The Cannabis Caucus

[tpfkaw]

Noting the recent attempts to tax and regulate recreational marijuana out of existence in various regions, I am founding the Cannabis Caucus.



Our Platform:

1.  We support the legal cultivation, processing, and consumption of the hemp plant.
2.  We oppose attempts to limit personal choice and freedom via taxes or regulations designed to limit consumption of marijuana or other legal substances ("sin taxes" and the like).
3.  We support broader drug policy reform in order to focus on violent or damaging offenses, not victimless crimes.

Membership:

wormyguy
SvenssonRS
Jake Matthews (20RP12)
Dallasfan65
PiT (The Physicist)

[SvenssonRS]

Sign me up.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I wanna join!

[HappyWarrior]

Its already fully legalized......

[tpfkaw]

I wanna join!

You're one of the "villains..."

But sure.

Its already fully legalized......

RTFT.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

I wanna join!

You're one of the "villains..."

But sure.

My personal belief is changing from pro-drug tax to anti-drug tax, don't worry.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

x Dallasfan65

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To be consistent, your point number two would mean that that this caucus would have to be opposed to any sort of a carbon tax or other means of limiting the use of fossil fuels via market mechanisms.  Whether it be cannabis or gasoline, consumption taxes on such optional products, set at a rate consistent with maximizing revenue is good policy.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'd suggest pushing for a reduction in the federal marijuana tax. If any "taxing out of existence" occurs, I imagine that they'd be the main culprit, what with a 32% tax on all sales of marijuana.

[tpfkaw]

To be consistent, your point number two would mean that that this caucus would have to be opposed to any sort of a carbon tax or other means of limiting the use of fossil fuels via market mechanisms.  Whether it be cannabis or gasoline, consumption taxes on such optional products, set at a rate consistent with maximizing revenue is good policy.

That's a totally irrelevant and nonsensical nonsequitur, although I personally oppose such taxes as well.

I'd suggest pushing for a reduction in the federal marijuana tax. If any "taxing out of existence" occurs, I imagine that they'd be the main culprit, what with a 32% tax on all sales of marijuana.

Of course!  I believe that's implied in #2...

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'd suggest pushing for a reduction in the federal marijuana tax. If any "taxing out of existence" occurs, I imagine that they'd be the main culprit, what with a 32% tax on all sales of marijuana.

Of course!  I believe that's implied in #2...

     I was interpreting this caucus as a dig against the recent actions of my region's government. If it was not intended as such, then I would like to apologize & join this caucus.

[tpfkaw]

I'd suggest pushing for a reduction in the federal marijuana tax. If any "taxing out of existence" occurs, I imagine that they'd be the main culprit, what with a 32% tax on all sales of marijuana.

Of course!  I believe that's implied in #2...

I was interpreting this caucus as a dig against the recent actions of my region's government. If it was not intended as such, then I would like to apologize & join this caucus.

That is the immediate motivation, especially since your region's actions have started a fad that has spread to the Pacific and the Northeast.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I'd suggest pushing for a reduction in the federal marijuana tax. If any "taxing out of existence" occurs, I imagine that they'd be the main culprit, what with a 32% tax on all sales of marijuana.

Of course!  I believe that's implied in #2...

I was interpreting this caucus as a dig against the recent actions of my region's government. If it was not intended as such, then I would like to apologize & join this caucus.

That is the immediate motivation, especially since your region's actions have started a fad that has spread to the Pacific and the Northeast.

     I've been busy with real life concerns, you know, precluding me from pondering ideas such as what things can be taxed or cut. Since it was inevitable that that bill would pass with or without my signature, I concluded that something needed to be done to fund it, & the Speaker suggested taxing marijuana. I helped the Legislature formulate a reasonable tax on the issue (which is difficult as I would not know the true market value of marijuana given that it is currently illegal in the United States), because it is my firm belief that there is no greater sin for a fiscal conservative than to permit an unfunded mandate. If you have a problem with that, then that's your business; not mine.

[tpfkaw]

I never said that anything was any of your business.  You may do whatever you please.  However, there is no greater sin for a fiscal libertarian than to create a new tax (indeed, in the absence of reducing other taxes, I would say that precludes one from being able to claim with a straight face that he is a fiscal libertarian).  Creating a new tax and a new mandate is even worse.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     If taking responsibility for mandates that you are powerless to stop & refusing to cut spending without knowing what spending is available to cut are wrong things to do, then I'm guilty as charged.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Furthermore, fruitless naysaying isn't going to fly under my flag. Given that the mandate is obviously not disappearing anytime soon, I'd like to hear any alternate ideas for funding it that would be likely to pass muster with the Imperial Legislature. Failure to address my challenge will be regarded as approval of my actions, of course.

[tpfkaw]

Edit: All is forgiven.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Sorry, I overreacted to what I perceived as personal criticism. With that said, I would like to be a member of this caucus.

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

     Sorry, I overreacted to what I perceived as personal criticism. With that said, I would like to be a member of this caucus.

Welcome!

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

To be consistent, your point number two would mean that that this caucus would have to be opposed to any sort of a carbon tax or other means of limiting the use of fossil fuels via market mechanisms.  Whether it be cannabis or gasoline, consumption taxes on such optional products, set at a rate consistent with maximizing revenue is good policy.

That's a totally irrelevant and nonsensical nonsequitur, although I personally oppose such taxes as well.

Hardly a nonsequitur:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gasoline and coal are legal substances and any sort of government policy that tries to curb greenhouse gas emissions are will be trying to "limit consumption of ... legal substances".  Indeed, fossil fuels are often likened to a drug that our economy is addicted to.