dc.contributor.author | Tim, Artur | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-06-21T11:10:08Z | |
dc.date.available | 2016-06-21T11:10:08Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0208-6069 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11089/18487 | |
dc.description.abstract | W ostatnich latach zaobserwowano zmianę podejścia administracji federalnej
Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki Północnej do zagadnienia zażywania marihuany. Nastąpiło przejście
od wojny pochłaniającej wiele ofiar, do faktycznego pozostawienia decyzji o legalizacji marihuany
poszczególnym stanom. Autor opisuje wskazany proces, przedstawia kontrowersje, jakie
wywołał przełomowy wyrok w sprawie Gonzales v. Reich, analizuje status prawników z branży
narkotykowej (tzw. „marijuana lawyers”), wskazuje na proces planowania podatkowego w aspekcie
handlu marihuaną, a także przedstawia skalę osiąganych przez podmiot publicznoprawny zysków
z obłożenia zażywania marihuany podatkami obrotowymi, oraz z nałożenia podatków dochodowych
na dochód dealerów i podmiotów z nimi współpracujących. | pl_PL |
dc.description.abstract | Over the last few years there has been noticed a change in the approach of the federal
administration of the United States of America to the issue of marijuana. There has been done
a shift from war absorbing many victims to leaving a decision on legalizing marijuana actually up
to the individual states. The Author describes that process, presents controversies caused by a breakthrough
judgment in the case of Gonzales v. Reich, analyses a status of lawyers from the drug industry
(called “marijuana lawyers”), indicates a tax planning process in the aspect of marijuana trade
and shows the scale of gain received by the public structures due to imposing turnover taxes on using
marijuana and income taxes on dealers and entities cooperating with them. | pl_PL |
dc.language.iso | pl | pl_PL |
dc.publisher | Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego | pl_PL |
dc.relation.ispartofseries | Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica;76 | |
dc.subject | planownie podatków | pl_PL |
dc.subject | marihuana | pl_PL |
dc.subject | przemysł narkotykowy | pl_PL |
dc.subject | Gonzales v. Reich | pl_PL |
dc.subject | marijuana lawyers | pl_PL |
dc.subject | tax planning | pl_PL |
dc.subject | marijuana | pl_PL |
dc.subject | drug industry | pl_PL |
dc.subject | marijuana lawyers | pl_PL |
dc.title | Fiskalne aspekty legalizacji miękkich narkotyków. Doświadczenia Stanów Zjednoczonych Ameryki Północnej | pl_PL |
dc.title.alternative | Fiscal aspects of soft drugs legalization. Experience from the United States of America | pl_PL |
dc.type | Article | pl_PL |
dc.rights.holder | © Copyright by Artur Tim, Łódź 2016; © Copyright for this edition by Uniwersytet Łódzki, Łódź 2016 | pl_PL |
dc.page.number | [53]-62 | pl_PL |
dc.contributor.authorAffiliation | Uniwersytet Łódzki, Wydział Prawa i Administracji. | pl_PL |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2450-2782 | |
dc.references | Borden, David. 2013. “Drug Prohibition and Poverty”. The Brown Journal of World Affairs XX (Fall/Winter): 218−243. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Carcieri, Martin D. 2004. “Gonzales v. Reich: An Opening For Rational Drug Law Reform”. Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy I (3): 307−386. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Echegaray, Margarita Mercado. 2006. “Drug prohibition in America: Federal drug policy and its consequences”. Revista Juridica University of Puerto Rico 75 (4): 1215−1276. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Evans, David G. 2013. “The Economic Impacts of Marijuana Legalization”. The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice 7(4): 2−40. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Gierach, James E. 1993. “An economic attack on illicit drugs”. ABA Journal, May: 94−95. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Hoffman, Morris B. 2000. “The Drug Court Scandal”. North Carolina Law Review 78: 1437−1534. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Johnston, David, Neil A. Lewis. 2009. “Obama Administration to Stop Raids on Medical Marijuana Dispensers”. New York Times, March 18. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Kamin, Sam, Eli Wald. 2013. “Marijuana Lawyers: Outlaws or Crusaders?”. Oregon Law Review 91: 869−932. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Leff, Benjamin. 2014. “Tax Planning for Marijuana Dealers”. Iowa Law Review 99: 523−569. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Shasnky, Louis C. 2007. “Gonzales v. Reich: Political Safeguards up in smoke?”. De Paul Law Review 56: 759−798. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Vitiello, Michael. 2009. “Legalizing marijuana: Californiaʼs pot of gold?”. Wisconsin Law Review 6: 1349−1389. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Yanover, Yori. 2013. “Hezbollah Defending Cannabis Fields Against Rebel Takeover”. Jewish Press, July 21. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Colorado Constitution. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Compassionate Use Act, California Health & Safety Code, § 11362.5(d), West Supp. 2006. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §801 et. Seq. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Washington Initiative Measure No. 502, July 8, 2011. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Gonzales v. Reich, 545 U.S. 1. (2005). | pl_PL |
dc.references | People v. Lauria, 251 Cal. App. 2d 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967). | pl_PL |
dc.references | U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov [dostęp 20.04.2015]. | pl_PL |
dc.references | EUROSTAT: ec.europa.eu/eurostat [dostęp 20.04.2015]. | pl_PL |
dc.references | Opinia State Bar of Arizona, Formal Op. 11.01(2011). azbar.org [dostęp 20.04.2015]. | pl_PL |
dc.contributor.authorEmail | atim@marianskigroup.pl | pl_PL |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.18778/0208-6069.76.05 | |