(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/578986_517386494938421_1950999138_n.jpg)
Marijuana legalization passes in Colorado, Washington
By Aaron Smith @CNNMoney November 7, 2012: 7:56 AM ET
QuoteAnalysts had projected the Washington voters would approve their legalization ballot, because it proposes a heavy tax for marijuana that made the proposal attractive to budget hawks. The Washington initiative calls for a 25% tax rate imposed on the product three times: when the grower sells it to the processor, when the processor sells it to the retailer, and when the retailer sells it to the customer.
The Colorado approval was more of a surprise, since the polls were split ahead of the vote.
Voters shot down a third legalization referendum, in Oregon, which was expected. Analysts had projected that it wouldn't go through and criticized various aspects of the initiative, especially the fact that it would have handed most of the regulating power in the marijuana industry to the growers rather than independent overseers.
There were half a dozen marijuana referendums in total, with three of them proposing legalization for recreational purposes, and the others dealing with medical marijuana.
Massachusetts voters approved a referendum legalizing medical marijuana, while Arkansas voters shot down a similar proposal. Montana voters approved a referendum to place restrictions on its existing medical marijuana laws.
Meanwhile at the Denver Zoo...
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/558779_3834990563007_1417513808_n.jpg)
Given that this forum is still dominated by brits, I doubt there are many who are upset here. Relieved, maybe. That said, the results -when you dig deeper, as in the state & local elections- point to a strangely split vote. At the national level, we have a continuation of a government that will only be mostly deadlocked. Still, the radically conservative were largely defeated. Elizabeth Warren in Mass. may turn out to be significant. And Florida defeated all the conservative ballot initiatives ...that's sorta odd.
I predict this thread will not last long. It'd be nice if we could keep a cold, rational, and constructive discourse here but that's not the nature of politics.
<added>
Oh, I forgot. If anyone you know is moving to Canada because of the vote, tell them I'm offering 10cents on the dollar for their assets.
I agree, but if so, let's start a new one - it shouldn't start like this.
Honestly, I was just talking about weed becoming legal in 2 States and the economic consequences of such a ground breaking event, where you clearly see a fight between the Federal Government and the States.... not really about being upset about who's President.
I'm looking forward to hearing about the impact of the 3x tax on it. Many, including Richard Branson, believe this is the direction to head in. Any ideas how much this will cost to the end user and how it would compare to beer or spirits?
This is going to be a state's rights issue. As I've mentioned to another here who brought it up privately, Obama has been oddly anti-pot so far. It doesn't fit his profile to come down so hard on legalization. That said, my cynical side says that he used that position to appease conservatives. It wouldn't cost him much within his own base.
The 420 guys still have to get past the federal law, curious what that will look like.
The election results didn't really matter long term, IMO. Neither of them really seem in tune with reality or willing (able?) to tackle the real financial problems we face.
Reddit is starting to realize that the state pot laws don't really do much until the feds change their laws. Drug tests for employment, for instance, won't change. Driving while impaired (DUI) enforcement won't change. Possession isn't the only problem with pot.
Quote from: rcjordan on November 07, 2012, 04:01:24 PM
This is going to be a state's rights issue.
Yeah, this is going to make the state/fed fight over medical marijuana in California look like a kindergarten spitting contest. It's an interesting issue, because "states' rights" has traditionally been a Republican cause while legalizing pot has not been, shall we say, a galvanizing issue among Republicans. Meanwhile Democracts are generally more pro-pot (even if notable Democrats "didn't inhale"), but have traditionally been less receptive to states' rights arguments.
QuoteReddit is starting to realize that the state pot laws don't really do much until the feds change their laws.
As someone who lives in a national park, I can say that no matter what pot laws get passed in California, it wouldn't change my life because there are places and situations in every state where federal code applies.
I don't have strong opinions on this issue (basically feel like if alcohol is legal, pot should be too, but I'm not a pot smoker, so I'm more interested in it as fiscal and social policy than, uh, household policy). But I gotta agree with RC that this is going to be interesting to watch and this will play out over many years and will vary a lot depending on the political winds in Washington.
Legalising and taxing makes sense to me. It's certainly not a habit that's going to go away. Legalising it may help keep kids away from a certain kind of person who may offer them 'harder' things.
