I thought it sounded like a pretty good initiative until I read this line... "Exempts marijuana sales profits from income tax.".

This is obviously a gem of The Libertarian Party, who don't believe in taxes or social responsibility.

While I fully support any measure that would legalize or decriminalize marijuana, I think taxes should be paid. This initiative is probably doomed to failure on this stipulation alone.

Growers, middle men, and dealers, make enough money to afford to pay an income tax on their profits. Many manage to live quite opulent lifestyles and are not paying any taxes on what they make now unless you count the occasional bust.

My other prediction for why this initiative will fail is political cowardice. Much like Prop 215, most politicians will avoid making a stand on this one way or the other.

I'd still vote for it, but growers and dealers should be taxed.

as is frequently the case, I agree with JRB.

That's all very fine, but who's going to take care of the quack doctors?

What's the use? If the voters pass legislation, it'll only get overturned by the unaccountable judges sitting on the courts. Gotta love the "People's" Republic of California!

While this may insulate California consumers from state police, marijuana will still be illegal under federal law, and if one state were to flagrantly announce that it will violate federal law, DOJ would probably get involved in busting and prosecuting people involved in the pot trade in California. Even I would support DOJ in doing that, and I'm very much against marijuana prohibition -- the rule of law, and the Supremacy Clause, have to mean something. And, in the worst case scenario, you would much rather go to a state jail than a federal prison.

Given that California law is among the most lenient in the country on marijuana, this could actually be counterproductive. Not trying to be a Debbie Downer here, but that's how I see it.

in the end, i think i am being swayed by your logic, jrb.

While i may not know any of them personally, there are definitely people who make their full living on growing it. and a full blown tax exemption isn't fair to everyone else who's income is not exempt.

but otherwise the shits tight as a drum.

I agree, thanks for highlighting certain things for easier skimming.

I don't smoke weed, and I don't think anyone would consider me "pro weed" but if it does get legalized - it needs to be taxed, just like alcohol and tobacco, which if would be classified with. I agree with jrb, not taxing it could make passing this harder (not that I'd be bothered either way, I'm just saying...).

But mharwitt brought up something about loose grown products. I know nothing about that...curious to find out more.

"DOJ would probably get involved in busting and prosecuting people involved in the pot trade in California."

Yup, just like they did with medical marijuana dispensaries.

I'd still like to see it happen though. California is always first state to make a move like this. Other states will follow and I don't think they have the resources to bust everyone. Don't expect any help from the vast majority of politicians. They'll lose votes from some one no matter which side they come down on, so it's best for them not to take a side.

And no Ben not all Drs who will write letters of recomendation are quacks, but many are very opportunistic about writing them.

Did a college freshman write this? Reads more like a manifesto than a proposition. It won't go anywhere.

It's potentially a win-win-win situation:

The growers are happy, despite the tax, as they'd save much more than that avoiding all of those pesky costs associated with concealing their operations from the law (and, for the unlucky ones, legal fees and revenues lost to confiscated product or jail time.) Easy to imagine big Agri-Business getting involved, which could create some interesting opportunities for growers creative enough to exercise their unique skill-set as consultants.

The state is happy: more tax revenue, less money wasted on the whole "enforcement" charade.

The consumers are happy for reasons that obviously don't have to be explained to this lot.

A win-win-win. Which is why it will never happen :)

John Gunjah
www.thinkingstoner.com

Dude that looks like some REALLY good bud! Sure would like to have a hit of it.

JT
http://www.FireMe.To/udi

My older brother was Libertartian until Hurricane Katrina. We sat and watched what happens when you have, NO GOVERNMENT. Since we have family in New Orleans, needless to say, he is no longer a Libertarian. Katrina cured him of that.

Uhhh... we have a MASSIVE government and the events of Katrina happened. If anything your brother should be MORE of a libertarian post-Katrina. I sure am.

"Imagine driving a few miles up the 101 and having to pay a toll to the company who owns one section, then you cross into some one elses' section of the 101 and have to pay a seperate toll to the company owns and maintains that section."

Oh the horror! Having to pay for the roads you use! You know who didn't want that? Henry Ford. Talk about a corporate feeding frenzy. Imagine the balanced transportation system we'd have if that was the case. No more sprawling roads to everywhere and no where. We'd likely still have the 1,000+ miles of privately owned and operated interurban rail that was killed off because of the government funded car based Nationalized Transportation System. Now we have to fight with brainless politicians and insane NIMBY's just to get a shitty piece of rail laid in order to bail out the failure that the subsidized car culture has proven itself.

All of the people on here saying that people are making their living off of selling marijuana and need to have their income from it taxed are forgetting that once it is "made legal" the price will drop. No one will be able to make a living growing marijuana and selling it without paying a large amount of their income for the $50/plant tax. I would imagine it was done this way for simplification purposes the fact that the feds would be able to access the tax records thereby eliminating the anonymous aspect of the initiative.
Also, a judge cannot overturn an initiative or referendum that was passed by the people as long as it is written correctly. This referendum/initiative process was developed in order to bypass the established legislative, legal system so that "we the people" would be able to get laws on the the books without corrupt officials being able to stop it.

"Libertarians are a bit extreme."

Not really. That view is being perpetuated by both parties in power. Libertarians just want a return to the Constitution and what it provides for. Nothing more. Where our country is now should be viewed as extreme from a Constitutional point of view. I definitely want the government, just in a more limited form. And as for Katrina, if anything it shows the ineptness of big government. Look at FEMA and the millions upon millions (close to a billion) of dollars they squandered or misappropiated.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-12-06-katrina-fraud_x.htm

I can't think of a better example to go Libertarian off the top of my head.

Paging Christopher Springer: you're the proponent for this initiative -- if you want signatures, please let us know where to sign!

"we get horse trainers running FEMA, and, yes, an inept government. 203 more days."

I totally agree paulk. FEMA was working just fine in the aftermath of the Northridge Earthquake. The failings of FEMA during Kartina had more to do with who was in charge of FEMA, and the Bush Admin's restructuring of FEMA, than it did the agency it's self.

I've done my homework on the Libertarian Party, specifically the National Platform of the Libertarian Party, adopted in May, 2008 in Denver Colorado.

Paragraph 2.0, "Economic Liberty," does not seem to allow for antitrust laws. These laws protect us from price-gouging by monopolists -- and there is historical precedent for this (in fact, that history is why antitrust laws exist).

Paragraph 2.1, "Property and Contract" allows for complete freedom to contract, meaning the government cannot set minimum working conditions, such as safety standards, maximum hours and minimum wage. I suggest Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle."

Paragraph 2.2., "Environment" gives the government no role in protecting the environment, but leaves it to private industry.

Paragraph 2.3, "Energy and Resources" is against government oversight of energy production. Let's drill in ANWR!

Paragraph 2.7, "Labor Markets" would eliminate the government's role in management-labor disputes, and return us to the pre-NLRA state of all-out wars.

Paragraph 2.8, "Education" would give total control of the education system to parents. Abstinence-only education and intelligent design are fully equal to comprehensive sex ed and Darwin.

Paragraph 2.9, "Health Care." Free market! Who would have guessed it? If you can't afford it, screw you.

Paragraph 3.5 "Rights and Discrimination." We oppose race, sex, sexual orientation, etc. BY THE GOVERNMENT. Everyone else? Have at it!

I could go on, but my fingers would get too tired. Please don't say that the market will fix all of these things if we take away the laws. The laws the Libertarians want to tear down were legitimate responses to abject market failures. We've seen what the market will provide, and I'll take a real government, thanks.

Libertarian Party = social darwinisim