Drug Tax Stamp?

[Gurm]

Originally posted by Wombat
I guess it would too much work for you to actually look. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...al/4921382.htm Indicted last month.

But not convicted. And I quote:

Savage and Jones were charged with possessing methamphetamine and not having a drug tax stamp, both felonies. They also were charged with possessing marijuana and possessing drug paraphernalia, both misdemeanors.

As part of a plea agreement, two of the drug charges against Savage were dropped, and the charges against Jones were dismissed.

Guess which ones?

http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/...556296,00.html Taxes collected.

Umm... this is from an anti-drug page. Their numbers are uncorroborated and highly suspect. This is the same sort of page that says that Marijuana is physically addictive, that our war on drugs isn't a waste of money, and provides all kinds of disinformation to our kids. In short - everything they say is VERY suspect. Plus, there may very well have been a couple people that paid, rather than face continued scrutiny after getting off on their criminal charges. That means that it's an effective blackmail tool - not a legal one.

http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/appe...11/01-1240.asp Convicted, although conviction overturned for other reasons.

Other reasons? Read the article, chum. It was overturned because the entire thing was illegal. Search? Illegal. Validation of lack of "tax stamps"? Illegal. Oops.

You can do better, can't you? If I'm so wrong, you can surely find me some REAL links?

So Gurm, anymore unfounded facts, oh blessed authority?

Still waiting for you to refute my current ones.

P.S. Sodomy is legal in most states, including Pennsylvania. Do you actually ever check <I>any</I> facts, or do you just make them up as they fit your argument?

Yeah I do. Lemme check!

Well, would you look at that.

Let's see. Questioned in 1980 in PA... "countermanded" in 1995. Actually legally overturned (by precedent, NOT by repeal) in 2001. Sorry, I was a year out of date.

Let's check YOUR state. Hmm...

Looks like the statute was "repealed" in 1972. However, they've still been arresting people - case law has yet to rule that out. Oops!

States where the legislature refuses to legally allow sodomy for homosexuals:

Texas... "unlawful homosexual conduct"
Oklahoma... "crime against nature"
Kansas... "misdemeanor sodomy crime"
Missouri... "sexual misconduct"

States where the legislature refuses to legally allow sodomy for ANYONE, including married couples:

North Carolina "crime against nature"
South Carolina "buggery"
Florida "unnatural act"
Louisiana "crime against nature"
Virginia "crime against nature"
Maryland "unnatural acts"
Georgia
Michigan "crime against nature"
Utah
Idaho (possible life sentence!)
Mississippi
Alabama (applies to unmarried same-sex couples only)

Need I go on? Additionally, even in states where the law has been redacted or declared unconstitutional, it is still legal to arrest for the charge, except in the very few states (PA as of a year ago) where case law prohibits same.

- Gurm

[BuddMan]

The original question was is this a hoax, and the answer is no, it is not.

[Gurm]

Right.

Hoax = No.

Legal/Real/Enforceable = No.

Something the D.A. in Kansas will try to pin on every SUSPECTED drug dealer = YES.

- Gurm

P.S. What's really bad, and has me so fired up about this, is the "have your cake and eat it too" mentality. This has been going on for a few years.

Ever since DA's discovered that ANY weak link could lose them a case where the defense attorney is sharp, they've been looking for ways to milk the obviously guilty.

Now, I favor frying Apple Juice Simpson as much as the next guy, but let's face it - the LAPD dropped the ball, and he walked. It happens. It's how our justice system works.

But they're milking him in the civil suit. Is that fair? Well, again I'm divided. He's OBVIOUSLY guilty, so my sense of right/wrong says "sure, suck him dry". But my sense of JUSTICE says "if you are NOT GUILTY, you are NOT GUILTY. PERIOD!"

This is the same damn thing. Instead of fixing the system so that they CAN convict drug dealers, they're sidestepping the problem. "Oh, you walked... well, we didn't find any drug stamps, so we're fining you!"

The problem with that logic is that if they are NOT GUILTY of selling drugs, and NOT guilty of possession, then what would the stamps be on? Hmm?

