Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClear)   Colorado collects $2 millon in recreational pot taxes. Who could have seen that coming? Oh, about 300 million Americans   (realclear.com) divider line 111
    More: Obvious, Colorado, state Department of Revenue, Americans, Colorado collects, excise taxes, sales taxes  
•       •       •

4963 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Mar 2014 at 9:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



111 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-10 10:35:16 PM  

70Ford: Marijuana is a gateway drug to even better marijuana.
Or something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy4rA_esYo0no ON
 Salvia. No one ever mentions salvia.


Lets go for a drive.
 
2014-03-10 10:37:36 PM  
Once the "new" wears off, lets see how much money in taxes they rake in.
Right now, it's a new thing, everyone is flocking there just to say I bought pot in Colorado.
Eventually the hipsters will move on to something else, like the plague of locust they are.
 
2014-03-10 10:38:09 PM  
How much money something makes should be the one, or at least most important determining factor for whether or not we do it. --Mother Teresa
 
2014-03-10 10:39:50 PM  
It's the best thing, there are these little Chai tablets 10mg, package of ten. 25$ (+5 tax) that you just walk on in for.

They taste nice.
 
2014-03-10 10:49:11 PM  

somemoron: I'm not a lawyer or government studiologist, so maybe someone familiar with the state vs federal system can chime in:

Let's say the feds never legalize pot at the national level... but all the states individually do.  What power/authority does the fed have in a case where no crime is committed at the state level, but on a federal level, if only on paper?  Is it even possible (legally) for the fed to maintain its illegality?

Doesn't have to be pot, could be anything.  Just curious about how this odd scenario would work out.


Basically, Federal law always wins. BUT, the Feds lack the resources to effectively enforce most of the laws they pass. Especially a 'possession' crime like MJ. That is why states legalizing is such a big deal. With the Feds lacking the resources to enforce, if the states/locals won't or can't, it becomes an unenforceable law.

The Feds NEED the states and locals to enforce their laws or they don't mean shiat. There is a reason some Federal LEOs are freaking out and it's not just about MJ being legal, it's a direct and serious threat to Federal law enforcement authority.

//When you can't buy local help with drug war cash and toys, then what?
 
2014-03-10 11:03:07 PM  

buzzcut73: That and their bonus pool slush fund safety and training budget needs some help now that forfeitures aren't in the mix for pot anymore.


The forfeiture thing uses federal law.  In theory, local police departments could still do it.
 
2014-03-10 11:04:14 PM  
I hope lawyers get involved. They will shiat themselves about secondhand marijuana smoke and marijuana causing autism. So much money in that.
 
2014-03-10 11:08:21 PM  

Old Man Winter: I hope lawyers get involved. They will shiat themselves about secondhand marijuana M

arihuana  smoke and marijuanaMarihuana  causing autism. So much money in that.

...aaaaand we're back to 1931. Did anyone else get an accurate reading on the precise characteristics of that temporal shift so we can get back to the future.... again....
 
2014-03-10 11:08:35 PM  

GanjSmokr: Sadly, I think it's way less than what they were expecting.

"Last year's pot vote guessed that the taxes would produce $70 million a year, and it's unclear what lawmakers can do with tax money that exceeds that figure.

Colorado's Joint Budget Committee plans a Wednesday briefing with lawyers to lay out their options for spending pot taxes beyond $70 million."

Unless my math is off, I don't think they're going to have to worry about that anytime soon.


Two things from the article to keep in mind:

1. January was the first month for marijuana revenue collection and they allowed a one-time transfer from medical marijuana stocks to the recreational market to get the sales kicked off. This transfer was not taxed, which depressed the January tax revenue.
2. Sales are mostly confined to the Denver area, so once more shops are approved and opened around the state then tax revenue should also increase quite a bit.

So the $3.5 million in total tax revenue from January pot sales is likely to increase in the future. If it doubles... that's going to be over $70 million a year.
 
2014-03-10 11:15:53 PM  

uber humper: What's Colorado's budget deficit? $500 million or so?


$715 million.
 
2014-03-10 11:21:42 PM  
Meanwhile in Michigan, a medical marijuana state, the cops are spewing lies and using scare tactics via the local newspaper editorial page. The next day a local doctor rebutted and tore him a new one. Damage was done though

http://www.themorningsun.com/opinion/20140301/the-dangers-of-decrimi na lizing-marijuana
 
2014-03-10 11:21:49 PM  

firefly212: uber humper: What's Colorado's budget deficit? $500 million or so?

