| Welcome to No Mercy 4 Life. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Proposition 19 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 3 2010, 01:27 PM (850 Views) | |
| capeda | Aug 3 2010, 01:27 PM Post #1 |
![]()
NM Champ
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Kinda shocked there wasn't already a thread here regarding this topic... http://taxcannabis.org/ So uh, yeah. Cali leading the way once again. We're poised to be the first state to not only decriminalize marijuana, but to legalize it and tax it. Polls hint that overall, the state is about 55% for, 40% against, and the rest undecided. Spells a pretty decent chance this might pass, barring the fact that the demographs who support the law the most happen to be the least likely to vote. Time will tell on this one. |
CAPED A ZOMFG?!?!!?!??!?!!!?!???!
| |
![]() |
|
| Silo | Aug 3 2010, 02:19 PM Post #2 |
|
NM Legend
|
I doubt it happens
|
![]() |
|
| TomAss | Aug 3 2010, 02:22 PM Post #3 |
![]()
FLAWLESS
|
Makes sense. How much does the state poll in on alcohol and cigarette taxes? Probably a good haul. |
![]() |
|
| El Creepo H | Aug 3 2010, 02:26 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Smackdown Board President
|
Its to combat the amount of free services they give to illegal immigrants without having them deported or raising your taxes. ITS A TRAP! |
| "Those who matter don't mind and those who mind don't matter" | |
![]() |
|
| capeda | Aug 4 2010, 01:12 AM Post #5 |
![]()
NM Champ
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It actually fucks over illegals pretty hard. 60% of the Mexican drug cartel's business comes from weed. If this law passes and doesn't outright end the cartel, it will at least have been struck a crippling blow. |
CAPED A ZOMFG?!?!!?!??!?!!!?!???!
| |
![]() |
|
| USCHAMP | Aug 5 2010, 04:07 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Has no zazz
|
Isn't there already a federal tax on marijuana? I was curious to know if the medical dispensaries in Cali pay those federal taxes or not, anyone with more knowledge on the subject know the answer to that question? |
| |
![]() |
|
| TomAss | Aug 5 2010, 07:51 AM Post #7 |
![]()
FLAWLESS
|
I don't think there's a federal tax on it because federally it is still illegal (The feds were raiding the dispensaries during the Bush administration.) If you run a dispensary, you still pay federal income tax on your income, though. |
![]() |
|
| USCHAMP | Aug 6 2010, 04:48 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Has no zazz
|
I was thinking that there was a MJ Stamp Tax similar to the way tobacco is taxed that ws enacted back in the day even though it is still illegal. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you can apply for these tax stamps even to this day. |
| |
![]() |
|
| TheEyebrow | Aug 6 2010, 03:43 PM Post #9 |
![]()
NM Headliner
|
lol I don't believe they'll be using the Stamp Tax this time around. From what I understand, all the taxes are state dollars. Proposition 19 gives me a boner. |
-----The Eyebrow-----![]() | |
![]() |
|
| USCHAMP | Aug 6 2010, 10:51 PM Post #10 |
![]()
Has no zazz
|
It was called the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 and I just found my answer on wiki: "In 1969 in Leary v. United States, part of the Act was ruled to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, since a person seeking the tax stamp would have to incriminate him/herself. In response the Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The 1937 Act was repealed by the 1970 Act." So up until 1970 the Marijuana Tax Act was still legally in use, I wonder if you an buy those old tax stamps anywhere online. That would be kind of a neat thing to have if you were a sparxxxer I would think. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Silo | Aug 7 2010, 09:08 AM Post #11 |
|
NM Legend
|
Mexican cartel business drops = increased U.S. citizen kidnappings and increase # of Cartel invasions of U.S. properties like the 2 ranches in Texas they recently took over. This will only make them more violent and ruthless, in my opinion. |
![]() |
|
| capeda | Aug 7 2010, 11:20 AM Post #12 |
![]()
NM Champ
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Seems like they would rather search out more lucrative enterprises than violent invasions of the US. |
CAPED A ZOMFG?!?!!?!??!?!!!?!???!
