existent kids smoke, I would let them drink a beer before they touched pot. You should grow up before taking mind altering substances imho. It's easier to develop bad habits when you're a wee lad. And orgy is right - smoke is bad for you no matter what it is, but compared to cigs or anything else you can smoke, pot has the least negative effects...clean that bowl son. |
| _______________________________ [Mar 30,2009 10:33am - Yeti ""] darkwor said:For all you under 21ers...you'll still have no problem getting weed, my personal belief is you shouldn't smoke under 21 anyway, I wouldn't let my non-existent kids smoke, I would let them drink a beer before they touched pot. You should grow up before taking mind altering substances imho. It's easier to develop bad habits when you're a wee lad. i totally agree. you can't pump your brain full of mind-altering substances when its at its key developmental stages and not expect a huge impact. hence why teenagers now are fucking retarded and will grow up to be as equally retarded. |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 30,2009 10:33am - DYA NLI ""] Orgy: I can confirm that carbombs have been responsible for way more sketchy automotive situations than weed, at least in my experience. LOL |
| __________________________________ [Mar 30,2009 2:39pm - niccolai ""] orgymf@work said: niccolai said: corpus_colostomy said: niccolai said:for persons over 21? bull shit. an 18 year old can die in your military, but he can't smoke a little pot. nor can he drink. seems basic. Not comparable. Drinking is actually dangerous. people under 21 are statistically very likely to drive drunk. That perticular age group is statistically likely to be involved in an accident even without alchohol presant. (which is why car insurence is so high for people under 21) Legalizing alchohol for that age group would obviously increase the likelihood of fatalities in an age group thats already accident prone. Pot isn't as harmful behind the wheel of a car. pot is more harmful than most potheads want to believe and less harmful than most anti-pot ads want you to believe. period. see that resin in your bowl/bong/whatever? that's tar. it's in your lungs too. by the way, ANY smoke (cigs, pot, crack) is bad for you. and although many pot smokers think they drive better when stoned, i have seen many many potheads who believe exactly that, and they drive like retards when they are baked, accidentally blowing stop lights, less attentive, etc. stop trying to make it seem innocent and harmless. but regardless of that, it should be legal and taxed, and 21 should be the age (unless they lower the drinking age) I was talking more about road fatalities, and just all around judgment when under the influence. when people get high, it generally doesn't cause them to get into bar fights, abuse spouses, run redlights, etc. putting anything in your lungs is obviously harmful, but it's something you should be able to choose for yourself when you're 18 and no longer legally under your parents care. It's not the governments job to tell you when the exact second you're mature enough to be able to smoke pot is. besides, the 18-21 year old market is probably one of the bigger pot smoking demographs and would be a good chunk of tax revenue. |
| ____________________________________ [Mar 30,2009 3:19pm - W3 @ work ""] so when can I buy my newport high lifes |
| ___________________________________ [Mar 30,2009 11:56pm - Dankill ""] Lamp said:You honestly don't think the government would try and legalize pot in a way that would prohibit people from growing their own and only permitting it to be bought at a store? Much in the same respect that now that anti smoking measures are the cool thing in goverment, they keep on passing new laws to tax the fuck out of tabacco products and spend insane amounts on money telling people it's bad for them. Of course the goverment will be involved. They want to be involved in everything so they can fuck it up for everyone else. |