$715 million.


Where do you see that?
 
2014-03-10 11:22:52 PM  

TV's Vinnie: Now if only brothels were legal nationwide. Our national deficit would be wiped out AND we'd have enough funding for at least one Mars colony by the end of the year.


Legalize ALL consensual crimes.

You dont want to fark a whore? Then dont sleep with your wife.

But seriously, film the sex and it is legal porn, dont film it and it is illegal prostitution?
FARTARDS
 
2014-03-10 11:23:59 PM  

DigitalCoffee: Just for shiats and grins I pulled up the Amtrak site to see what an Orlando to Denver trip would be like. Four days, three different trains, and nearly $300 one way for a coach seat. fml

/need someone on this side of the Mississippi to go "fark it... make it legal"
//was hoping for North Carolina but they've been going 'pants on head on fire' the last few years
///farkin' teabaggers ruin everything


NC here... Wish it was so but our governor is too busy trying to cover up other shiat. We can't even legalize medical MJ oil for severely disabled two-year-olds; I'm afraid you may have to look elsewhere.

/"pants on head on fire" is a perfect description
 
2014-03-10 11:24:15 PM  

p51d007: Once the "new" wears off, lets see how much money in taxes they rake in.
Right now, it's a new thing, everyone is flocking there just to say I bought pot in Colorado.
Eventually the hipsters will move on to something else, like the plague of locust they are.


Ya know how I know... ah, farkit, you don't know shiat. This market has legs and as it matures, the price will go down, but the sales will go up. It is a monster revenue source for any State or locality that wants it.

//and feel free to stay out of Colorado if it bothers you.
 
2014-03-10 11:25:44 PM  

firefly212: uber humper: What's Colorado's budget deficit? $500 million or so?

$715 million.


nope.
 
2014-03-10 11:29:40 PM  

jst3p: firefly212: uber humper: What's Colorado's budget deficit? $500 million or so?

$715 million.

Where do you see that?


http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_state_budget
 
2014-03-10 11:30:47 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: firefly212: uber humper: What's Colorado's budget deficit? $500 million or so?

$715 million.

nope.


my bad, just realized that was the 2011 number.
 
2014-03-10 11:42:15 PM  

firefly212: Ow! That was my feelings!: firefly212: uber humper: What's Colorado's budget deficit? $500 million or so?

$715 million.

nope.

my bad, just realized that was the 2011 number.


Also, I think this potential argument is off base. There is a difference between 'state debt' and 'running a deficit'. It is illegal for Colorado to run a deficit, spending more than it takes in. But 'state debt', mostly infrastructure projects financed via debt, are where a debt number might come from. The only debt Colorado is allowed to finance is voter approved.
 
2014-03-10 11:43:53 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: firefly212: Ow! That was my feelings!: firefly212: uber humper: What's Colorado's budget deficit? $500 million or so?

$715 million.

nope.

my bad, just realized that was the 2011 number.

Also, I think this potential argument is off base. There is a difference between 'state debt' and 'running a deficit'. It is illegal for Colorado to run a deficit, spending more than it takes in. But 'state debt', mostly infrastructure projects financed via debt, are where a debt number might come from. The only debt Colorado is allowed to finance is voter approved.


This.
 
2014-03-10 11:44:44 PM  

Mister Peejay: Taco Bell already wants $5 for their Nachos Los Locos Bell Grande Dorito Shelled Taco or whatever the hell they call it.


Dude, you sound like you're 75 years old and have only experienced TBell via television ads.
 
2014-03-10 11:48:55 PM  
That's it? Sheeeeeit.
 
2014-03-10 11:54:30 PM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: firefly212: Ow! That was my feelings!: firefly212: uber humper: What's Colorado's budget deficit? $500 million or so?

$715 million.

nope.

my bad, just realized that was the 2011 number.

Also, I think this potential argument is off base. There is a difference between 'state debt' and 'running a deficit'. It is illegal for Colorado to run a deficit, spending more than it takes in. But 'state debt', mostly infrastructure projects financed via debt, are where a debt number might come from. The only debt Colorado is allowed to finance is voter approved.


