Thanks to successful petition drives for three competing proposals, all three are on the ballot. Two would amend the Missouri Constitution; the other would change condition rules simply. What goes on if more than one passes? That is where things get sticky. According to the Missouri Secretary of State’s office, the constitutional amendments take precedence over the condition regulation proposition.
If both constitutional amendments complete, the one with “yes” votes takes effect. But legal experts agree that the passage of more than one measure will almost certainly lead to a court fight. Former Missouri Solicitor General Jim Layton said one key issue remains unclear: If a measure passes but is nevertheless trumped by one of the others, would its non-conflicting provisions also become law?
Former Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Michael Wolff statistics such nuances will be irrelevant to many voters. All three would allow patients with cancers, HIV, epilepsy, and other conditions usage of medical marijuana. The variations involve how marijuana would be regulated and taxed largely, and where in fact the new taxes dollars would go.
Backers of both contending constitutional amendments are waging a bitter battle. Amendment 2, from a coalition of patients, doctors, and veterans called New Approach Missouri, emphasizes the worthiness of medical marijuana for veterans. Post-traumatic stress disorder is one of the conditions that would qualify, and a 4 percent sales tax would go to a newly-created account for health insurance and care services for veterans. The sales-tax income also would be used to administer the licensing of medical marijuana businesses. The competing Amendment 3 effort is financed almost exclusively by Brad Bradshaw, a Springfield personal injury attorney who also is a medical doctor.
It would impose a 15 percent tax on the retail sale of marijuana as well as a wholesale tax on the sale of marijuana bouquets and leaves. Critics say the Amendment 3 taxes would be and away the highest in the country on medical marijuana considerably. Cardetti was critical of a provision in Amendment 3 that could give Bradshaw broad powers over the operation of the new research institute, including choosing its board members. 88,166 liens from the Missouri Department of Revenue in November.
- Describe who handles the systems that influence
- They hold one another accountable for delivering against those programs
- The manager should be analytic, data and metrics focused
- Know my best users/accounts
- 10 Frame Feeding System
- 06-20-2019, 05:20 AM
31, in April 375 federal tax lien. Bradshaw was traveling and unavailable for comment, a spokesman said. His lawyer, Kevin J. Kerr, said in a notice to the Post-Dispatch that Bradshaw was in a repayment plan with the condition. Kerr blamed the federal lien on the Internal Revenue Service misapplying a corporate payroll payment and said that matter will be resolved. Bradshaw filed lawsuits that sought to have the other two measures taken off the ballot over petition signature issues.
Proposition C would impose a 2-percent taxes on the sale of medical marijuana to be used for veteran services, medications, early childhood education, and public safety in metropolitan areas with medical marijuana facilities. Mystery surrounds its backers: Proposition C is backed by Missourians for Patient Care, a political action committee.
It has not disclosed its financial supporters. Email and mobile phone messages still left with the PR and lobbying company behind the petition drive were not returned, and a lawyer involved in the effort declined comment. Kevin Sabet, CEO of Washington-based Smart Approaches to Marijuana, said his group opposes all three Missouri methods. Thirty other claims have passed medical marijuana laws.
But of course it isn’t politically irrelevant. The Fed has opponents in Congress, who would be all too prepared to pillory the money-losing Fed and to curtail its power. The Fed knows this of course, and can do all it can to keep its income high. But that might indicate holding the IROR at too low a level for too much time, and risking excessive inflation thus. Thus, the Fed has put itself between your rock and the hard place and has gained in the process little.
The expansion of the balance sheet through various rounds of QE and twisting have accomplished essentially nothing, and now the Fed could be faced with an unsatisfied short-run tradeoff – the risk of loss of independence vs. Is higher inflation a risk really? If it was, why hasn’t it reared its ugly head?