| |
![]() |
|
| TheEyebrow | Aug 7 2010, 12:25 PM Post #13 |
![]()
NM Headliner
|
Have you ever seen a case of this happening? When prohibition of alcohol ended, all the Chicago gangs just dried up. When Switzerland started prescribing heroin to addicts, the number of new users dropped and the overall crime level as well. From those suggestions it seems pretty evident to me that drug money is the problem, not criminals in general. Claiming a drug dealer would just switch to kidnapping is like saying when you stopped smoking weed, it was for the same reason. Drug dealing isn't just some universal 'bad' thing that only 'bad' people do. I really don't buy the argument that these people will just replace one crime with another; they're after money, not the title of most evil person ever. The reason people get into drug dealing isn't cause it's hard, it's cause it's really easy money. There's a huge demand and a dearth of suppliers, that's a natural market failure and it's only logical someone would fill it in. But there's no market failure for kidnapping, so you can't just take your crime enterprise and move it to another industry. It's like saying McDonalds is rich so tomorrow they could just switch to making cars. Edited by TheEyebrow, Aug 7 2010, 12:26 PM.
|
-----The Eyebrow-----![]() | |
![]() |
|
| Silo | Aug 8 2010, 07:28 PM Post #14 |
|
NM Legend
|
You're comparing prohibition to modern day mexican drug cartels without American citizenship. These people have no real business opportunities like the American citizens had, and a lot of the American citizens joined the military to secure financial stability for their families. They are already kidnapping American children and holding them for ransoms. To think there wouldn't be an increase in that once their entire market is wiped out doesn't make a bit of sense to me. They're not going to stop being involved in these cartels, so they either move onto a new product (most likely cocaine) or take the easy way out and kidnap an American girl and make 6 figures within a week. I have sold drugs before so trust me I know all about the lifestyle and the people involved in it. You don't buy the argument that ruthless cartels losing their #1 moneymaker are going to move onto do more potentially violent crimes, easier crimes, and make more money doing it? A lot of drugdealers do not want to deal drugs, however they are put into those circumstances because they grew up underprivledged and were brought up in that lifestyle. To think 15 year old Trenton Bloods/Crips/Netas/Latin Kings are going to just stop being gangsters is unrealistic. Once you are in a gang, you need to do a lot of ruthless shit to stay in the gang and move up in rank. A lot of these kids were brought up with crackhead mothers, living on welfare, and see the government as corrupt, so they say "fuck it." This is very similar to these cartels because they are all broke as fuck and willing to do anything to set themselves and their families up with money. That's funny you bring up McDonalds because they're now advertising coffee coolatas (spending tens of millions of marketing dollars every day), which happens to be a Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks product. McDonalds was a bad example because they are ever-expanding their menu to cater to everyone and attempt to even get the healthy, well eating citizens to occasionally come to McDonalds with salads and fruit parfaits. To think unemployed, broke, and most likely lacking the basic moral values of the everyday human being wouldn't move onto an even easier moneymaker once their market is wiped out..... The only similarities between McDonalds and these cartels is that they kill people and don't give a fuck about it.
