Jump to content

Tax It


Recommended Posts

Or, why taxing it isn't all that appealing to municipalities.


First, marijuana is already taxed at the highest possible level.  If discovered manufacturing or distributing your home, automobile and personal property are subject to be sold at auction, which the city and county receive money for disposing of.


Second, lawyers fees, court costs, bail bondsmen, drug testing programs and rehab facilities; another tax for the penal class of citizen.


The only cities benefiting from taxation of the recreational use of marijuana are those such as Bloomfield Hills, Birmingham and Grosse Pointe Park, the types of places that typically only the Feds would benefit from a drug seizure or forfeiture.


So when people mention how much the world at large would benefit from taxation, I don't feel they understand how drug forfeitures work in practice.


I could tax everyone at 6%, or I could simply forfeit your property for $100,000 + costs in a sheriff's sale.  Paying $2,000 in fines is a tax, paying $15,000 for a lawyer is a tax and paying $1,500 for rehabilitation supported by the city is a tax.


That's why nobody is interested in taxation at the level of power, because it already is taxed at the highest possible rate.


Those are my thoughts.  If people wanted to fight marijuana prohibition a law would be pushed to destroy arcane forfeiture laws.  Now, does that actually make sense?  Would it hinder the cities on a wide-spread level?  I'm not sure, not a professional think tanker and I haven't thought much about the real life consequences.  Maybe in a tough love kind of way, it's a good thing?


Those are my thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't really call paying a lawyer tax.  Sure it may feel like a tax to you, but it isn't going to the gov't.  And if you argue that it is taxed as income, the state and local gov't receive very little of it, and a local sheriff doesn't see any of it if you get a lawyer outside of your county.


Having said that, the system is disgusting.  They should have to wait for a conviction, and they should have to pay for all maintenance, repairs, and upkeep while they have possession of it so that it isn't deteriorating while they are wrongfully accusing you.  That would make them all think twice before raiding a house, if it was going to cost them $15,000 a year to hold onto a property in maintenance and upkeep while they are dragging you through court.


But that will never happen because even though we elect them, they don't work for us, they work for the corporations.  And the Gov't is a corporation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to write to your representative, feel free to use any or all of the following words



Dear Sir/Madam,


I have recently read about several situations involving the practice of police agencies seizing and then selling the property of the citizens they are charged with protecting.  In several instances these citizens were never subsequently even charged with a crime.


With fiscal belt tightening all around it seems likely that revenue generated from these seizures is an ever growing portion of operating revenue for these law agencies.  Is it wise to let these police organizations use these monies to protect their own jobs and to buy themselves better police equipment?  Isn’t there an inherent temptation to overreach in allowing an agency to directly benefit from what it takes from its citizens? 


How is the average citizen going to react when a group of heavily armed officers break down the door to their home and take their property?  They have no choice but to submit, whether the seizure is warranted or not.


The police now have the citizen’s property and I understand that the burden of proof is placed on the citizen when trying to reacquire his property.  He must somehow prove his money and property were not acquired through illegal activity.  Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the police to show how this money and property were acquired through illegal activities?


I implore you as my representative to please take a fresh look at the practice of funding police agencies through civil forfeiture.  It seems altogether un-American to me. 


I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this subject.  Thank you.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...