5 ms·

Allowing the government to tax addictive substances after banning them under the auspices of paternalism is morally repugnant. I don't want to live in a countr

Allowing the government to tax addictive substances after banning them under the auspices of paternalism is morally repugnant. I don't want to live in a country where we allow the people in charge to create black markets only to prosper from them during and after "legalization". If we continue to allow the "tax it to have it" narrative we will suffer the consequences of it. No amount of "school funding" or "road construction" justifies it.

bragr 4y ago
As apposed to booze, tobacco, porn (18 USC 2257 among others), cannabis (in many states), gambling (also in many states), prostitution (nevada), strip clubs, etc...?
- chatterhead 4y ago
  No, in addition to. The whole system is fucked and by design so governments and the chosen licensees can prosper from it. Often, at the expense of the disenfranchised the system destroyed to "enforce the law".
  - bragr 4y ago
    >The whole system is fucked and by design so governments and the chosen licensees can prosper from it. Ah yes, much better to rely on the definitely not fucked by design black market instead.
    - blangk 4y ago
      The black market exists because of the current system too
    - chatterhead 4y ago
      We don't have to have a black market or a government tax. It can be legalized without government skimming.
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
If you live in the U.S. then presumably acknowledge that you are already in such a circumstance by virtue of the repeal of the 18th Amendment?
- georgeecollins 4y ago
  Or what about tobacco? In my lifetime smoking has decreased incredibly in the United States while always being legal. I don't have a moral problem with that. The government "paternalisticly" discouraged use through taxes and advertising? Also, btw how do you have a government that maintains its sovereignty over its people without from time to time being paternalistic?
- chatterhead 4y ago
  That's the framework they use now, yes. The impetus for that was not what it has become. If you don't know this history stop assuming the context. Carry Nation, women's suffrage, equal rights; these political groups banned together (not unlike LGBTQIQKDNO...) for the purpose of advancing their agendas. One of the major ones was banning spirits (whiskey in particular) as a means of salvaging the moral character of country. During that time the average American consumed 3x as much liquor as they do today. Domestic abuse was magnitudes higher. Orphanages were overcrowded. The circumstances were not the same. But, politicians certainly learned how to leverage the outrage to create a scheme - that much is true.
Dylan16807 4y ago
I can't tell what you'd rather have instead of taxing, can you explain better? > I don't want to live in a country where we allow the people in charge to create black markets only to prosper from them during and after "legalization". But those markets existed openly before they were banned in the first place. The banning doesn't lead to increased profits for the people in charge. This complaint makes no sense to me.
- chatterhead 4y ago
  If you can't understand the want for a world without government interference then a discussion in a thread isn't going to help.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    I can understand that, now that you have clarified. Your first post wasn't clear whether you wanted the government out of the way, or whether you wanted the bans to stay as bans. Either way, I think your middle paragraph is very strange. When asking whether something should be taxed, why does it matter whether it was previously banned? I don't see how "create black markets only to prosper from them" makes sense as a complaint here. The theoretical tax money would be very similar if they had never banned the drug in the first place.
    - chatterhead 4y ago
      To clarify: The misunderstanding lies in the reconciliation of pre-ban tax receipts and post-legalization tax-receipts and how they would be materially different if taxing is still taxing. 1) Black markets create higher prices. (increased risk = increased return) 2) Prices go up potential tax receipts go up. 3) Banning free market activity allows for the elimination of current competitive producers. (reduced supply increases price if demand holds steady) 4) Banning free market activity allows for later legalization of winners through licensing. (kickbacks) 5) Regulation through legalization creates government jobs which increases political power. Tax-it-to-have-it schemes benefit politicians and governments not people.

bragr 4y ago

As apposed to booze, tobacco, porn (18 USC 2257 among others), cannabis (in many states), gambling (also in many states), prostitution (nevada), strip clubs, etc...?

chatterhead 4y ago
No, in addition to. The whole system is fucked and by design so governments and the chosen licensees can prosper from it. Often, at the expense of the disenfranchised the system destroyed to "enforce the law".
- bragr 4y ago
  >The whole system is fucked and by design so governments and the chosen licensees can prosper from it. Ah yes, much better to rely on the definitely not fucked by design black market instead.
  - blangk 4y ago
    The black market exists because of the current system too
  - chatterhead 4y ago
    We don't have to have a black market or a government tax. It can be legalized without government skimming.

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

If you live in the U.S. then presumably acknowledge that you are already in such a circumstance by virtue of the repeal of the 18th Amendment?

georgeecollins 4y ago
Or what about tobacco? In my lifetime smoking has decreased incredibly in the United States while always being legal. I don't have a moral problem with that. The government "paternalisticly" discouraged use through taxes and advertising? Also, btw how do you have a government that maintains its sovereignty over its people without from time to time being paternalistic?
chatterhead 4y ago
That's the framework they use now, yes. The impetus for that was not what it has become. If you don't know this history stop assuming the context. Carry Nation, women's suffrage, equal rights; these political groups banned together (not unlike LGBTQIQKDNO...) for the purpose of advancing their agendas. One of the major ones was banning spirits (whiskey in particular) as a means of salvaging the moral character of country. During that time the average American consumed 3x as much liquor as they do today. Domestic abuse was magnitudes higher. Orphanages were overcrowded. The circumstances were not the same. But, politicians certainly learned how to leverage the outrage to create a scheme - that much is true.

Dylan16807 4y ago

I can't tell what you'd rather have instead of taxing, can you explain better? > I don't want to live in a country where we allow the people in charge to create black markets only to prosper from them during and after "legalization". But those markets existed openly before they were banned in the first place. The banning doesn't lead to increased profits for the people in charge. This complaint makes no sense to me.

chatterhead 4y ago
If you can't understand the want for a world without government interference then a discussion in a thread isn't going to help.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  I can understand that, now that you have clarified. Your first post wasn't clear whether you wanted the government out of the way, or whether you wanted the bans to stay as bans. Either way, I think your middle paragraph is very strange. When asking whether something should be taxed, why does it matter whether it was previously banned? I don't see how "create black markets only to prosper from them" makes sense as a complaint here. The theoretical tax money would be very similar if they had never banned the drug in the first place.
  - chatterhead 4y ago
    To clarify: The misunderstanding lies in the reconciliation of pre-ban tax receipts and post-legalization tax-receipts and how they would be materially different if taxing is still taxing. 1) Black markets create higher prices. (increased risk = increased return) 2) Prices go up potential tax receipts go up. 3) Banning free market activity allows for the elimination of current competitive producers. (reduced supply increases price if demand holds steady) 4) Banning free market activity allows for later legalization of winners through licensing. (kickbacks) 5) Regulation through legalization creates government jobs which increases political power. Tax-it-to-have-it schemes benefit politicians and governments not people.