6 ms·

> Is marijuana bad and the government needs to bribed to let it? "The government", no; but many voters, yes. There are a lot of people who don't use cannabis

by Kadin 14y ago

> Is marijuana bad and the government needs to bribed to let it? "The government", no; but many voters, yes. There are a lot of people who don't use cannabis and don't have any interest in whether or not it's legal, but are swayed by the potential tax revenues. It was the bargain necessary to get the votes to pass it. Perhaps in the future the tax rate will be stepped down if it's really felt to be excessive or if there's widespread avoidance, or at least the double-taxation aspect will be eliminated, but it might just stay: depending on what the price of cannabis turns out to be in the marketplace, the 25% tax might still end up being lower than the total (state + federal) taxes levied on cigarettes in many places.

ComputerGuru 14y ago
the 25% tax might still end up being lower than the total (state + federal) taxes levied on cigarettes in many places. I'm sure the government will want their cut soon enough, then it'll be 25% state tax + whatever the federal government decides to charge. As it is, no one is mentioning the fact that states can't truly decide whether to legalize marijuana because at the end of the day, the federal government has legislation that supersedes local/state regulations in this manner. It'll be in the supreme court very soon, I'll bet.
- xiaoma 14y ago
  >"states can't truly decide whether to legalize marijuana because at the end of the day, the federal government has legislation that supersedes local/state regulations in this manner"* Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the ninth amendment say pretty much the opposite of this?
  - graysnorf 14y ago
    The USFG gets jurisdiction from the commerce clause.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "no one is mentioning the fact that states can't truly decide whether to legalize marijuana because at the end of the day, the federal government has legislation that supersedes local/state regulations in this manner" They aren't mentioning this because of the "fact" that the federal government will not change its stance until the states change their stance. It's not immutable.
Firehed 14y ago
If people don't care either way, they should be swayed by the massive cost savings by significantly reducing the scope of the war on drugs and the associated legal and penitentiary costs. I'm not opposed to taxing it like alcohol or perhaps cigarettes (especially as a non-user) but 25% seems a bit crazy. Of course it may still end up cheaper to buyers. But if that's the cost of progress, fine. Two steps forward and one step back is still directionally correct.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  But you see, we have much less evidence that legalization = saving money in the war on drugs. Increasing revenues by taxing something new is pretty damn clear cut. It will be easier to convincingly make the argument that cutting back on the war on drugs is positive, after a few torchbearers lead the way. You don't have to convince me, I'm just speaking of the population at large.
- lukeschlather 14y ago
  The main issue here is that our medical care system is totally screwed. At the end of the day, if no one else can, the state has to pay for emergency care. I voted for the marijuana bill, but the contra argument is pretty persuasive at least from a money standpoint. Marijuana use will probably at least double as a result of this bill. Unfortunately, this has a real cost to society. There's not a lot of quality data on the health effects of regular pot use, but what I've read says it's something of a mix of the effects of alcoholism and cigarette addiction. This is going to have a real dollar cost to the state unless we can fix our healthcare system before people who start taking up pot now that it's legal start getting cancer in 10-15 years. Again, I voted for the bill, but I agree with the argument that it has hidden deferred costs.
  - pstuart 14y ago
    Obviously more people will try it if it is legal, but it's pretty ubiquitous now and most adults have already had the chance to sample and decide. As for the "cost to society", I have to imagine that any damage from use (and there's not much evidence for it) would be countered by the decrease in real damage done by the War on Drugs.
WalterBright 14y ago
If the taxes are too high, the black market and its associated crime returns. This happened with high cigarette taxes a few years back, and the taxes were stepped back down.

by Kadin 14y ago

ComputerGuru 14y ago

the 25% tax might still end up being lower than the total (state + federal) taxes levied on cigarettes in many places. I'm sure the government will want their cut soon enough, then it'll be 25% state tax + whatever the federal government decides to charge. As it is, no one is mentioning the fact that states can't truly decide whether to legalize marijuana because at the end of the day, the federal government has legislation that supersedes local/state regulations in this manner. It'll be in the supreme court very soon, I'll bet.

xiaoma 14y ago
>"states can't truly decide whether to legalize marijuana because at the end of the day, the federal government has legislation that supersedes local/state regulations in this manner"* Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the ninth amendment say pretty much the opposite of this?
- graysnorf 14y ago
  The USFG gets jurisdiction from the commerce clause.
illuminate 14y ago
"no one is mentioning the fact that states can't truly decide whether to legalize marijuana because at the end of the day, the federal government has legislation that supersedes local/state regulations in this manner" They aren't mentioning this because of the "fact" that the federal government will not change its stance until the states change their stance. It's not immutable.

Firehed 14y ago

If people don't care either way, they should be swayed by the massive cost savings by significantly reducing the scope of the war on drugs and the associated legal and penitentiary costs. I'm not opposed to taxing it like alcohol or perhaps cigarettes (especially as a non-user) but 25% seems a bit crazy. Of course it may still end up cheaper to buyers. But if that's the cost of progress, fine. Two steps forward and one step back is still directionally correct.

sliverstorm 14y ago
But you see, we have much less evidence that legalization = saving money in the war on drugs. Increasing revenues by taxing something new is pretty damn clear cut. It will be easier to convincingly make the argument that cutting back on the war on drugs is positive, after a few torchbearers lead the way. You don't have to convince me, I'm just speaking of the population at large.
lukeschlather 14y ago
The main issue here is that our medical care system is totally screwed. At the end of the day, if no one else can, the state has to pay for emergency care. I voted for the marijuana bill, but the contra argument is pretty persuasive at least from a money standpoint. Marijuana use will probably at least double as a result of this bill. Unfortunately, this has a real cost to society. There's not a lot of quality data on the health effects of regular pot use, but what I've read says it's something of a mix of the effects of alcoholism and cigarette addiction. This is going to have a real dollar cost to the state unless we can fix our healthcare system before people who start taking up pot now that it's legal start getting cancer in 10-15 years. Again, I voted for the bill, but I agree with the argument that it has hidden deferred costs.
- pstuart 14y ago
  Obviously more people will try it if it is legal, but it's pretty ubiquitous now and most adults have already had the chance to sample and decide. As for the "cost to society", I have to imagine that any damage from use (and there's not much evidence for it) would be countered by the decrease in real damage done by the War on Drugs.

WalterBright 14y ago

If the taxes are too high, the black market and its associated crime returns. This happened with high cigarette taxes a few years back, and the taxes were stepped back down.