16 ms·

Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

128 points by zvanness 13y ago

gopalv 13y ago
Ugh, is this going to look like Big Tobacco in 50 years? Vice taxes and revenue streams to be kept alive for the district? That's going to be such a kick-in-the-backside for everyone who just wanted to decriminalize it & stop putting people away for years.
- carbocation 13y ago
  Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary function and lung cancer risk. The experts with whom I have discussed this (a few pulmonologists) usually ask about marijuana smoke in the same breath as tobacco smoke, and consider it a probable carcinogen. Fun somewhat-related fact that I learned last week: a one hour hookah session typically equates to a 5 to 10-pack cigarette equivalent.
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    Your last statement sounded weird to me. The matching figure from here: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobacco_industry/hookahs/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobac... would be the volume of smoke inhaled (hookah session = 150 cigarettes). Equivalent is probably the wrong word to describe that.
    - WiseWeasel 13y ago
      Given that hookah smoke feels significantly more mild and moist than cigarette smoke, volume alone is likely a poor measure of health impact. OT: "Hookah is also called [...] hubble-bubble [...]" Citation needed.
      - maxerickson 13y ago
        They provide a citation! There are multiple uses of it in Google search results.
        WiseWeasel 13y ago
        So they did! Their first citation [1] from the American Lung Association even takes it a step further: "Other common names for waterpipes include [...], and hubbly-bubbly." They even cite a study entitled "Hubble-bubble (water pipe) smoking: levels of nicotine and cotinine in plasma, saliva and urine". [2] This rabbit hole goes deep! [1] http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/slati/Trendalert_Waterpipes.pdf http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/slati/Trendalert_Waterpipes.... [2] Shafagoj YA, Mohammed FI, Hadidi.KA., Int J of Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002 Jun; 40(6): 249-55.
    - carbocation 13y ago
      > Equivalent is probably the wrong word to describe that. This known carcinogen should be treated with respect, even when taken by alternative routes, until there is data demonstrating that the cooling mechanism actually improves safety.
      - maxerickson 13y ago
        I'm not suggesting otherwise. I have managed to eschew tobacco since forever and plan to continue doing so. My main intent was to save every other person that did a double take the trouble.
  - nerfhammer 13y ago
    The deleterious health effects of cigarette smoke is the burning plant matter and not the nicotine, so it wouldn't be surprising if marijuana were in the same ball park of dangerousness. Related is the danger of smoke from ordinary wood fire, see: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion
    - learc83 13y ago
      >The deleterious health effects of cigarette smoke is the burning plant matter... I don't think you can say that at all. Of course burning plant matter produces carcinogens, but studies of marijuana smokers haven't found any conclusive evidence of greatly increased cancer risk. There have been some studies that show that smoking tobacco and marijuana together increases cancer risk beyond that of tobacco alone. Smokeless tobacco causes mouth and throat cancers, so something is going on with tobacco itself (or something else common to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco). There is some evidence that radioactive carcinogens found in tobacco play a part in cancer risk.
      - carbocation 13y ago
        > studies of marijuana smokers haven't found any conclusive evidence of greatly increased cancer risk There is epidemiological evidence that marijuana smoking is associated with lung cancer. "Greatly" is subjective so I can't really comment on that.
        learc83 13y ago
        http://news.thoracic.org/june-july-2013/annals-ats.php http://news.thoracic.org/june-july-2013/annals-ats.php "findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use," "In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared to the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco." By greatly, I meant as bad as tobacco which dramatically increases the risk of lung cancer. The previous poster was commenting on the health risks of tobacco being caused entirely by burning plant matter. However, the evidence suggests this isn't true.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    > Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary function and lung cancer risk. Knowledge is potentially unbounded, but I wouldn't say we "lack" anything. Marijuana is probably the single most well-studied substance on the planet. Most FDA-approved drugs have gone through only a fraction of the level of study and testing that marijuana has. > The experts with whom I have discussed this (a few pulmonologists) usually ask about marijuana smoke in the same breath as tobacco smoke, and consider it a probable carcinogen. I've done a lot of research on this topic; unfortunately it's on another hard drive at the moment, but thankfully it's a very easy topic to research yourself. Marijuana itself is not carcinogenic - in fact, it has cancer-fighting properties in some cases, and could be used as an aid in treating cancer directly, not just symptomatically. Consuming marijuana in edible or vapor form possesses no risk of cancer. Interestingly, there have been a number of studies on heavy marijuana users (who smoke marijuana), and by and large, they have failed to conclude that even moderately heavy use of (smoked) marijuana can be linked to lung cancer. This phenomenon is well-known enough that it has spawned its own set of associated explanatory theories, and studies investigating those. Obligatory XKCD disclaimer: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
    - carbocation 13y ago
      > Consuming marijuana in edible or vapor form possesses no risk of cancer. I would like to see a citation of a study that is powered to detect population-level effects which demonstrates that claim. As an aside, I'd also like to see solid data on vapor form tobacco. There is not a definitive study at this point to demonstrate safety or clearly delineate the risk. It would be nice the be able to give meaningful guidance to patients on the topic of marijuana and tobacco, but right now I believe the most accurate and responsible thing to say is "I don't know."
      - lugg 13y ago
        I've been in the vapor scene for a while, I'm starting to hear a few horror stories about liquid build up in the lungs. My guess is over use but its something to watch for. Regarding pot not causing lung cancer I can't really argue, emphasima on the other hand is a very real thing. While this is anecdotal, my mother is a nurse in a country town where there are a lot of weed only life long smokers and most of the old boys are starting to show up in hospital with emphasima. My understanding was that there is about 10 cigarettes worth of tar in a similarly sized joint. I have heard the old wives story about weed doesn't cause cancer many times. Never have I found any study pertaining to it. Or have I been shown any proof. The idea that there is no carcinogens created from burning plant material of any kind is laughable to me. The amount is questionable only maybe. As from personal experience, heavy daily usage is certainly detrimental to health and breathing capacity. There is a lot of misinformation out there take my views and others with a grain of salt. Disclosure, ive always been a staunch legalisation supporter. Never been a fan of decriminalization. Edit, and no I dont smoke anymore.