Edited by Silo, Aug 8 2010, 07:30 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| TheEyebrow | Aug 8 2010, 11:01 PM Post #15 |
![]()
NM Headliner
|
The Americans had a lot of business opportunities in the 1930's? That was the decade of highest unemployment. The reason kidnappings would stop is because cartels would no longer have a reason to hang out in the suburbs. My argument is that the cartels are there to sell drugs, not just to commit whatever crime is available. Like I said in the first post, drug money is easy; it involves two consenting parties. Kidnapping requires imprisonment, the element of surprise, and some level of safety so you don't get shot trying it. It's a lot harder finding someone willing to kidnap than to sell drugs, so it's a much more costly venture. The cartels are profit-driven, and I just don't see how kidnapping, once you factor in costs including possible death, is more lucrative than just switching your market to Europe. The fact that you sold drugs, stopped, and did NOT turn to kidnapping is exactly my point. They're not just interchangeable, even if a lot of drug dealers are bad guys. I don't think the current gangsters will stop being gangsters, they'll just move somewhere else. I know that kidnapping is within these gangs' repertoires, but the majority of kidnappings are of Mexicans. So remove from this 1. The financial incentive to travel to America coming from marijuana money, and 2. The financial resources with which to commit kidnappings, and I just don't see that trend shifting. If the gangs decide 'Hey we need to make money today with a kidnapping', why take the inconvenience and risk of traveling to America when you can just kidnap another local (Mexican) rich person? McDonald's has always served coffee, that's not new. And it's a restaurant, how the hell is a restaurant serving coffee shocking? I compared them switching from a food service industry to making cars. That would require re-training, setting up assembly lines, creating the necessary infrastructure, etc. Serving coffee does not, so that's a counterexample fail. I think the crux of the argument though is that you think kidnapping is easier than selling drugs. I think exactly the opposite, that it's much, much harder, and much less profitable. Gangs can survive on drug money alone, is there a gang out there that solely specializes in kidnappings? |
-----The Eyebrow-----![]() | |
![]() |
|
| Silo | Aug 9 2010, 08:53 AM Post #16 |
|
NM Legend
|
Fact: Pheonix, Arizona is the United States kidnapping capitol, for a reason. Kidnappings would not stop and they would only increase because instead of them nickle and diming in the suburbs, they are going to make 6 figures a piece for any American child they get their hands on. <<Kidnapping requires imprisonment, the element of surprise, and some level of safety so you don't get shot trying it. >> What white American child walks around with a gun? All it takes is 2 unarmed Cartel members to run out of their van, ducktape him up, and they're outta there. <<It's a lot harder finding someone willing to kidnap than to sell drugs, so it's a much more costly venture. >> If this bill is passed, it will not be as hard to find a cartel kidnapper than a cartel marijuana dealer, because there won't be anymore cartel marijuana dealers. <<The cartels are profit-driven, and I just don't see how kidnapping, once you factor in costs including possible death, is more lucrative than just switching your market to Europe.>> No doubt they're profit driven, so when their product is taken away from them, they're going to move onto a much easier and lucrative method of obtaining money. How is crossing a border with pounds of marijuana that much harder than hiding a ducktaped kid in your car? You've seen pictures of how outrageous these illegals get when they attempt to cross borders illegally, are they going to not do the same to a child with a 6 figure pricetag? Europe??? Huh? <<The fact that you sold drugs, stopped, and did NOT turn to kidnapping is exactly my point. They're not just interchangeable, even if a lot of drug dealers are bad guys. >> There's a huge difference between a 22-24 year old male living in a suburban area who has other opportunities to make money compared to 15-45 year old Mexican males who have no education, most likely 1-4 kids to feed, and no real job opportunities in Mexico. A peso is a joke compared to the dollar. <<I don't think the current gangsters will stop being gangsters, they'll just move somewhere else. I know that kidnapping is within these gangs' repertoires, but the majority of kidnappings are of Mexicans.