I didn't really see where is argument was going, tbh.
 
2014-03-10 11:55:06 PM  

Sgygus: violentsalvation: Oh, really?!

Ya really.  Apparently not incarcerating people for cannabis possession is costly.


They've got to make up for the budget money they lost from missing out on asset forfeiture and straight-up cop-operated smash-and-grab confiscation.

flondrix: buzzcut73: That and their bonus pool slush fund safety and training budget needs some help now that forfeitures aren't in the mix for pot anymore.

The forfeiture thing uses federal law.  In theory, local police departments could still do it.


They're banned from enforcing federal marihuana laws, I believe. They need to get all their cash from the trailers they seize from the meth operations.
 
2014-03-11 12:02:55 AM  

somemoron: I'm not a lawyer or government studiologist, so maybe someone familiar with the state vs federal system can chime in:

Let's say the feds never legalize pot at the national level... but all the states individually do.  What power/authority does the fed have in a case where no crime is committed at the state level, but on a federal level, if only on paper?  Is it even possible (legally) for the fed to maintain its illegality?

Doesn't have to be pot, could be anything.  Just curious about how this odd scenario would work out.


The Feds have every legal right to bust your ass for having pot in your own living room and to charge the state licensed distributor who sold it to you with drug trafficking (and probably a lot of follow up crimes). Federal law trumps state law, plain and simple.

They have said they won't pursue minor possession or state approved activities off of Federal land. But that is an administrative policy and if the next President decided he really needed the law and order vote, there is nothing stopping him from reversing that policy.
 
2014-03-11 12:04:36 AM  

firefly212: Ow! That was my feelings!: firefly212: Ow! That was my feelings!: firefly212: uber humper: What's Colorado's budget deficit? $500 million or so?

$715 million.

nope.

my bad, just realized that was the 2011 number.

Also, I think this potential argument is off base. There is a difference between 'state debt' and 'running a deficit'. It is illegal for Colorado to run a deficit, spending more than it takes in. But 'state debt', mostly infrastructure projects financed via debt, are where a debt number might come from. The only debt Colorado is allowed to finance is voter approved.

I didn't really see where is argument was going, tbh.


Ah, multiple people have brought it up, so...
 
2014-03-11 12:18:14 AM  

dywed88: somemoron: I'm not a lawyer or government studiologist, so maybe someone familiar with the state vs federal system can chime in:

Let's say the feds never legalize pot at the national level... but all the states individually do.  What power/authority does the fed have in a case where no crime is committed at the state level, but on a federal level, if only on paper?  Is it even possible (legally) for the fed to maintain its illegality?

Doesn't have to be pot, could be anything.  Just curious about how this odd scenario would work out.

The Feds have every legal right to bust your ass for having pot in your own living room and to charge the state licensed distributor who sold it to you with drug trafficking (and probably a lot of follow up crimes). Federal law trumps state law, plain and simple.

They have said they won't pursue minor possession or state approved activities off of Federal land. But that is an administrative policy and if the next President decided he really needed the law and order vote, there is nothing stopping him from reversing that policy.


They certainly do have the legal authority, but they do not have the personnel. The DEA isn't so massive that they could attack the legal pot "problem" at the user end. There is zero chance of them projecting that legal authority to the user base. They can and will perform the small busts of morons that need to challenge their authority directly. They may go after the larger pot businesses, but at some point the DEA and other alphabet agencies won't be able to chase down all the bits and pieces as there will simply be too many. They won't have the needed bandwidth with USAs and they will have a very difficult time with juries.

In the end, the IRS will be the only way to stop the pot industry.
 
2014-03-11 12:20:17 AM  

dywed88: somemoron: I'm not a lawyer or government studiologist, so maybe someone familiar with the state vs federal system can chime in:

Let's say the feds never legalize pot at the national level... but all the states individually do.  What power/authority does the fed have in a case where no crime is committed at the state level, but on a federal level, if only on paper?  Is it even possible (legally) for the fed to maintain its illegality?

Doesn't have to be pot, could be anything.  Just curious about how this odd scenario would work out.

The Feds have every legal right to bust your ass for having pot in your own living room and to charge the state licensed distributor who sold it to you with drug trafficking (and probably a lot of follow up crimes). Federal law trumps state law, plain and simple.

