8 ms·

As long as you ignore the whole tax revenue part.

by simplexion 10y ago

ypeterholmes 10y ago
Exactly. By skipping over the huge $$$ profits this article reveals itself to be pretty disingenuous.
- newjersey 10y ago
  I think we shouldn't base our arguments for legalization on tax revenues. I hope the tax revenue will go down as more states (I hope) will legalize. I oppose the use of sin taxes to fund our government. I hope most people would agree with me on that.
  - brbsix 10y ago
    Agreed. Personally I find the moral argument, that people have self-ownership over their bodies and that it is immoral to initiate force against others (particularly for victimless "crimes"), far more compelling. You wouldn't argue against slavery on the basis of the potential for vast technological advancement decades or centuries after its abolition, would you? Nor would you cede the argument simply because it appears economically inviable.
  - mrcsparker 10y ago
    These things should exist outside of revenue. If it was more to have a free society does should we rethink freedom? It feels silly to attach a monetary value to individual liberty. Tax revenue is used as a benefit for legalization. It feels like a flawed argument, but it still aligns with where I would like to be. The slippery slope argument applies here too: should our freedom be tied to tax revenue? Sure, it works for some drugs. Does it work for our other inalienable rights?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    I actually think that taxes functioning as user fees on things with significant social costs is the ideal policy approach to internalize the externalities at play.
    - newjersey 10y ago
      OK so let's start with a "jackass tax". People who act like jackasses and end up in the emergency room for things like "hold my beer and watch how quickly I'm going to climb this tree". Then progress on to people who have children. Children cost a lot of money to the society. We can't even agree on cap and trade which is so watered down that it essentially gives polluters a free pass. Can we really have a serious discussion about 'user fees on things with significant social costs"? Maybe we ought to disincentivize marijuana use. I agree. I don't know what to do with that money. However, I strongly believe that we should not take that money and use it for anything beneficial to the society or to the tax collector. Doing so will mean we will no longer disincentivize what we said we'd disincentivize. It just becomes a tax on a minority.
- illumin8 10y ago
  They don't skip over this; it just isn't called out in the summary: "One area where legal marijuana has reaped unexpectedly large benefits is state tax revenue. Colorado, Washington, and Oregon all impose significant excise taxes on recreational marijuana, along with standard state sales taxes, other local taxes, and licensing fees. As seen in Figure 25, Colorado collects well over $10 million per month from recreational marijuana alone.91 In 2015 the state generated a total of $135 million in recreational marijuana revenue, $35 million of which was earmarked for school construction projects. These figures are above some pre-legalization forecasts, although revenue growth was disappointingly sluggish during the first few months of sales.92 A similar story has unfolded in Washington, as illustrated in Figure 26, where recreational marijuana generated approximately $70 million in tax revenue in the first year of sales93—double the original revenue forecast.94 Oregon only began taxing recreational marijuana in January 2016, so data are still preliminary; however, state officials report revenues of $14.9 million so far, well above the initial estimate of $2.0 million to $3.0 million for the entire calendar year95 The tax revenues in these states may decline."
loeg 10y ago
And that a whole segment of people are no longer potentially felons.
prostoalex 10y ago
Specifically in California medical usage is already regulated and taxed. Significant growth of tax revenue after legalization will only happen if the delta of people interested in cannabis and people who already have medical marijuana cards is large enough. I am not opposing legalization by any means, but in the age of $49 medical evaluations via Skype what are the chances there's a huge market that's not been covered under current, fairly liberal, regime?

As long as you ignore the whole tax revenue part.

ypeterholmes 10y ago

Exactly. By skipping over the huge $$$ profits this article reveals itself to be pretty disingenuous.

newjersey 10y ago
I think we shouldn't base our arguments for legalization on tax revenues. I hope the tax revenue will go down as more states (I hope) will legalize. I oppose the use of sin taxes to fund our government. I hope most people would agree with me on that.
- brbsix 10y ago
  Agreed. Personally I find the moral argument, that people have self-ownership over their bodies and that it is immoral to initiate force against others (particularly for victimless "crimes"), far more compelling. You wouldn't argue against slavery on the basis of the potential for vast technological advancement decades or centuries after its abolition, would you? Nor would you cede the argument simply because it appears economically inviable.
- mrcsparker 10y ago
  These things should exist outside of revenue. If it was more to have a free society does should we rethink freedom? It feels silly to attach a monetary value to individual liberty. Tax revenue is used as a benefit for legalization. It feels like a flawed argument, but it still aligns with where I would like to be. The slippery slope argument applies here too: should our freedom be tied to tax revenue? Sure, it works for some drugs. Does it work for our other inalienable rights?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  I actually think that taxes functioning as user fees on things with significant social costs is the ideal policy approach to internalize the externalities at play.
  - newjersey 10y ago
    OK so let's start with a "jackass tax". People who act like jackasses and end up in the emergency room for things like "hold my beer and watch how quickly I'm going to climb this tree". Then progress on to people who have children. Children cost a lot of money to the society. We can't even agree on cap and trade which is so watered down that it essentially gives polluters a free pass. Can we really have a serious discussion about 'user fees on things with significant social costs"? Maybe we ought to disincentivize marijuana use. I agree. I don't know what to do with that money. However, I strongly believe that we should not take that money and use it for anything beneficial to the society or to the tax collector. Doing so will mean we will no longer disincentivize what we said we'd disincentivize. It just becomes a tax on a minority.
illumin8 10y ago
They don't skip over this; it just isn't called out in the summary: "One area where legal marijuana has reaped unexpectedly large benefits is state tax revenue. Colorado, Washington, and Oregon all impose significant excise taxes on recreational marijuana, along with standard state sales taxes, other local taxes, and licensing fees. As seen in Figure 25, Colorado collects well over $10 million per month from recreational marijuana alone.91 In 2015 the state generated a total of $135 million in recreational marijuana revenue, $35 million of which was earmarked for school construction projects. These figures are above some pre-legalization forecasts, although revenue growth was disappointingly sluggish during the first few months of sales.92 A similar story has unfolded in Washington, as illustrated in Figure 26, where recreational marijuana generated approximately $70 million in tax revenue in the first year of sales93—double the original revenue forecast.94 Oregon only began taxing recreational marijuana in January 2016, so data are still preliminary; however, state officials report revenues of $14.9 million so far, well above the initial estimate of $2.0 million to $3.0 million for the entire calendar year95 The tax revenues in these states may decline."

loeg 10y ago

And that a whole segment of people are no longer potentially felons.

prostoalex 10y ago

Specifically in California medical usage is already regulated and taxed. Significant growth of tax revenue after legalization will only happen if the delta of people interested in cannabis and people who already have medical marijuana cards is large enough. I am not opposing legalization by any means, but in the age of $49 medical evaluations via Skype what are the chances there's a huge market that's not been covered under current, fairly liberal, regime?