>> Then why is Pheonix the kidnapping capitol of our country? Whether they are Mexican americans, or white Americans, they're going to get that money. <<So remove from this 1. The financial incentive to travel to America coming from marijuana money, and 2. The financial resources with which to commit kidnappings, and I just don't see that trend shifting. If the gangs decide 'Hey we need to make money today with a kidnapping', why take the inconvenience and risk of traveling to America when you can just kidnap another local (Mexican) rich person? >> In all honesty I think it would take more money to travel around the burbs dealing weed then it would be to take 2-3 cartel members in a van and snatch some kid up in 1 min, ducktape them up, and off they go. There's barely any travel costs besides the ducktape, they don't even need guns to do it because these American kids are harmless. The reason they don't kidnap other Mexicans is because there is absolutely no money in kidnapping a Mexican. What are they going to demand.....10,000 Peso's and the 10,000 burritos? There's no wealth in Mexico, where as the average suburban family could put their home up for sale when their child is taken away from them. As far as the McDonalds comparison, it's coffee coolatas, not just regular coffee. It's an example of a cartel (McDonalds) catering to other markets (coolatas) and expanding and making more profits (kidnappings.) McDonalds has not always served this product, hence the new commercials advertising that specific, new product. It doesn't take any training to learn how to run up on a child and ducktape him up. I could do it if I wanted to and I think anyone else could to, let alone cartels who don't give a fuck about anything. <<I think the crux of the argument though is that you think kidnapping is easier than selling drugs. I think exactly the opposite, that it's much, much harder, and much less profitable. Gangs can survive on drug money alone, is there a gang out there that solely specializes in kidnappings?>> How is taking an inexpensive (to start) product over the border illegally, spending gas money traveling to suburb to suburb, spending money on baggies (if they're not selling by the ounce-pound) less expensive than buying some ducktape, having 2-3 members run up on a kid and hide him then hitting the border? If this bill is passed you will definitely see gangs that specialize is just kidnappings, if their aren't some already. It is the kidnapping capitol of our country and all. |
![]() |
|
| TheEyebrow | Aug 9 2010, 01:47 PM Post #17 |
![]()
NM Headliner
|
lol I think all we've concluded is that we would run our drug enterprises differently. My Europe comment was about shifting drug sales to Europe instead of Mexico. Western Europe cocaine use and other drug use is on the rise, while it's leveling off in America already, so the trend has already started. So I agree you're different than Mexican dealers, but since you've sold, consider this: Your main buyer stops smoking so now you are about to go out of business. Would you rather 1. Start kidnapping, or 2. Sell to the German kid across town? Option 2 seems simple, you don't have to change anything except the destination. Option 1 involves dealing with new risks, which is a pain in the ass. But it's clear this is all about economics. Yeah 8 year olds don't walk around with guns now, but if kidnappings went up, I could imagine parents buying guns and walking their kids to school. I also imagine cops would become more active, as there are already specialized anti-kidnapping forces in Arizona now cause of this. With more resources available from not having to imprison/catch pot smokers, I think kidnappers would feel more pressure and thus the cost per kidnapping would go up on average. The fact that Phoenix is the kidnapping capital makes me confident in this too. There are gangs just about everywhere, yet in the places where weed laws are relaxed, I don't see an upsurge in kidnapping. If Denver or Oakland were the kidnapping capitals, I'd agree with your argument. But since it's still Phoenix, it makes me think that drugs and kidnappings reinforce each other, rather than replace each other. I think there's only one way to solve this argument: Bait Kid. Edited by TheEyebrow, Aug 9 2010, 01:51 PM.
|
-----The Eyebrow-----![]() | |
![]() |
|
| USCHAMP | Aug 9 2010, 07:14 PM Post #18 |
![]()
Has no zazz
|
TL;DR |
| |
![]() |
|
| Silo | Aug 9 2010, 08:01 PM Post #19 |
|
NM Legend
|
<<lol I think all we've concluded is that we would run our drug enterprises differently. My Europe comment was about shifting drug sales to Europe instead of Mexico. Western Europe cocaine use and other drug use is on the rise, while it's leveling off in America already, so the trend has already started>> How realistic is it to think Europeans, or Mexicans for that matter, are going to travel across the entire Atlantic ocean for marijuana? Not likely at all. <<So I agree you're different than Mexican dealers, but since you've sold, consider this: Your main buyer stops smoking so now you are about to go out of business. Would you rather 1. Start kidnapping, or 2. Sell to the German kid across town? Option 2 seems simple, you don't have to change anything except the destination. Option 1 involves dealing with new risks, which is a pain in the ass.>> Again, these cartel/gang members have no other choice. I had, and made other choices, like getting a 9-5 with full benefits. My situation and these cartel members situations are so far apart I don't understand why you keep trying to compare the two. <<But it's clear this is all about economics. Yeah 8 year olds don't walk around with guns now, but if kidnappings went up, I could imagine parents buying guns and walking their kids to school.