They have said they won't pursue minor possession or state approved activities off of Federal land. But that is an administrative policy and if the next President decided he really needed the law and order vote, there is nothing stopping him from reversing that policy.


Oh c'mon! Without the states shouldering most of the burden, the DEA would need a massive, billions of dollars budget increase to make that happen. The defenders of the national checkbook, the TEA Party, will obviously refuse to waste Federal dollars on such a ridiculous policy. Crazy talk.
 
2014-03-11 12:21:01 AM  
The majority of states just need to legalize it already.
The War on Drugs has been an epic failure that has done nothing but militarize our police and waste billions of dollars.
 
2014-03-11 12:24:30 AM  

zepher: The majority of states just need to legalize it already.
The War on Drugs has been an epic failure that has done nothing but militarize our police and waste billions of dollars.


I'm interested to see how and, well, if the cops can be demilitarized. I'm going to guess they will have some other thing to sweat, like meth, that will require better body armor, identity concealment and more assault rifles while they pack into their APCs, maybe LA and NY will get a couple Abrams once we've pulled out of Afghanistan completely.
 
2014-03-11 12:29:53 AM  
s24.postimg.org
 
2014-03-11 12:43:11 AM  

Ow! That was my feelings!: Basically, Federal law always wins. BUT, the Feds lack the resources to effectively enforce most of the laws they pass. Especially a 'possession' crime like MJ. That is why states legalizing is such a big deal. With the Feds lacking the resources to enforce, if the states/locals won't or can't, it becomes an unenforceable law.


The feds don't need to bust users.  They can target the growers.  All of the legal ones had to register themselves with the state in order to get their license, so the feds can easily gather names and addresses.  The whole system then shuts down.

The black market will continue to thrive, but the feds will be able to brag that they eliminated a criminal enterprise, making communities safer in the process.  They also get to seize a fair amount of money, property and possessions.  And the private prisons get some fresh meat.
 
2014-03-11 12:51:59 AM  
If they legalized brothels again (they were legal prior to the early 1900s) and taxed them nationwide, we'd be able to pay down the national debt in no time, and then we could fund a national health care system and build a Death Star with the rest of the money.
 
2014-03-11 12:53:06 AM  
If you think $2 million is alot (or... not alot, depending on your POV)... put it into perspective.

This is ONLY for the month of January.  This is ONLY for the number of stores that were operating


59 businesses filed a return for the Department of Revenue's report.
only 24 were actually approved to operate on Jan. 1.


February's numbers should be higher.
 
2014-03-11 01:05:28 AM  

Dinjiin: Ow! That was my feelings!: Basically, Federal law always wins. BUT, the Feds lack the resources to effectively enforce most of the laws they pass. Especially a 'possession' crime like MJ. That is why states legalizing is such a big deal. With the Feds lacking the resources to enforce, if the states/locals won't or can't, it becomes an unenforceable law.

The feds don't need to bust users.  They can target the growers.  All of the legal ones had to register themselves with the state in order to get their license, so the feds can easily gather names and addresses.  The whole system then shuts down.

The black market will continue to thrive, but the feds will be able to brag that they eliminated a criminal enterprise, making communities safer in the process.  They also get to seize a fair amount of money, property and possessions.  And the private prisons get some fresh meat.


Well, the 'legal ones' registered with the State of Colorado. That list would create quite the fight with the Feds. No way Obama would piss on Colorado like that, and I doubt a Republican POTUS would either, considering the amount of Republican industry ownership. But I'm guessing the point will be moot before we have to find out. There is now too much real money flowing legally to stop it.

Colorado is a swing state, nobody nationally wants to piss us off. Hell, Denver is in the running for the RNC in 2016. No way the Feds are farking with us.
 
2014-03-11 01:22:50 AM  

somemoron: I'm not a lawyer or government studiologist, so maybe someone familiar with the state vs federal system can chime in:

Let's say the feds never legalize pot at the national level... but all the states individually do.  What power/authority does the fed have in a case where no crime is committed at the state level, but on a federal level, if only on paper?  Is it even possible (legally) for the fed to maintain its illegality?

Doesn't have to be pot, could be anything.  Just curious about how this odd scenario would work out.


Federal law supersedes state law.
 