  - rch 13y ago
    Don't forget that edibles are very popular too.
- SDGT 13y ago
  Eh, I think it's looked at as a compromise by people moreso than a vice tax. I would compare this to alcohol regulations before tobacco. Most of us just want to be able to have a joint on the front porch and not be arrested; the tax revenue is just a necessary evil in this case.
  - wwweston 13y ago
    I think the concern, though, is that governments now have a stake in seeing it continues to be sold. Incentives can be powerful things, and I'm not sure in this case they're good.
- tomphoolery 13y ago
  I don't believe it will be quite the same. Big Tobacco really profits off the fact that most people can't grow tobacco year round, and thus must purchase it at some point throughout the year. That basic fact is what ensures those companies never die. Tobacco was always grown outdoors, and there was never a need to research how to cultivate it clandestinely, be it indoors or small numbers. On the other hand, pot can be grown in a computer case or a closet. It's been bred for almost 100 years (maybe more) to be grown out of sight and out of mind. Given a very small amount of research and learning, almost anyone on the face of this planet can grow a marijuana plant. It's called "weed" for a reason. edit: In other words, it's not exactly the same thing as what big tobacco was doing, which is marketing products on a mass scale, all the while knowing the kind of health damage that such products caused. That is what people had problems with.
  - throwaway1982 13y ago
    As far as easy to grow, I don't know, I don't have the greenest thumb in the world, but it's been pretty darn hard for me. Then if you start talking about real quality, as far as I've seen from some documentaries, it requires a lot of dedication and knowledge to get the kind of quality that I'd smoke consistently. I guess my point is, practically speaking, I see 99% of people still buying it even if it's totally legalized and not taboo.
    - joelhooks 13y ago
      It's basically like brewing beer. It's a skill with labor, knowledge, and experience required to get the desired output. Outdoor requires less moving parts. Still a lot of variables, especially considering you can drive to the store and have your pick ;)
    - tsotha 13y ago
      I agree with this. You might be able to grow your own stuff with mediocre success, but most people will be a) too lazy to put in the effort and b) interested in higher quality and more variety than the backyard plot (or closet) is likely to produce. You can grow your own tomatoes, too, but most people don't, and even those that do usually recover from the gardening bug after two or three seasons. Also, I expect commercial growers will start using GMO and hybrids. You may in fact be unable to grow your favorite variety of pot because you can't get ahold of viable seeds for the strain you want.
- sudomal 13y ago
  I suspect that legalisation of weed is going to be a blip in history and they'll heavily tax it to phase it out. It just doesn't make sense to encourage people to breathe in smoke.
  - vinkelhake 13y ago
    There's a big difference between something being legal and "encouraged".
  - throwaway1982 13y ago
    You can still vaporize and eat edibles.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    While I disagree that legalization will be "just a blip", it's interesting to note that the original law that prohibited marijuana in the US was actually a cleverly worded tax law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 Basically, marijuana was legal, but you were required to purchase a tax stamp (that was never issued) in order to prove that you had paid taxes on it. There were many reasons for this, but one factor was that, at the time, the prevailing thought was that Congress did not have the authority to ban the possession of a substance outright within the states. (Even the 18th Amendment was actually carefully worded in a way such that it didn't technically prohibit all possession and sale of alcohol, the way people oftentimes think). This (tax law) is also the same technique that the Obama administration has used to crack down on legal medical marijuana dispensaries, while still paying lip service to his promise not to[1]. (In the latter case, the tax laws are written in such a way that medical marijuana dispensaries are unable to deduct for normal business expenses that other businesses would be). Al Capone was also convicted of tax evasion[2], as was Reuben Sturman[3]. Tax law can be used as a "politically correct" excuse to criminalize behavior that otherwise would be politically impossible to criminalize. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/harborside-health-center-tax-bill_n_995139.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/harborside-health-c... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Sturman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Sturman
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > Vice taxes and revenue streams to be kept alive for the district? In Colorado, the first $40M in taxes each year are required to be allocated towards school funding, per the state constitution. The not-so-subtle goal is to make it politically painful to repeal this amendment, as any attempt to criminalize marijuana again can be spun as an attempt to cut funding for education. > That's going to be such a kick-in-the-backside for everyone who just wanted to decriminalize it & stop putting people away for years. But it's a big win for people who wanted true legalization and wanted to address the larger problems associated with the illegal supply of marijuana, such as drug cartels.
  - glesica 13y ago
    I think the concern was that we're just replacing illegal cartels with legal cartels. The tax revenue thing is also kind of misleading. First, that number is apparently fixed (based on your wording, I'm not familiar personally), but the there is, presumably, no upper-bound on the actual revenues, so as revenues increase, a smaller percentage goes to education. Second, vice taxes tend to be regressive, the poor pay a higher percentage of their incomes. Some of the "education lotteries" (state lotteries that benefit education) are basically mechanisms for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich(er). Poor people buy the lottery tickets and the tax revenues go to fund college scholarships for middle and upper-middle income kids. That's not socially healthy. Given the two points above, there's a real danger that marijuana taxation will be used to transfer the overall tax burden from higher income people to lower income people.
    - chimeracoder 13y ago
