|Screen capture from the pro-pot |
That number was and is utterly absurd. But that's the number.
The question here is this:
How do the pot smokers expect to keep that promise?
And that's followed by this question:
What happens when they don't?
As previously written here and in other places, the self-assumed tax-burden by the pot heads was never realistic. There never was a chance that sales would reach a figure that would support this tax burden.
But that was part of the leftist pattern: lie to get what you want.
Government has done it successfully in this state: the Supreme Court has ruled that it's perfectly OK for government agencies to lie to get a referendum or levy passed.
For example, those lying for the last gas tax increase: 50% of the guaranteed project list was whacked shortly after the people became moronic enough to vote for it.
After all, our leftist government would never LIE to us... would they?
Well, I've long since ascribed to this simple rule: If you have to lie to get elected, get your initiative passed or get your project built... then you shouldn't BE elected, your initiative shouldn't BE passed and your project shouldn't BE built.
As of this writing, it's fairly clear that those shilling the pot scam were lying through their tooth. I knew the revenue forecast was an absurdity wrapped in an idiocy weeks before the election.
Well, a deal is a deal.
And yes, I believe the legislature should address this situation: just not the way some might think:
I would require the state's pot industry to make good on their end of the contract with the people of this state.
That is, if there is not $582 million dollars deposited in this state's general fund by the pot industry by December 31 of next year, then retail sales become illegal on January 1, 2016.
And the idea that communities which outlaw or restrict retail sales should be cut off from tax revenue from the sale of pot?
That's equally absurd.
The local example would be the hideous and unnecessary CTran tax scam that went into effect a few years back.
Those of us who lived outside the gerrymandered boundaries of the CTran taxing district were denied any say on the collection and expenditure of this tax, but we certainly weren't granted any exemption from PAYING it.
That same principle must apply here, because the boundaries of a community will not stand as some sort of a shield to the problems "legalized" retail recreational pot smoking will and have caused.
So, we look at a relatively poor community like Fife, and we coerce them into selling pot by cutting off any tax revenue from it's sale on one hand, while we cry "local control" on the other.
Meanwhile, who gets raped for the costs of the increased use of pot?
The taxpayers of that community, a community located in the vicinity of a reservation where the city leaders have determined that they are not going to endorse yet another method for people of all ages to get wasted... in a community where plenty of methods existed before this one was added to the mix... made the right call for their community.
So, if a small town doesn't have a gas station in it, are they going to be cut off from ever getting/using gas tax revenue?
Because that's what we're saying here for those who stamp dere widdle footsies and cross their arms while sticking out their lounges and yelling: if you don't sell it, then you get no revenue from those municipalities who put revenue... as tiny as it is... ahead of doing the right thing.
No... the people HAVE spoken. But their voice was delivered through a $582 million filter.
And the number one duty on this issue... the "paramount" duty on this issue... is to make sure the dopers keep their end of the bargain: they have 582 million reasons why.