2014-03-11 01:39:11 AM  
As more shops open in Boulder, Fort Collins and Colorado Springs the revenue will increase sharply. Boulder didn't even have any recreational shops until about two weeks ago.

The only question now is which state is next. I'm pretty sure it will be legal at the federal level within 10 years.
 
2014-03-11 02:24:40 AM  

Nix Nightbird: If they legalized brothels again (they were legal prior to the early 1900s) and taxed them nationwide, we'd be able to pay down the national debt in no time, and then we could fund a national health care system and build a Death Star with the rest of the money.


1; someone upthread say the same thing, with practically the same wording,

and 2; Is legal prostitution really that exciting? I understand the philosophical argument, but is there something compelling about paying to put your dick in someone who doesn't like you that I'm not aware of?
 
2014-03-11 02:34:54 AM  
When will there be enough pressure on politicians to change a broken and counter-productive system that no one has thought was working for a decade or more?  Hopefully, soon.
 
2014-03-11 02:38:38 AM  
...and what is their annual budget? At the state level, $2 Million means about as much as a penny does to the average child nowadays.
 
2014-03-11 02:44:43 AM  

Hickory-smoked: but is there something compelling about paying to put your dick in someone who doesn't like you that I'm not aware of?


Guaranteed, no effort, no attachments, possibly someone you could never get otherwise, in many cases cheaper than dating someone, always available, etc.
 
2014-03-11 03:11:17 AM  

Hickory-smoked: Nix Nightbird: If they legalized brothels again (they were legal prior to the early 1900s) and taxed them nationwide, we'd be able to pay down the national debt in no time, and then we could fund a national health care system and build a Death Star with the rest of the money.

1; someone upthread say the same thing, with practically the same wording,

and 2; Is legal prostitution really that exciting? I understand the philosophical argument, but is there something compelling about paying to put your dick in someone who doesn't like you that I'm not aware of?


2 - it's not exciting because you can stick your dick in (I definitely wouldn't), legalising prostitution is exciting because various lonely guys are already sticking their dick in anyway, and by legalising it you get tax revenue, can enforce safety measures to a degree (for both Johns and the girls), and stop money going to the black market. There's more reasons for legalising prostitution than there are for legalising pot, when it comes right down to it.
 
2014-03-11 03:25:06 AM  

maddermaxx: There's more reasons for legalising prostitution than there are for legalising pot, when it comes right down to it.


But the reasons for prohibiting are basically the same:  it offends some peoples morals (not coincidentally this group represents, or did, the majority of voters), and the wrong people profit (this is beginning to change, hence the growing legality of cannabis).
 
2014-03-11 03:44:55 AM  
How many million did they take in from tobacco taxes?
 
2014-03-11 05:34:05 AM  
Suck it, closed minded people.

This is a general insult to all those whose thinking is incorrect due to having a closed mind.

It applies to many threads.
 
2014-03-11 06:25:18 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: Man, it's like they're taxing things that just grow in the ground and stuff. That's like... terrible or something, man. Oh archer is on.


LOL


fusillade762: I'm betting they saved more than that by not locking up pot smokers.


Yep.


king_nacho: [localtvwjw.files.wordpress.com image 398x242]

what $14 million in pot looks like based on current police estimates.


Of course, that estimate is based on black market prices.
How similar are those to prices being paid in Colorado?
 
2014-03-11 07:45:45 AM  

somemoron: Let's say the feds never legalize pot at the national level... but all the states individually do.


It doesn't matter.  A State cannot make a law that opposes a Federal law.
All of these people are being set up.
 
2014-03-11 07:48:28 AM  

ex-nuke: How many million did they take in from tobacco taxes?


More important, how much did they lose with anti-smoking campaigns? So instead of cigs, people now smoke pot. Seems smart.
 
2014-03-11 08:36:31 AM  

fusillade762: I'm betting they saved more than that by not locking up pot smokers.

And not arming local police with military grade weapons and armor to bust down doors to look for the pot smokers.

 
2014-03-11 09:10:30 AM  

Hickory-smoked: Is legal prostitution really that exciting? I understand the philosophical argument, but is there something compelling about paying to put your dick in someone who doesn't like you that I'm not aware of?


You are married man, are ya Mr. Grady?
www.tvbomb.co.uk
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report