CDR: Re: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes

[jim bell]

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim May <tcmay at got.net>
Subject: RE: California bars free speech of those cutting deals on votes


> At 1:14 PM -0500 11/1/00, Trei, Peter wrote:
> >I think one other state has a similar proposition this year, and
> >another (New Mexico?) has had a similar law in place for a
> >while, to great success.
>
> California passed the Medical Marijuana Initiative (more than once,
> as I recall, as the Fedgov found "technicalities" to strike it down
> the first time it passed).
>
> No "interstate commerce" is involved (*), for most home-grown pot,
> and yet the Fedgov has asserted the claim that federal dietary laws
> take precedence over local dietary laws.

What I'd like to see is for a state, any state, to apply some sort of "100%
State Income Tax for People engaged in violating  the right of citizens to
make and use pot [for medicinal reasons, etc]."

In other words, any Fed participating in such a case would lose his yearly
salary, guaranteed.    I'm wondering if there are any legal impediments to
this.  Feds don't normally claim immunity from local and state laws, or
taxes, etc.  The tax isn't on the enforcement of Federal laws:  It would
simply be a separate income tax on people who happen to do this.  Obviously,
a Fed must pay state income tax on income from his (Fed) job; the only issue
is how high those taxes are.   Change that number from, say, 10% to 100% and
that solves the problem.   It would be unusual for the tax rate to be
determined by source of income, but there should be plenty of precedent for
things like tax credits conditional on a person's behavior.  Assuming the
state Constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit setting a discriminatory tax
rate this should "fly" if the state had the guts to do this.

Jim Bell


>
> (* As we know, the interstate commerce clause was oriented toward
> making sure that only the Federal government could imposes tariffs on
> goods moving between the states. This was to head off a flurry of
> opportunisitc tariffs imposed by the states. It had _nothing_ to do
> with the notion that if a book publisher, for example, ships books
> across state lines that the Federal government then has some means to
> regulate the content. This seems to be commonly misunderstood; not by
> Cypherpunks, but I'm repeating this just to make sure.)
>
> If these United States were functioning as intended, this and similar
> cases would go to the Supreme Court and the Court would find that the
> states cannot be told what to by the Fedgov in matters like this.
>
> But we have not been functioning as intended for most of the past century.
>
>
> --Tim May
> --
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> "Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.
>