      > I think the concern was that we're just replacing illegal cartels with legal cartels. Agreed, but legal cartels are (marginally) better in that they are forced to operate under the "light of day". This doesn't automatically solve all the problems in se, but it's an important step. > First, that number is apparently fixed (based on your wording, I'm not familiar personally), but the there is, presumably, no upper-bound on the actual revenues, so as revenues increase, a smaller percentage goes to education. Yes, I'm just pointing out that the motivation for the tax was not the same as the motivation behind your typical "vice taxes". It was proposed by the people who wrote Amendment 64 (proponents of legalization). Naturally there's a tradeoff to be made, as you point out, but IMHO, it was a clever attempt to construct the amendment "defensively", to mitigate the risk of people trying to repeal it. The size of the tax, and what to do with any excess revenues, are where one has to make a value judgement, and it really comes down to whether one thinks income should be redistributed from rich to poor, poor to rich, or neither. That's a separate discussion, though - I think almost anybody would agree that it's better to be debating the exact structure of the tax, than to be stuck debating whether or not we should force the drug trade to happen in a completely unregulated, untaxed, underground market.
- hershel 13y ago
  Technically, there are ways to prevent some of the harms of marijuana: Using e-cigarettes and using marijuana strains who mostly contain CBD(which generally has positive effects) and little THC(which creates feelings of paranoia and might have mental health risks) , so there are possible regulatory means to reduce lots of the risks without reducing tax revenue.
  - surement 13y ago
    How can you know which strains contain more cannabidiol?
    - SwellJoe 13y ago
      Higher end strains, as found in dispensaries, are often bred for the desired balance of components, so you can just ask your vendor at the counter. I don't know how well-tested these strains are (aside from, "puff... yeah, man, that's awesome"), but there has always been a desire in the medical marijuana market for selection based on this data which I'm sure carries over, so I suspect that now that it is legal in a couple of places, we'll begin to see Consumer Reports style testing. Hell, maybe even the Consumers Union, themselves, will get on the case.
    - Stratoscope 13y ago
      Many of the California dispensaries publish the test results for CBD and THC. Or you can go by the strain: ones to look for include Harlequin and Cannatonic. As an example, the website for Harborside Health Center currently lists three Harlequin varieties with CBD/THC of 5.2%/6.7%, 5.8%/5.6%, and 8.4%/6.9%. These THC levels are well below the other strains that run 15-25% THC.
  - Stratoscope 13y ago
    You don't need the heavy hand of government for that. The market is taking care of it quite nicely. You can buy a variety of vaporizers on Amazon, and if you visit some dispensaries in California you'll find a few strains that are bred and tested to be rich in CBD and low in THC. I'm sure the same can be found in Washington and Colorado and other states with legal cannabis, medical or otherwise.
- noarchy 13y ago
  In some ways it does resemble a bribe in exchange for freedom. There's also an exchange of power, where they introduce various permits and licenses associated with regulating the industry.
- snarfy 13y ago
  It won't work for pot like it does tobacco. If they tax it too high people will just grow it at home, illegal or not. This doesn't work for tobacco, which would require a small field to grow your own.
chimeracoder 13y ago
It'll be interesting to see how this windfall tax revenue is actually spent. Under Amendment 64, the Colorado state constitution requires that the first $40MM of revenue each year be allocated towards public schools[0]. To my knowledge, the rest of the tax money has not yet been earmarked, so it's currently up for grabs. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_64 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_64.
- cdash 13y ago
  I think I had read some of it will be going to drug rehabilitation/substance abuse prevention programs.
- kristofferR 13y ago
  According to CNN: $40 million to public school construction $86 million for drug prevension, treatment $12,4 million on public health $3 million for law enforcement and public safety $2 million for marijuana industry oversight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT6YYkFK4e0&t=2m0s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT6YYkFK4e0&t=2m0s
  - rch 13y ago
    Everything other than the education component seems inherently wasteful to me. Is there a way to see that these funds are reallocated going forward? Edit: public health could be alright, but there's no way to tell at this level of specification. It would be great to see some improvement in mental health services, for instance.
    - haldujai 13y ago
      Seriously? Without even knowing the details you are able to conclude this is wasteful? In what universe is addiction treatment and police wasteful? I get that not all police are good and corruption exists but try living in a place without a functioning police force and then call it a waste.
      - 13y ago
jsmcgd 13y ago
It will be interesting to see statistics on law enforcement expenditure in Colorado.
hayksaakian 13y ago
I wonder how its doing in WA state.
- adventured 13y ago
  If I recall correctly, the implementation in Washington isn't nearly as far along as in Colorado.
  - hayksaakian 13y ago
    It sure feels like it.
just2n 13y ago
I wonder if there is any (increased) consideration for stronger laws against smoking in public areas. Particularly on high traffic sidewalks. Cigarette smoke is bad enough (and should also be banned in such areas), but Marijuana smoke is far more pungent. It's bad enough we have to deal with exhaust from cars that are clearly illegal (emissions wise), why is it OK to spray toxic fumes all over a sidewalk with a smell that is aptly described as a public nuisance?
- catshirt 13y ago
  are you seriously proposing making something illegal because you don't like how it smells?
  - just2n 13y ago
    That's clearly what I have proposed. Let's ignore the decades of research that clearly indicates that smoke produced from burning any form of cigarette is carcinogenic and triggers allergy symptoms and complications caused by chronic illnesses like Athsma in others. It takes a certain level of inconsideration to sit there and cause other people to breathe smoke. How much would it impact someone, say yourself, to kill someone by inducing an Athsma attack on your lunch break? Further, it's already the case that laws exist to make certain behaviors illegal for the very reason that they inconvenience other people, not because they cause harm. That includes being excessively noisy and producing foul odors in some cases, among many other things. What I've learned today is that there are a lot of inconsiderate assholes on Hacker News. Be it out of general apathy of others or just sheer stupidity. I'd have argued the latter could not have been the case many months ago, but given the recent discussions and new posters, it seems to be a contender. Perhaps then, it is vogue to "care about others" when it's convenient (for instance, when it makes you look good or benefits you), but otherwise fuck other people, because "what I want to do is more important than your entire life". And here I thought this wasn't /., reddit, or 4chan. Wrong.
    - catshirt 13y ago