I'd love to see some projections of how much tax income it'd create.
I do say it as an ex-smoker of the stuff. I consider myself too old and responsible (as a parent) to have another go. For a good % of teens in many countries it's just part of growing up and getting that rebellious streak out of them. Alcohol on the other hand, I have no problems in partaking.......
>taxing makes sense to me
Me, too. To paraphrase something I once heard in the tourism industry, I'm more than willing to let the suckers who can't stay out of the mini-fridge subsidize my room. Lottery tickets, cigarettes, pot... bring on the sin taxes!
The parallels between the violence during prohibition and the drug cartels makes me think that legalizing the softer stuff and medicalizing the hard is the way to go. The fed needs to back down on this IMO.
I have to admit, I find this fascinating. I also agree with all the thoughts posted, for sure, but to me, I don't even care about whether they make it legal or not, I'm interested in this debate because of the State vs Federal conflict.
A good buddy from high school's older brother has been making millions in CO with dispensaries. We should build some websites (for in-state purchase) and ship through UPS:) I'm pretty sure it's just 'company policy' not to ship drugs, but what are they going to do now? It's not illegal so no 'Town Deputy' or 'State Trooper' will touch it... and the Federal Government wont prosecute - and they surely aren't going to start with something less than an ounce.
So what are they going to do, besides smoke it?
From what I understand, and I don't fallow it closely, there have been a few fed crackdowns on the medical-marijuana establishments in California.
Ok then, what if we set up shop in UK? Then form a CO corporation owned by the UK corporation... that drop shipped weed online, and shipped it via UPS in plain brown paper wrapped boxes, but only in CO? Would we be violating any laws? I guess international drug trafficking? But a uk company could legally own a US based corporation, as long as that corporation acted according to State law, right?
I don't know, I just think it's interesting idea. I wouldn't do it because I'm not a fan of Federal Penitentiaries and it would be my luck to rank for 'marijuana' the day the Feds start their research:)
as of 3 hrs ago, the States were still awaiting a Federal response...
http://news.yahoo.com/colo-wash-await-federal-response-pot-measure-202557189.html
Quote from: dogboy on November 09, 2012, 10:05:57 PM
Ok then, what if we set up shop in UK?
then you'd get arrested under UK law instead of US law.
I expect, if it were doable, someone would have been running this from The Netherlands by now.
>netherlands
Oddly ennough, Amsterdam has been shifting to an anti-pot stance over the last 2 years. There was a big uproar about tourists not being able to go to the coffee houses.
>then you'd get arrested under UK law
I'm sure you are right, but I don't know UK law, so what part would be issue?
It is legal for people to incorporate in the UK
It is legal for a UK corp to own a US corp.
It is legal for a US corp to do whatever is legal under state law, because corps are a US State concoction, not a Federal Govt convention.
...so no law was broken in the UK.
If anything, the US corp would get in trouble with the US Federal government... but a US corp, operating under US State Law, can't possibly be breaking UK law, so who exactly would get arrested? and what UK law would be broken?
Just have it pressed into the form of a gun a la Cheech & Chong's ice cream truck... but have it painted in pink to disguise it as a toy. You can't actually buy it, but it can only be gifted via iphone app, through facebook and paid via paypal, with optional charity bonus gift to the Red Cross.
Totally legal, I think. But I'm not a lawyer.
Sorry...
ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL, Dras - I just spit a mimosa out my nose!!!!
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/18229_549967101696769_947253220_n.jpg)
>so who exactly would get arrested?
Whoever is in possession and trafficking/buying/selling. You need to wait 20 years until robots could handle all that for you.
Hey, I swear I'm not really trying to be argumentative here; I'm genuinely trying to better understand the ramifications of these amendments... a mental exercise... so humor me if you will, just for fun. Because what we have here is a huge inconsistency in what up to now has been a uniform governmental stance on clearly delineated laws. And where there are inconsistencies, there are loopholes - the bigger the inconsistency, the bigger the loopholes. And where their is loopholes, there is exploitation... and exploitation, money. And given the subject matter, the revenue generated from it, and the sheer size of this 'loophole' (if you really want to call it that) there are million dollar ideas that are just laying about, waiting for people to figure them out.
