Kinja reply list

Read More
SKings40Brendan O'Connor
5/10/15 5:24pm
Just wait until a new Federal administration decides to just enforce existing Federal drug laws.
Reply
- Read More
  MagisterSKings40
  5/10/15 5:41pm
  I don’t think that’s possible. Not only are we beyond the point of no return, especially in regards to medical marijuana, but it’d be one hell of a gamble for a candidate to go against the expected ballot measures. Maybe someone like Huckabee might try to make it an issue, but I don’t know that any of those with a legitimate chance at the White House are willing to take the risk, let alone whether anything could get through Congress.
  
  Right now in most places, ambivalence while overtaxing might be the best political move.
  Reply
- Read More
  j4x_SKings40
  5/10/15 6:05pm
  That President (D or R) would have to be willing to write off someplace like CO permanently in federal elections for their party.
  
  CO is technically a swing state; a good chunk of them would be furious to see the stores raided and shut down, even if they were not adamant supporters.
  
  There is a long mountain to climb in terms of ending the drug war but there is no stopping the ongoing march towards marijuana legalization.
  Reply
Read More
igotmilkBrendan O'Connor
5/10/15 4:53pm
Yet ironically the IRS would require you to report income earned from illicit activities.
Reply
- Read More
  Armageddon T. Thunderbirdigotmilk
  5/10/15 4:57pm
  IRS is code enforcement, not law enforcement. They don’t give a shit how you got it, as long as you pay what you owe.
  
  Of course, they know people in law enforcement (and might just pass your name along.)
  Reply
- Read More
  Jamesdigigotmilk
  5/10/15 5:17pm
  That’s not ironic, that the point: you have always been obliged, by federal law, to report money you earned through illegal means. You were also always allowed to deduct expenses, until 1982 when congress passed a law saying that if your illegal money comes from drugs, you cannot deduct the expense of smuggling costs and couriers. Suppose you ran a heroin business in 1979; you could be found guilty of tax fraud if you didn’t pay taxes on the profits, but costs incurred from, say, police confiscating your goods, or paying smugglers to take it out of state, were in fact deductible (see Edmonson v. Commissioner, 1981). So you were only guilty of fraud on the net profit, not gross receipts. Which seems fair. When some legislators realized this, they decided to penalize drug dealers for the full gross receipts, or at least not allow deductions for certain aspects of the business which contributed to the delinquency of others.
  Reply
Read More
Hamuel HockBrendan O'Connor
5/10/15 4:55pm
Advocates pre-legalization: “If we legalize weed, we can tax it and states can make badly needed revenue!”

Advocates post-legalization: “Taxing legal weed is really bad and we should reconsider.”
Reply
- Read More
  Armageddon T. ThunderbirdHamuel Hock
  5/10/15 5:01pm
  A legitimate business person should be able to deduct business expenses on their tax return. That won’t happen until we’re actually post-legalization.
  
  We, as a society, are still on the pre-legalization side of the fence.
  Reply
- Read More
  j4x_Hamuel Hock
  5/10/15 6:00pm
  That is not what the article says, at all.
  
  I’m the libbiest lib who ever libbed a lib, I fully support raising the taxes on everyone and I still think these tax rates are evil.
  Reply
Read More
Defender90CABrendan O'Connor
5/10/15 5:20pm
Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a leading critic of legalization...

Who the fuck is this group? I checked out their website, which proclaims itself a “a project of 420radio.org satire lab” so I can’t tell what they represent vs. what they’re presenting for satirical purposes. Are they for fewer penalties for marijuana use and small-quantity possession but against legalization? Or did I miss something?

No, I am not stoned.
Reply
- Read More
  Flame Princess, Garbage-MongerDefender90CA
  5/10/15 5:50pm
  Their website is https://learnaboutsam.org/. You likely went to http://smartapproaches.com, which is a satirical site.
  Reply
- Read More
  Defender90CAFlame Princess, Garbage-Monger
  5/10/15 7:04pm
  Yes, I went to the second one, which was what came up in my Google search. Thanks!
  Reply
Read More
gramercypoliceBrendan O'Connor
5/10/15 5:02pm
It’s the nature of the business. And it has been since...well, since the dawn of big-production ‘80s music videos. It’s the politics of contraband. That’s what I heard, anyway.

Reply
Read More
KumquatRodeoBrendan O'Connor
5/10/15 5:47pm
I live in Colorado and recently filed my state taxes. I seem to recall when I was fillng out the forms, seeing that the state lets pot growers reduce their state tax burden by the amount they have to pay the Feds. I wasn't paying much attention though, so may be confused on the matter.
Reply
- Read More
  Kenhe LoginKumquatRodeo
  5/11/15 10:21am
  That would be odd as the way it usually works is that state taxes paid are deductible federally but not vice versa. BTW, I’m speaking about C-Corps as the other entities would be pass through entities.
  Reply
Read More
j4x_Brendan O'Connor
5/10/15 5:57pm
Another reason I am fascinated by the legal implications\ramifications of marijuana legalization .

This is a distinct societal shift and there are numerous unanswered questions about legalization in the states that have done so. Just curious about how court rulings are going to go, what laws are going to be removed or created in response.

Taxes was one of my first questions about CO legalization and no one seemed to have planned for the obvious. OUI was my second.
Reply
Read More
dvdoffBrendan O'Connor
5/10/15 4:59pm
This will all change once Big Pharma starts selling weed. Who knows better how to fuck both the taxpayer and the government?
Reply
Read More
Thunder-LipsBrendan O'Connor
5/10/15 4:56pm
This is why you tip your bud tender.
Reply