      as an allergy susceptible smoking asthmatic, i'm going to go out on a limb and guess pollen (or dust, or mold, or...) is a bigger trigger for allergies and asthma than second hand smoke. but i welcome any sources that support your claim. when i was 12 i was sledding in a park and an overwhelming smell of cigar smoke came over me. i found the guy and asked him to stop smoking because it bothered me, he said "get out of here kid". when i was 12, it felt unjust. today, i consider myself audacious and inconsiderate for even asking. >> And here I thought this wasn't /., reddit, or 4chan. Wrong. likewise
SandersAK 13y ago
The "think piece" part of this article, which makes up most of the text, is pretty hilarious: "A key question about the public health impact of legal marijuana is how does it change alcohol consumption patterns. To the extent that legal marijuana displaces legal booze purchases, you're going to see an offsetting decline in alcohol tax revenue. Which would be fine—a big win for public health, in fact—but not quite the financial bounty states may be hoping for. Alternatively, if legal pot leads to a complementary surge in beer drinking, you'll have lots of tax revenue but potentially large problems." So we don't have any evidence or idea if this will affect booze sales, but you know, it could! Also, if it doesn't, there could be other problems, just in general for people...
- johnbenwoo 13y ago
  Not saying it does, just "asking the question." Gotta love speculative journalism.
  - SandersAK 13y ago
    Not only that, but not even explaining how it could be a problem (or not a problem!) with anything specific. You can take the exact same structure he uses there and apply it to any piece of news. But you know, pageviews...
  - badman_ting 13y ago
    A generation ago that paragraph would have been about the "risk "of people starting with pot and moving to heroin/crack/whatever. Times change, or maybe they don't.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    It's very clearly not providing an opinion guised as a question. It suggests that it could go up or down, and concludes that it is something to watch out for, because these are two variables very likely to be connected.
- lugg 13y ago
  I gotta say, I scrolled up and down a couple of times before I realized there wasn't actually another half to that article I missed. It just stops. Should have read top comments first ;/
late_groomer 13y ago
The key question posed by the author is presented as an either/or scenario, it omits a (IMO most likely) third possibility. Alcohol consumption stays the same, as does pot consumption, the only large effect is the revenue stream from pot sales shifts from illegal growers/cartels, to taxable entities. This is not a new drug, it's always been fairly easily attainable.
serge2k 13y ago
How much is it going to save in legal expenses to charge people for posessing/distributing pot?
chc 13y ago
I have to imagine these revenues are inflated by the lack of competition. It will be interesting to see how revenues go when pot tourism isn't a thing anymore.
bane 13y ago
So let's do some back of the envelope math Colorado: 5,268,367 people (2013 est.) Pot Tax Revenues: $98 million That's $18.60 per person. Assuming demand is constant across the U.S. (which is probably not true, but let's go with it) U.S. population: 317,580,230 (current est.) That's $5,906,992,278 in tax revenues for the entire country. 2014 is expected to be even bigger. So what could the nation do with $6 billion+ extra dollars every single year? Of course even a basic analysis of the situation shows that the money earned/saved is far greater than this: reduced need for enforcement, reduced prison requirements, reduced etc. The U.S. spends about $74 billion per year on just prisons. What if we could reduce that number by 1/3rd? I wouldn't mind an addition $25 billion/year sloshing around in more productive uses (in addition to the $6b/year in sales tax). I'm sure there's some more detailed analysis on what the actual numbers might look like, but I'm guessing nationwide, it's something nearing $100 billion/year of money that might be repurposed for things that aren't stupid.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  How about just giving the money back to taxpayers? Nah, they'll probably just waste it.
- rdl 13y ago
  Much bigger than the direct costs of arresting/prosecuting/imprisoning people is the economic loss they represent -- assuming those people could do something productive, they'd be contributing a lot more to society than they cost to lock up today. On top of the costs of locking them up. And, the competent people currently working in law enforcement who could be doing other things. And the deadweight losses, etc. from people (rightly, in many communities) being distrustful of law enforcement and the government. Ending the drug war would be a positive of around the same order of magnitude that the War on Terror has been a negative; hundreds of billions per year on an open-ended basis.
- derefr 13y ago
  Here's a longer, but still mostly back-of-the-envelope calculation: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-tha... It turns out that the tax benefits pale in comparison to the slight reduction in car accidents caused by drunk drivers (because pot use seems to displace alcohol use.)
egypturnash 13y ago
The article notes that it's possible pot purchases may cut into beer purchases. To a certain extent I think that may happen, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people like myself, who smoke a LOT more marijuana than they drink alcohol. I suspect there's a lot more revenue to come from legalizing than there is to lose from people choosing weed over beer.
jonathanmarcus 13y ago
Marijuana should be legal because the US is supposed to be a free country and there is no reason it should be illegal. Tax revenue is a dirty justification that only demonstrates the extreme hypocrisy. It should never be the justification for legality or illegality. The whole discussion about tax revenue allocation is nothing more than red herring. A 25% tax is nothing more than extreme government theft.
- nirnira 13y ago
  Well said. But that's the conflict of America - lip-service to freedom on the one hand, extreme moral conservatism and idiotic public policy on the other.
andyl 13y ago
Pot, gambling, junk TV, junk food, social media. Escapism and distraction.
nirnira 13y ago
I can't believe America sometime. Americans are supposed to cherish freedom. Yet they cravenly surrender and prostitute their freedoms at the slightest sign of moral outrage and censure from their fellow citizens. What free-minded person would support 25% taxation on a product which, if used correctly, has no negative effect on anyone other than that person (i.e. incurs no negative externalities) - and therefore no conceivable justification for taxation?
- Fomite 13y ago
  Two thoughts: 1. Your objection applies to all sales tax. 2. Why do I think you would be equally outraged for staggeringly high laws on pollution-generating industries or firearms, which do have negative effects on other people.
  - nirnira 13y ago
    1. That might be true. I haven't thought about that in any detail. 2. I don't know why either, because I wouldn't.
tareqak 13y ago
The portion of the tax going to public education should have been $40 million plus a flat 5% of revenue to really scale if it's really that lucrative.