In other words, the chances of me finding a defensible angle somewhere in all this (even if I'm not going to act on it) is actually quite good, because the chances of definitively shutting me down are no longer 100%... which means this is actually far from being as clearcut a case, as it may seem at first glance.
>Whoever is in possession and trafficking/buying/selling.But as long as the people in possession and trafficking/buying/selling are in CO, and selling to people in CO, UK authorities have no jurisdiction, and State Authorities cannot charge them, because they only enforce State Law. Agreed?
So the drug dealer only needs to be concerned about US Federal law. So if the corporation and hosting is offshore, and orders from the website were sent directly to drop shippers emails, also offshore, and money collected offshore, the only poor bastard that is going to get arrested is the 'Registered Agent' that gets paid $99/yr, who again isn't dealing drugs, and has no say in what the corporation does, just the responsibility to keep the corporation compliant with state rules governing corporations.... which means nothing is going to happen to him either.
Quote
In American English the word corporation is widely used to describe incorporated entities, especially those that have a large number of shareholders, and in respect of which, ownership can be transferred without the need for the consent of other shareholders. In British English and in the commonwealth countries, the term public company is more widely used to describe the same sort of entity while the word company encompasses all incorporated entities. In American English, the word company can include entities such as partnerships that would not be referred to as companies in British English as they are not a separate legal entity.
Despite not being natural persons, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like natural persons ("people"). Corporations can exercise human rights against real individuals and the state,[4][5] and they can themselves be responsible for human rights violations.[6] Corporations can be "dissolved" either by statutory operation, order of court, or voluntary action on the part of shareholders. Insolvency may result in a form of corporate failure, when creditors force the liquidation and dissolution of the corporation under court order,[7] but it most often results in a restructuring of corporate holdings. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offenses, such as fraud and manslaughter. However corporations are not considered living entities in the way that humans are.[8]
Formation
Historically, corporations were created by a charter granted by government. Today, corporations are usually registered with the state, province, or national government and regulated by the laws enacted by that government. Registration is the main prerequisite to the corporation's assumption of limited liability. The law sometimes requires the corporation to designate its principal address, as well as a registered agent (a person or company designated to receive legal service of process). It may also be required to designate an agent or other legal representative of the corporation.[citation needed]
Generally, a corporation files articles of incorporation with the government, laying out the general nature of the corporation, the amount of stock it is authorized to issue, and the names and addresses of directors. Once the articles are approved, the corporation's directors meet to create bylaws that govern the internal functions of the corporation, such as meeting procedures and officer positions.[citation needed]
The law of the jurisdiction in which a corporation operates will regulate most of its internal activities, as well as its finances. If a corporation operates outside its home state, it is often required to register with other governments as a foreign corporation, and is almost always subject to laws of its host state pertaining to employment, crimes, contracts, civil actions, and the like.
One weak point I see here is that the goods would need to cross other states to reach Colorado and their laws might not be nearly so accommodating.
>the goods would need to cross other states
Right, I didn't say you could ship from CO to, say, WA; I said as long as the Colorado based Corp that is in possession/trafficking/buying/selling is located in CO... and are selling to people in CO.... everything stays in CO, and is viewed according to CO State Law.
But, yeah, if you try to go outside the State, you'd get into trouble for trafficking, even if you shipped via UPS airfreight from CO to WA.
Oh, I guess for those that don't know - CO grows some of the finest weed, mostly indoors. So they don't need to import from California or Mexico or NV or OR or.... just about any State where it's still illegal but grown in abundance.
A good read and listen for you DB, very interesting stuff the way its breaking down.
http://www.npr.org/2012/11/13/164981433/legalizing-and-regulating-pot-a-growth-industry
You'd better get savvy on using bitcoin for transactions, the fed will shut down credit cards on this.
>bitcoin for transactions
ahahhah great idea.
>the fed will shut down credit cards on this
The CCs are going to hate that.... all that money not going through their dirty fingers... they will be beside themselves.
>http://www.npr.org/2012/11/13/164981433/legalizing-and-regulating-pot-a-growth-industry
I'm headed there in a minute... but like I said, I'm not going to go this direction - I already have my hands full. And as my old high school friend said to me... after he formed his opinion about my PinkGun/NEDG project... 'Say hi to Dante for me'
:)