It's an unenforceable law, unless you actually convict the person it DIDN'T HAPPEN. That's how our system works.

If you find a recently fired gun under my bed, with my prints on it, and it matches the weapon used to kill some guy at the local grocery... if I claim it's not mine, and I have NO IDEA how my prints got on it or it got under my bed... and I walk on a technicality... you can't fine me for not having a weapons license, because as far as the courts are concerned it ISN'T MY GUN and I DIDN'T DO IT.

This is the same thing. You can't fine me for not having drug stamps. I just say "what drugs? I'm not guilty!" and walk out. Simple as that. One look at the pathetic take from last year (although I don't believe those numbers for one minute) indicates how unenforceable it is. If the MOST they could haul in was $100k, for the entire ****ing state, that's pretty pathetic enforcement. That means they busted like ONE guy, maybe two at the most. And I'm guessing that they had already convicted them of dealing. Nobody who walks on the drug felonies will pay this tax. It just won't happen.

- Gurm

[BuddMan]

Well, if it passed, then it's enforceable, no matter how outrageous it seems....

[Marshmallowman]

If you walk you are not going to be done for tax stamps.

if you get found guilty, you will be done for tax evasion in addition to possession if you don't have the stamps to cover your stash.

Seems to me the only real source of income on this when the Dealers cover there asses buying tax stamps to avoid being done for tax evasion as well.

However since most dealers don't expect to be caught, it does seem a bit pointless

It does seem like a backdoor of legitamising drug dealing to me, is pot decrimanlised in Kansas?

[Gurm]

Buddman,

It is NOT enforceable if the dealer takes a miss on the dealing charges, because our legal system presumes innocent until proven guilty. If the DA fails to prove that you're guilty of drug dealing, then even if they confiscated drugs... they are LEGALLY NOT YOURS. Therefore, you cannot be taxed, fined, liened, or anything else, because they're NOT YOURS.

If, however, you're caught dealing and convicted, it'll provide a nice financial whammy in addition to the criminal punishment. However, judging by the pathetic take last year, they aren't making it stick even when the convictions happen... otherwise they would've made WAY more than $100k.

- Gurm

[Wombat]

Originally posted by Gurm
Buddman,

It is NOT enforceable if the dealer takes a miss on the dealing charges, because our legal system presumes innocent until proven guilty. If the DA fails to prove that you're guilty of drug dealing, then even if they confiscated drugs... they are LEGALLY NOT YOURS. Therefore, you cannot be taxed, fined, liened, or anything else, because they're NOT YOURS.
- Gurm

It could be. The taxes are collected as civil damages. This wouldn't be much different than the OJ cases.

[Paddy]

Remember, oral sex is illegal in 40 out of the 50 states. Sodomy (between ANY two individuals) is illegal in all 50. In most of the states on the east coast, it is technically illegal for two people to sleep in the same bed at a hotel or motel, married or not. (Hence the reason for two double beds in most rooms).

Land of the free

[KvHagedorn]

Every one of those laws is bullshit because of the 4th amendment. Without that, we would be in rough shape.

[Jammrock]

Why do people always have to pick on my Kansas? It's all that wizard of oz guys fault...otherwise everyone else would be picking on Oklahoma or Nebraska, like it should rightfully be.

Jammrock

[Gurm]

Well if Kansas didn't make bizarre laws, outlaw fun sex between two conesnting adult people (by the by Oral Sex is considered Sodomy by Kansas as well as most other states), and whatnot...

- Gurm

[Kooldino]

Originally posted by Gurm
My mind boggles at the thought.

You buy stamps... to put on illegal drugs.

You have to give your name and address in order to buy the stamps.

No, you DO NOT have to give your info...

"A dealer is not required to give his/her name or address when purchasing stamps and the Department is prohibited from sharing any information relating to the purchase of drug tax stamps with law enforcement or anyone else. "

But it's obviously a law just so they can hit you with one more thing and fine you for it if they want the $. But ONLY if you're convicted of possesion.