>> And that's how America should be? <<as there are already specialized anti-kidnapping forces in Arizona now cause of this. >> And there's the CIA, FBI, SWAT, The Wire's crew, etc., but do you see major crimes across America dying out? The only way to cure this cartel problem is to treat it as serious as we treat Afghanistan and Iraq terrorists, because that's exactly what they are. But we all know King Barry wouldn't want to offend illegal immigrants by requiring them to carry papers on them, so this won't happen anytime soon. <<With more resources available from not having to imprison/catch pot smokers, I think kidnappers would feel more pressure and thus the cost per kidnapping would go up on average.>> I seriously, seriously doubt the Pheonix police department is using their resources to catch people smoking weed. Maybe they use resources to catch people who deal in pounds or above, but imprisoning people over an ounce is not even worth their time. <<The fact that Phoenix is the kidnapping capital makes me confident in this too. There are gangs just about everywhere, yet in the places where weed laws are relaxed, I don't see an upsurge in kidnapping. If Denver or Oakland were the kidnapping capitals, I'd agree with your argument. But since it's still Phoenix, it makes me think that drugs and kidnappings reinforce each other, rather than replace each other.>> So you believe that if Proposition 19 is passed, there will be a decrease in the amount of kidnappings in Pheonix. Ok, I completely disagree with you but that's what time will tell, if it ever passes. The reason you don't see a lot of kidnappings in American cities is because our police forces will be sent in full forces to get these children back. We can't send Pheonix police to Mexico to enforce American laws. |
![]() |
|
| TheEyebrow | Aug 10 2010, 12:22 PM Post #20 |
![]()
NM Headliner
|
I just said it was already rising. Western Europeans now do more coke than Americans. Where does coke come from? The Americas. How bout amphetamine use? Also on the rise in Europe. Where's it coming from? "The number of clandestine laboratories involved in the manufacture of amphetamine-type stimulants has increased by 20 percent in 2008. The information on the 8,432 detected laboratories came from 31 countries, with the largest numbers reported from Mexico, the United States, Canada, the Czech Republic, Australia, China, Slovakia, and New Zealand." All this from http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/37961/
You say that, but where's the proof? I've asked for any cases where drugs were legalized and kidnappings went up, and you've yet to cite one. I've at least cited the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denver, and Oakland as places where drug laws were relaxed and kidnappings did not rise. You seem to think Mexicans are so poor and desperate that they'd destroy their own humanity for a few bucks. Drug dealing doesn't make you a bad person, it doesn't send you to hell. Kidnapping does. Mexico isn't some super backwater, it's the 13th largest economy in the world. There are other job choices, like agriculture, textiles, or immigrating to the US, even illegally. It just seems weird, and a little elitist, to insinuate that it's somehow logical to switch from drug selling to kidnapping, and then say that logic doesn't apply to you. There are far poorer places than Mexico in this world, and kidnapping isn't the number one profession anywhere. You seem to think that once someone is earning less than 15 bucks an hour, they'll do absolutely anything for money. I have to ask, if indeed you were Mexican, and had the same job prospects as an average Mexican, would you start kidnapping? My answer is a firm and absolute no, even if it did mean I had to live a much shittier life than I do now. Referring to guns:
It's how America is.
You say the CIA, FBI, SWAT don't work, and then say the reason you don't see this in America is cause of police forces. It's gotta be one or the other. If you want to deal with kidnappings by treating them like terrorism, I'm all for it. But that requires funding, which can be acquired by getting rid of drug enforcement activities. Assuming you're right, and the kidnapping numbers do initially rise, enough attention would be put on it that we could target it. And if we wanted to send troops down to Mexico, we not only could, but Calderon would shit his pants with joy about it. They don't have the means to deal with these gangs, why would they keep us out? I'm not claiming once Prop 19 passes every single kidnapping stops. I'm claiming that it's already a recognized problem, and that once agencies no longer have to look for drug dealers, they can look for more kidnappers. Once the gangs feel this pressure and it's mixed with the lack of drug funding, I think they'll stop trying to cross the border for either reason. |
-----The Eyebrow-----![]() | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · News & Politics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic | 9:12 AM Jul 11 |
Find more zetaboards themes at InkDropStyles.com





![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)








