4 ms·

> Are they planning to tax it later? Depends on who "they" are. If you're talking about the Federal government, I don't see them giving up on the War on Drugs

> Are they planning to tax it later? Depends on who "they" are. If you're talking about the Federal government, I don't see them giving up on the War on Drugs(tm) any time soon. I'm not sure about how Colorado is operating, but the setup in Washington includes pretty steep taxes and quite a bit of regulation.

sliverstorm 13y ago
To my knowledge of Colorado, there is a 15% state excise tax that will be channeled to schools, and a 10% state tax that will go back to regulation. There may also be city taxes; Denver was to vote on a 5% tax a little while ago.
gknoy 13y ago
What might be the down side of having roughly as available as tobacco, with similarly harsh levels of taxation?
- WalterSear 13y ago
  The people who have supplied the war on drugs stop getting paid.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    And for a lot of people the rich don't like (the blacks, latinos, the underclasses) there's one less way to put them in jail and/or pressure them.
    - WalterSear 13y ago
      IMHO, racism and prejudice are a drop of water in the ocean that is peoples' drive to make money and justify/secure their careers. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair
morganw 13y ago
> If you're talking about the Federal government, I don't see them giving up on the War on Drugs(tm) any time soon. They're obligated by treaty to keep cannabis illegal Relaxation of US cannabis laws 'violates UN drug conventions' http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/05/relaxation-cannabis-laws-us-un http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/05/relaxation-ca...
- coldtea 13y ago
  Aren't they also obligated by tons of treaties not to spy on UN countries?
- icebraining 13y ago
  No, the INCB claims they are obligated to keep cannabis illegal, but they're not necessarily competent to decide on that issue. In particular, according to the 1988 Convention, the parties are only required to do so "in conformity with the fundamental provisions of their respective domestic legislative systems", which it might be argued a federal prohibition isn't.

sliverstorm 13y ago

To my knowledge of Colorado, there is a 15% state excise tax that will be channeled to schools, and a 10% state tax that will go back to regulation. There may also be city taxes; Denver was to vote on a 5% tax a little while ago.

gknoy 13y ago

What might be the down side of having roughly as available as tobacco, with similarly harsh levels of taxation?

WalterSear 13y ago
The people who have supplied the war on drugs stop getting paid.
- coldtea 13y ago
  And for a lot of people the rich don't like (the blacks, latinos, the underclasses) there's one less way to put them in jail and/or pressure them.
  - WalterSear 13y ago
    IMHO, racism and prejudice are a drop of water in the ocean that is peoples' drive to make money and justify/secure their careers. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Upton_Sinclair

morganw 13y ago

> If you're talking about the Federal government, I don't see them giving up on the War on Drugs(tm) any time soon. They're obligated by treaty to keep cannabis illegal Relaxation of US cannabis laws 'violates UN drug conventions' http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/05/relaxation-cannabis-laws-us-un http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/05/relaxation-ca...

coldtea 13y ago
Aren't they also obligated by tons of treaties not to spy on UN countries?
icebraining 13y ago
No, the INCB claims they are obligated to keep cannabis illegal, but they're not necessarily competent to decide on that issue. In particular, according to the 1988 Convention, the parties are only required to do so "in conformity with the fundamental provisions of their respective domestic legislative systems", which it might be argued a federal prohibition isn't.