Comments on: Oakland Votes to Tax Marijuana

By: Kelly

Kelly — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:14:30 +0000

Thanks, Irie, for your explanation. The DPH web site explains it further: http://www.dphhs.mt.gov/medicalmarijuana/ The statute uses words like “delivery” and “transfer” but not sale. I’m thinking the legislature engaged in a little bit of word play in order to get it passed.

By: irie

irie — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 21:08:26 +0000

Tax girl,

To the best of my knowledge, Montana has NOT legalized the SALE of medical marijuana. It only allows caregivers to receive reasonable compensation for the service of growing or helping grow the patients’ maijuana. Perhaps it is different in other states? If you know of any official legislature stating otherwise, I’d love to know about it.

Just didn’t want your readers to be confused.

By: mr. w

mr. w — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:04:16 +0000

tax marijane when it becomes legal but not medical mary ’cause that only makes it more expensive for patients who sincerely need it for migraines, pain, etc.. It is a wonder drug and relieves patients from having to take pills that can destroy their livers.

By: rtc

rtc — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 00:39:31 +0000

This is a very good thing, hopefully the rest of the country opens its eyes and we approve this nationwide. The revenue this country could gain from taxing cannabis would definitely put a dent in the deficit Mr. B got us into. Please Vote!

By: question authority

question authority — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:04:08 +0000

(Raises eyebrows) Now who’s the addict?

I would prefer the bill that legalizes and taxes pot with an exemption and a prescription from the doctor.

The number of lives wrecked by the ‘war on drugs’ far exceeds anything we will see from the legalization of pot.

By: Boots

Boots — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:40:39 +0000

Great way to keep the population sedated while California goes to hell in a handbasket.

By: Angela

Angela — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:43:01 +0000

I haven’t even smelled marijauna for about 30 years. But as a fiscal conservative, I think that it’s quite clear that the war on drugs isn’t working.

A tax on pot has potential, but it would be helpful if they would use that proceeds to fund substance abuse efforts instead of putting it in the general pool.

With those caveats, to answer your question, yes. Oakland got it right.

By: debt reduction

debt reduction — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:56:22 +0000

Finally!!!

By: Roth & Company, P.C.

Roth & Company, P.C. — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:41:53 +0000

The Laffer Curve on drugs…

TaxGrrrl reports that Oakland may embrace a Marijuana tax. Iowa is way ahead of them: SEC. 43. 453B.7 TAX……