128 points by zvanness 13y ago

Ugh, is this going to look like Big Tobacco in 50 years? Vice taxes and revenue streams to be kept alive for the district? That's going to be such a kick-in-the-backside for everyone who just wanted to decriminalize it & stop putting people away for years.

carbocation 13y ago
Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary function and lung cancer risk. The experts with whom I have discussed this (a few pulmonologists) usually ask about marijuana smoke in the same breath as tobacco smoke, and consider it a probable carcinogen. Fun somewhat-related fact that I learned last week: a one hour hookah session typically equates to a 5 to 10-pack cigarette equivalent.
- maxerickson 13y ago
  Your last statement sounded weird to me. The matching figure from here: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobacco_industry/hookahs/ http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobac... would be the volume of smoke inhaled (hookah session = 150 cigarettes). Equivalent is probably the wrong word to describe that.
  - WiseWeasel 13y ago
    Given that hookah smoke feels significantly more mild and moist than cigarette smoke, volume alone is likely a poor measure of health impact. OT: "Hookah is also called [...] hubble-bubble [...]" Citation needed.
    - maxerickson 13y ago
      They provide a citation! There are multiple uses of it in Google search results.
      - WiseWeasel 13y ago
        So they did! Their first citation [1] from the American Lung Association even takes it a step further: "Other common names for waterpipes include [...], and hubbly-bubbly." They even cite a study entitled "Hubble-bubble (water pipe) smoking: levels of nicotine and cotinine in plasma, saliva and urine". [2] This rabbit hole goes deep! [1] http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/slati/Trendalert_Waterpipes.pdf http://www.lungusa2.org/embargo/slati/Trendalert_Waterpipes.... [2] Shafagoj YA, Mohammed FI, Hadidi.KA., Int J of Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002 Jun; 40(6): 249-55.
  - carbocation 13y ago
    > Equivalent is probably the wrong word to describe that. This known carcinogen should be treated with respect, even when taken by alternative routes, until there is data demonstrating that the cooling mechanism actually improves safety.
    - maxerickson 13y ago
      I'm not suggesting otherwise. I have managed to eschew tobacco since forever and plan to continue doing so. My main intent was to save every other person that did a double take the trouble.
- nerfhammer 13y ago
  The deleterious health effects of cigarette smoke is the burning plant matter and not the nicotine, so it wouldn't be surprising if marijuana were in the same ball park of dangerousness. Related is the danger of smoke from ordinary wood fire, see: http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-fireplace-delusion
  - learc83 13y ago
    >The deleterious health effects of cigarette smoke is the burning plant matter... I don't think you can say that at all. Of course burning plant matter produces carcinogens, but studies of marijuana smokers haven't found any conclusive evidence of greatly increased cancer risk. There have been some studies that show that smoking tobacco and marijuana together increases cancer risk beyond that of tobacco alone. Smokeless tobacco causes mouth and throat cancers, so something is going on with tobacco itself (or something else common to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco). There is some evidence that radioactive carcinogens found in tobacco play a part in cancer risk.
    - carbocation 13y ago
      > studies of marijuana smokers haven't found any conclusive evidence of greatly increased cancer risk There is epidemiological evidence that marijuana smoking is associated with lung cancer. "Greatly" is subjective so I can't really comment on that.
      - learc83 13y ago
        http://news.thoracic.org/june-july-2013/annals-ats.php http://news.thoracic.org/june-july-2013/annals-ats.php "findings from a limited number of well-designed epidemiological studies do not suggest an increased risk for the development of either lung or upper airway cancer from light or moderate use, although evidence is mixed concerning possible carcinogenic risks of heavy, long-term use," "In summary, the accumulated weight of evidence implies far lower risks for pulmonary complications of even regular heavy use of marijuana compared to the grave pulmonary consequences of tobacco." By greatly, I meant as bad as tobacco which dramatically increases the risk of lung cancer. The previous poster was commenting on the health risks of tobacco being caused entirely by burning plant matter. However, the evidence suggests this isn't true.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  > Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary function and lung cancer risk. Knowledge is potentially unbounded, but I wouldn't say we "lack" anything. Marijuana is probably the single most well-studied substance on the planet. Most FDA-approved drugs have gone through only a fraction of the level of study and testing that marijuana has. > The experts with whom I have discussed this (a few pulmonologists) usually ask about marijuana smoke in the same breath as tobacco smoke, and consider it a probable carcinogen. I've done a lot of research on this topic; unfortunately it's on another hard drive at the moment, but thankfully it's a very easy topic to research yourself. Marijuana itself is not carcinogenic - in fact, it has cancer-fighting properties in some cases, and could be used as an aid in treating cancer directly, not just symptomatically. Consuming marijuana in edible or vapor form possesses no risk of cancer. Interestingly, there have been a number of studies on heavy marijuana users (who smoke marijuana), and by and large, they have failed to conclude that even moderately heavy use of (smoked) marijuana can be linked to lung cancer. This phenomenon is well-known enough that it has spawned its own set of associated explanatory theories, and studies investigating those. Obligatory XKCD disclaimer: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/
  - carbocation 13y ago
    > Consuming marijuana in edible or vapor form possesses no risk of cancer. I would like to see a citation of a study that is powered to detect population-level effects which demonstrates that claim. As an aside, I'd also like to see solid data on vapor form tobacco. There is not a definitive study at this point to demonstrate safety or clearly delineate the risk. It would be nice the be able to give meaningful guidance to patients on the topic of marijuana and tobacco, but right now I believe the most accurate and responsible thing to say is "I don't know."
    - lugg 13y ago
      I've been in the vapor scene for a while, I'm starting to hear a few horror stories about liquid build up in the lungs. My guess is over use but its something to watch for. Regarding pot not causing lung cancer I can't really argue, emphasima on the other hand is a very real thing. While this is anecdotal, my mother is a nurse in a country town where there are a lot of weed only life long smokers and most of the old boys are starting to show up in hospital with emphasima. My understanding was that there is about 10 cigarettes worth of tar in a similarly sized joint. I have heard the old wives story about weed doesn't cause cancer many times. Never have I found any study pertaining to it. Or have I been shown any proof. The idea that there is no carcinogens created from burning plant material of any kind is laughable to me. The amount is questionable only maybe. As from personal experience, heavy daily usage is certainly detrimental to health and breathing capacity. There is a lot of misinformation out there take my views and others with a grain of salt. Disclosure, ive always been a staunch legalisation supporter. Never been a fan of decriminalization. Edit, and no I dont smoke anymore.
- rch 13y ago
  Don't forget that edibles are very popular too.
SDGT 13y ago
Eh, I think it's looked at as a compromise by people moreso than a vice tax. I would compare this to alcohol regulations before tobacco. Most of us just want to be able to have a joint on the front porch and not be arrested; the tax revenue is just a necessary evil in this case.
- wwweston 13y ago
  I think the concern, though, is that governments now have a stake in seeing it continues to be sold. Incentives can be powerful things, and I'm not sure in this case they're good.
tomphoolery 13y ago
I don't believe it will be quite the same. Big Tobacco really profits off the fact that most people can't grow tobacco year round, and thus must purchase it at some point throughout the year. That basic fact is what ensures those companies never die. Tobacco was always grown outdoors, and there was never a need to research how to cultivate it clandestinely, be it indoors or small numbers. On the other hand, pot can be grown in a computer case or a closet. It's been bred for almost 100 years (maybe more) to be grown out of sight and out of mind. Given a very small amount of research and learning, almost anyone on the face of this planet can grow a marijuana plant. It's called "weed" for a reason. edit: In other words, it's not exactly the same thing as what big tobacco was doing, which is marketing products on a mass scale, all the while knowing the kind of health damage that such products caused. That is what people had problems with.
- throwaway1982 13y ago
  As far as easy to grow, I don't know, I don't have the greenest thumb in the world, but it's been pretty darn hard for me. Then if you start talking about real quality, as far as I've seen from some documentaries, it requires a lot of dedication and knowledge to get the kind of quality that I'd smoke consistently. I guess my point is, practically speaking, I see 99% of people still buying it even if it's totally legalized and not taboo.
  - joelhooks 13y ago
    It's basically like brewing beer. It's a skill with labor, knowledge, and experience required to get the desired output. Outdoor requires less moving parts. Still a lot of variables, especially considering you can drive to the store and have your pick ;)
  - tsotha 13y ago
    I agree with this. You might be able to grow your own stuff with mediocre success, but most people will be a) too lazy to put in the effort and b) interested in higher quality and more variety than the backyard plot (or closet) is likely to produce. You can grow your own tomatoes, too, but most people don't, and even those that do usually recover from the gardening bug after two or three seasons. Also, I expect commercial growers will start using GMO and hybrids. You may in fact be unable to grow your favorite variety of pot because you can't get ahold of viable seeds for the strain you want.
sudomal 13y ago
I suspect that legalisation of weed is going to be a blip in history and they'll heavily tax it to phase it out. It just doesn't make sense to encourage people to breathe in smoke.
- vinkelhake 13y ago
  There's a big difference between something being legal and "encouraged".
- throwaway1982 13y ago
  You can still vaporize and eat edibles.
- chimeracoder 13y ago
  While I disagree that legalization will be "just a blip", it's interesting to note that the original law that prohibited marijuana in the US was actually a cleverly worded tax law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 Basically, marijuana was legal, but you were required to purchase a tax stamp (that was never issued) in order to prove that you had paid taxes on it. There were many reasons for this, but one factor was that, at the time, the prevailing thought was that Congress did not have the authority to ban the possession of a substance outright within the states. (Even the 18th Amendment was actually carefully worded in a way such that it didn't technically prohibit all possession and sale of alcohol, the way people oftentimes think). This (tax law) is also the same technique that the Obama administration has used to crack down on legal medical marijuana dispensaries, while still paying lip service to his promise not to[1]. (In the latter case, the tax laws are written in such a way that medical marijuana dispensaries are unable to deduct for normal business expenses that other businesses would be). Al Capone was also convicted of tax evasion[2], as was Reuben Sturman[3]. Tax law can be used as a "politically correct" excuse to criminalize behavior that otherwise would be politically impossible to criminalize. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/harborside-health-center-tax-bill_n_995139.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/harborside-health-c... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Sturman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Sturman
chimeracoder 13y ago
> Vice taxes and revenue streams to be kept alive for the district? In Colorado, the first $40M in taxes each year are required to be allocated towards school funding, per the state constitution. The not-so-subtle goal is to make it politically painful to repeal this amendment, as any attempt to criminalize marijuana again can be spun as an attempt to cut funding for education. > That's going to be such a kick-in-the-backside for everyone who just wanted to decriminalize it & stop putting people away for years. But it's a big win for people who wanted true legalization and wanted to address the larger problems associated with the illegal supply of marijuana, such as drug cartels.
- glesica 13y ago
  I think the concern was that we're just replacing illegal cartels with legal cartels. The tax revenue thing is also kind of misleading. First, that number is apparently fixed (based on your wording, I'm not familiar personally), but the there is, presumably, no upper-bound on the actual revenues, so as revenues increase, a smaller percentage goes to education. Second, vice taxes tend to be regressive, the poor pay a higher percentage of their incomes. Some of the "education lotteries" (state lotteries that benefit education) are basically mechanisms for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich(er). Poor people buy the lottery tickets and the tax revenues go to fund college scholarships for middle and upper-middle income kids. That's not socially healthy. Given the two points above, there's a real danger that marijuana taxation will be used to transfer the overall tax burden from higher income people to lower income people.
  - chimeracoder 13y ago
    > I think the concern was that we're just replacing illegal cartels with legal cartels. Agreed, but legal cartels are (marginally) better in that they are forced to operate under the "light of day". This doesn't automatically solve all the problems in se, but it's an important step. > First, that number is apparently fixed (based on your wording, I'm not familiar personally), but the there is, presumably, no upper-bound on the actual revenues, so as revenues increase, a smaller percentage goes to education. Yes, I'm just pointing out that the motivation for the tax was not the same as the motivation behind your typical "vice taxes". It was proposed by the people who wrote Amendment 64 (proponents of legalization). Naturally there's a tradeoff to be made, as you point out, but IMHO, it was a clever attempt to construct the amendment "defensively", to mitigate the risk of people trying to repeal it. The size of the tax, and what to do with any excess revenues, are where one has to make a value judgement, and it really comes down to whether one thinks income should be redistributed from rich to poor, poor to rich, or neither. That's a separate discussion, though - I think almost anybody would agree that it's better to be debating the exact structure of the tax, than to be stuck debating whether or not we should force the drug trade to happen in a completely unregulated, untaxed, underground market.
hershel 13y ago
Technically, there are ways to prevent some of the harms of marijuana: Using e-cigarettes and using marijuana strains who mostly contain CBD(which generally has positive effects) and little THC(which creates feelings of paranoia and might have mental health risks) , so there are possible regulatory means to reduce lots of the risks without reducing tax revenue.
- surement 13y ago
  How can you know which strains contain more cannabidiol?
  - SwellJoe 13y ago
    Higher end strains, as found in dispensaries, are often bred for the desired balance of components, so you can just ask your vendor at the counter. I don't know how well-tested these strains are (aside from, "puff... yeah, man, that's awesome"), but there has always been a desire in the medical marijuana market for selection based on this data which I'm sure carries over, so I suspect that now that it is legal in a couple of places, we'll begin to see Consumer Reports style testing. Hell, maybe even the Consumers Union, themselves, will get on the case.
  - Stratoscope 13y ago
    Many of the California dispensaries publish the test results for CBD and THC. Or you can go by the strain: ones to look for include Harlequin and Cannatonic. As an example, the website for Harborside Health Center currently lists three Harlequin varieties with CBD/THC of 5.2%/6.7%, 5.8%/5.6%, and 8.4%/6.9%. These THC levels are well below the other strains that run 15-25% THC.
- Stratoscope 13y ago
  You don't need the heavy hand of government for that. The market is taking care of it quite nicely. You can buy a variety of vaporizers on Amazon, and if you visit some dispensaries in California you'll find a few strains that are bred and tested to be rich in CBD and low in THC. I'm sure the same can be found in Washington and Colorado and other states with legal cannabis, medical or otherwise.
noarchy 13y ago
In some ways it does resemble a bribe in exchange for freedom. There's also an exchange of power, where they introduce various permits and licenses associated with regulating the industry.
snarfy 13y ago
It won't work for pot like it does tobacco. If they tax it too high people will just grow it at home, illegal or not. This doesn't work for tobacco, which would require a small field to grow your own.

