Thanks for the catch, Jimmy. Your ire is appreciated, as always.
I've been trying to screw up the courage to eat it, Todd. Recommended? Thanks, by the way!
Yep. I know. I even looked it up special to make sure. Then I wrote it wrong anyway....
Don. Older. LensCrafters employee. Drives a Camaro. Best character in the series. Don. #teamdon
Far too many French cartoons in my childhood...
System Administrator: The auditor's office isn't advocating a straight market-value tax. This was just supposed to illustrate some of the inequity in tax rates as a springboard for discussion.
I'm not saying they're not different, Myst, but I think you're wrong to suggest they're "totally" different. Taxing, as you point out, is far less onerous. But nothing in Measure 91 precludes a lottery for licenses, the OLCC has fully as much leeway as the WSLCB did in most ways, which is why we're saying people need to keep a weather eye if this thing passes. And I'm not even sure licensing costs are different, as Paul Stanford suggests in the essay you link to. Pretty sure both measures call for a $250 application fee and a $1,000 fee to actually be licensed.
And, yes, I spoke with Anthony about merging the medical and recreational systems. His take is that nothing precludes Oregon from folding the recreational market in with the medical as happened in Colorado (many people actually see that as the reason for CO's relative success)
All Comments »
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |