Marketplace
![[SeMissourian.com]](http://www.semissourian.com/images/nameplate.gif)
|
|
Fog/Mist ~ River stage: 33.47 Rising Saturday, November 21, 2009 |
RSS
 Print
 Email link
 Respond to editor
 Read comments (20)
 Share link
3 from Cape arrested on marijuana chargesSaturday, June 13, 2009Southeast Missourian Ten pounds of marijuana were seized Thursday from a vehicle carrying three Cape Girardeau residents in Advance, Mo., according to a news release from the SEMO Drug Task Force. John L. Tate, 28, Tamika Tate, 20, and Anthony Williams, 25, were arrested on suspicion of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and taken to the Stoddard County Sheriff's Department. Bond was set at $250,000 for each. The arrests came after an investigation and surveillance, the news release said. Police identified the vehicle carrying the three as it traveled south on Highway 25 and made the arrests in a private parking lot in Advance. The Stoddard County Sheriff's Department, Advance Police Department, Missouri State Highway Patrol and Drug Enforcement Administration assisted in the investigation. Comments  Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
|
More stories
Enter your email address to subscribe to our mailing lists:
|
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Furl
Reddit
Google
Wow! Imagine the tax revenue on ten pounds if this was legal! Seems to me the state is missing out!
I'm sure alcahol was their "gateway" drug.
If Pot was legalized , this would not happen. Would have saved all the money the Police waste, had all the Tax revenue to spend etc etc.
Legalization is coming !
Even if the imfamous Mary Jane becomes legal, who will be at liberty to indulge?
Was reading recently that even in places where the stuff is legal, employers will still fire you for a dirty urine. That means if you party Saturday night and they drop a urine test on you Monday morning, traces in your system will cost you your job.
The drug is not like many. It stays in your system long after the buzz is gone.
What a fantastic country we live in. I just wonder how much money was used in this operation versus how much money could have earned in the form of taxes.
Legalize, tax, and regulate.
Where is this "freedom" that I keep hearing about?
Can't wait til this is legalized! I'm gonna hire every homeless person in Cape as a farm hand!
"Megalomania Pot Farms: We're on a Natural High."
Now that has a nice ring to it.
hmmmm,
You do realize that employers can modify their drug policies, correct? And, of course, the gov't can always intervene if needed.
If employers can require their employees to be alcohol free and tobacco free then they should be allowed to require them to be marijuana free...
hmmmmmmmmm
I have indulged for 35 years , how long do you think it stays in your system ?
"I have indulged for 35 years , how long do you think it stays in your system ?"
35 YEARS, BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.
I don't supposed you'd be willing to leave your name and address so we can find you?
Well aren't you the big Tough guy,check out LEAP.cc web site unless you are afraid to be Educated .
"Educated?" ...Sorry i'm still choking.
Again, dont legalize it, but tax it like many other states have been doing. Marijuana tax stamps have to be purchased to possess or sell marijuana, it is still illegal, but if you do not have the tax stamp when caught, it is additional charges.
Many states already have marijuana tax stamps and make money from the sale and possession of marijuana. Kinda kicks the whole legalize it and tax it idea in the butt, doesn't it??
cartman: Once again I challenge you to provide at least one little citation showing the big money that you seem to believe some states and cities generate from marijuana tax stamps.
And make sure that number is higher than the additional money that taxpayers will pay for longer sentencing for tacking on "tax evasion" charges for those without stamps(otherwise why would anyone bother with the stamps). Any state that actually enforces their drug tax stamps does it only to give prosecutors an additional charge to use against dealers. Financially it is a money losing option for everyone that isn't in the prison business.
Again, Nil, I posted the "evidence" on your last post. Will not continue to provide the same infomation if you are not willing to put down the marijuana pipe and look back to your last comments. Or did all that marijuana make you forget that you had another post, which asked me to provide "evidence" that states are making money from the tax stamps.
