Say it Ain't So

R

RockX

Banned
California state lawmakers are considering an unusual idea to solve the state's huge budget shortfall: Tax pornography.

The idea was proposed by a state assemblyman, and would impose a 25 percent tax on the production and sales of pornographic videos -- the vast majority of which are made in southern California.

It is unknown, however, how seriously lawmakers will take the idea or how the porn business would deal with the new tax. It is likely, though, that porm-makers would simply pass the cost along to consumers by making pornographic materials more expensive.

However, many economists believe that pornography is an industry with inelastic demand -- meaning market conditions typically don't affect consumers' desire for the product. In other words, it is believed that most porn consumers would continue to buy regardless of how much it cost.

A potential economic downside to the tax proposal is that porn producers could leave California to manufacture and distribute videos in other states that don't impose the tax.


LOL....

Reminds me of that story in Texas, where they charged a $5.00 per person fee in Texas strip clubs to help raise money for sexual assault victims and people without health insurance. It got overturned in the courts.
 
Sounds good to me.

Along with legalizing prostitution and policing it.

Legalizing marijuana and policing and taxing the shit out of it.

Maybe with President O we can do this stuff. He is pro decriminalizing MJ.
 
http://prorev.com/2008/02/obamas-many-views-on-marijuana.html

OBAMA'S MANY VIEWS ON MARIJUANA

PAUL KRASSNER - During a debate in the Democratic presidential primaries campaign, MSNBC moderator Tim Russert, the claymation journalist, asked the candidates who opposed decriminalization of marijuana to raise their hands.

Barack Obama hesitantly raised his hand halfway before quickly lowering it again. However, in January 2004, when Obama was running for the Senate, he told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession. "I think the war on drugs has been a failure, and I think we need to rethink and decriminalize our marijuana laws," he said during a debate at Northwestern University. "But I'm not somebody who believes in legalization of marijuana."

Was Obama now having a time-travel debate with himself? When the Washington Times confronted Obama with that statement on a video of the 2004 debate, his campaign offered two explanations in less than 24 hours. First, a spokesperson said that Obama had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, that he misunderstood the question when he raised his hand, and reiterated Obama's opposition to full legalization, adding that an Obama administration would "review drug sentences to see where we can be smarter on crime and reduce the blind and counterproductive sentencing to non-violent offenders."

But, after the Times posted the video on its website, the Obama campaign made a fast U-turn and declared that he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use--thereby rejecting both decriminalization and legalization.

What exactly is the difference? The definitions, according to Pot Culture: The A-Z Guide to Stoner Language & Life by Shirley Halperin and Steve Bloom, with a foreword by Tommy Chong: "Decriminalization: When laws governing marijuana are changed to reduce the penalties for possession of small quantities (usually below an ounce) to non-criminal status. The first state to decriminalize was Oregon in 1973, followed by California, New York, Ohio, Nebraska, Minnesota, Colorado, Mississippi, Alaska, North Carolina and Maine."

"Legalization: The complete repeal of marijuana prohibition and removal of all criminal penalties for its use, sale, transport and cultivation. The Netherlands is the only country in the world with such a policy."

Ron Fisher at NORML told me, "Decriminalization is the elimination of criminal penalties for the possession of marijuana, usually by replacing them with a fine (similar to a speeding ticket). Full legalization is a more complex issue that involves U.S. treaties, as well as the law. Legalization would be characterized by taxation and regulation of marijuana.
 
Didn't Texas put a "pole" tax on strip clubs ? Pretty much the same thing CA is proposing.

I go for a sin tax on Republicans.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization_of_marijuana_in_the_United_States


Decriminalization of marijuana in the United States began in the 1970s and several jurisdictions have subsequently decriminalized marijuana (also referred to as cannabis) for non-medical purposes, as views on marijuana have liberalized, peaking in 1978.[1] The decriminalization movement supports efforts ranging from reducing penalties for marijuana-related offenses to removing all penalties related to marijuana, including sale and cultivation. Proponents of marijuana decriminalization argue that a substantial amount of law-enforcement resources would be freed, which could be used to prevent more serious crimes, and would reduce income earned by street gangs and organized crime who sell or traffic marijuana. Opponents argue decriminalization will lead to increased crime, increased marijuana usage, and subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs.

I think the confusion lies in his exact stance on the issue.
 
To this day I am still flabbergasted that Mississippi is in that list of states. And there are very few things that flabbergast this man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top