Kansas made over 2.4 million dollars in taxes, while not liegaling marijuana. Go back and look at your last post and you will see the stats. Those states are not using it for longer sentences, but to generate money, which is what the most of the people on these posts are saying to do with the legalization of marijuana.
cartman,
Your info is so wrong it isn't even funny. The Marijuana Tax Act was passed as a trick way to make hemp illegal. It required a tax stamp for use and sale of marijuana but the trick was, no stamps were made available! Not one single cent from this act has ever been collected, much less the millions you claim. It was declared unconstitutional by the U.S.Supreme Court in 1969 because newer laws making hemp illegal would cause you to incriminate yourself if you applied for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marijuana_T...
Cartman: You previously provided a few numbers with no links or citations. Without that how should anyone trust that you simply did not make them up.
For Kansas the 2.5 million you claim(Which I cannot find any evidence for) is absolutely nothing compared to the additional administrative and court costs and punishment costs to a state. If their is no additional punishments then why would any dealers purchase stamps? Just because they are so upstanding and honest?
http://www.ksrevenue.org/faqs-abcdrugtax...
"What happens to a drug dealer not possessing drug tax stamps?
Criminal Penalties:
* Failure to pay the drug tax is a felony punishable of up to five years and/or a fine of up to $10,000."
http://www.mpp.org/states/kansas/news/ka...
"And state tax collections on marijuana increased by 3.6 percent, from $139,227 to $144,236, in the first half of this fiscal year. Tax collections on cocaine, methamphetamine and other hard drugs were up 20.6 percent, $252,515 to $304,905." <-- Numbers from a Joplin Globe article back in 2003... they seem a little short of 2.5 million
"But no one seriously suggests that drug pushers are buying tax stamps.
"Just about the only people who buy those are stamp collectors," said Sen. Stan Clark, R-Oakley, a member of the Assessment and Taxation Committee.
"My son and I collect stamps, but we didn't want that kind of public exposure," he laughed.
He needn't have worried.
The Revenue Department is aware of the collector interest in its stamps, Longino said. "That's about all we sell." <-- From the same article it doesn't seem that the dealers are the ones buying...
As for North Caroline it looks like they are a little more successful than Kansas. Although it did take them a decade or so to refine their laws as back in 1998 they had to refund all their previously collected revenue due to losing the Lynn v. West.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/24/nyregi...
"North Carolina collected $11 million in taxes last year on illegal drugs and moonshine." <-- Can you find how how much of that is due to marijuana and not other drugs and moonshine?
"Since North Carolina's law was passed in 1990, only a few dozen people have voluntarily bought the stamps. "They're mostly stamp collectors," Ms. Brooks said." <-- So once again nobody is buying the stamps.
In all cases the additional revenue appears to be property that would in most cases have been subject to existing forfeiture laws anyway. Instead of a local police department getting to lay claim to the cash they find on a drug dealer they bust in those states with tax stamps the state revenue department can swoop in take most of the money instead. In those cases it is merely shifting revenue around within the government not creating new revenue.
Nil,
Interesting links, I had no idea states were trying this again. Any fine levied against someone for violating these rules could be easily beaten in court since the Supreme Court ruled forty years ago that applying for a tax stamp for an illegal product would be self incriminating and in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Data48: Their have been several court cases on the stamps. As I noted North Carolina had to refund a whole lot of seizure money back in 1998 after losing a case.
What the various appeals courts have came down on deciding is allowing drug tax stamps only if they can be purchased by anyone without showing ID and ensuring that no information about the purchasers is ever released outside of the department of revenue. Also their needs to be a "grace period" for purchasing the stamps (typically within 48 hours of receipt of the drugs so that an otherwise law-abiding dealer could have time to buy their stamps) and the charge needs to be made alongside all the other charges so that the state cannot go after an already convicted dealer for additional tax evasion charges (which gets into double jeopardy).
Basically it is only legal if the states are willing to provide an easy and anonymous way of paying the tax so that a drug dealer could theoretically pay their taxes without incriminating themselves in anyway. Of course in reality the only purchasers are stamp collectors, but doing all that gets them around any Fifth Amendment arguments.
If employers change their drug policies then I guess it will be ok for persons employed as doctors, teachers, daycare providers, paramedics, police officers, military personnel, hell even the president, to go to work high. That would be interesting.