chimeracoder 13y ago

It'll be interesting to see how this windfall tax revenue is actually spent. Under Amendment 64, the Colorado state constitution requires that the first $40MM of revenue each year be allocated towards public schools[0]. To my knowledge, the rest of the tax money has not yet been earmarked, so it's currently up for grabs. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_64 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_64.

cdash 13y ago
I think I had read some of it will be going to drug rehabilitation/substance abuse prevention programs.
kristofferR 13y ago
According to CNN: $40 million to public school construction $86 million for drug prevension, treatment $12,4 million on public health $3 million for law enforcement and public safety $2 million for marijuana industry oversight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT6YYkFK4e0&t=2m0s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT6YYkFK4e0&t=2m0s
- rch 13y ago
  Everything other than the education component seems inherently wasteful to me. Is there a way to see that these funds are reallocated going forward? Edit: public health could be alright, but there's no way to tell at this level of specification. It would be great to see some improvement in mental health services, for instance.
  - haldujai 13y ago
    Seriously? Without even knowing the details you are able to conclude this is wasteful? In what universe is addiction treatment and police wasteful? I get that not all police are good and corruption exists but try living in a place without a functioning police force and then call it a waste.
    - 13y ago

jsmcgd 13y ago

It will be interesting to see statistics on law enforcement expenditure in Colorado.

hayksaakian 13y ago

I wonder how its doing in WA state.

adventured 13y ago
If I recall correctly, the implementation in Washington isn't nearly as far along as in Colorado.
- hayksaakian 13y ago
  It sure feels like it.

just2n 13y ago

I wonder if there is any (increased) consideration for stronger laws against smoking in public areas. Particularly on high traffic sidewalks. Cigarette smoke is bad enough (and should also be banned in such areas), but Marijuana smoke is far more pungent. It's bad enough we have to deal with exhaust from cars that are clearly illegal (emissions wise), why is it OK to spray toxic fumes all over a sidewalk with a smell that is aptly described as a public nuisance?

catshirt 13y ago
are you seriously proposing making something illegal because you don't like how it smells?
- just2n 13y ago
  That's clearly what I have proposed. Let's ignore the decades of research that clearly indicates that smoke produced from burning any form of cigarette is carcinogenic and triggers allergy symptoms and complications caused by chronic illnesses like Athsma in others. It takes a certain level of inconsideration to sit there and cause other people to breathe smoke. How much would it impact someone, say yourself, to kill someone by inducing an Athsma attack on your lunch break? Further, it's already the case that laws exist to make certain behaviors illegal for the very reason that they inconvenience other people, not because they cause harm. That includes being excessively noisy and producing foul odors in some cases, among many other things. What I've learned today is that there are a lot of inconsiderate assholes on Hacker News. Be it out of general apathy of others or just sheer stupidity. I'd have argued the latter could not have been the case many months ago, but given the recent discussions and new posters, it seems to be a contender. Perhaps then, it is vogue to "care about others" when it's convenient (for instance, when it makes you look good or benefits you), but otherwise fuck other people, because "what I want to do is more important than your entire life". And here I thought this wasn't /., reddit, or 4chan. Wrong.
  - catshirt 13y ago
    as an allergy susceptible smoking asthmatic, i'm going to go out on a limb and guess pollen (or dust, or mold, or...) is a bigger trigger for allergies and asthma than second hand smoke. but i welcome any sources that support your claim. when i was 12 i was sledding in a park and an overwhelming smell of cigar smoke came over me. i found the guy and asked him to stop smoking because it bothered me, he said "get out of here kid". when i was 12, it felt unjust. today, i consider myself audacious and inconsiderate for even asking. >> And here I thought this wasn't /., reddit, or 4chan. Wrong. likewise

SandersAK 13y ago

The "think piece" part of this article, which makes up most of the text, is pretty hilarious: "A key question about the public health impact of legal marijuana is how does it change alcohol consumption patterns. To the extent that legal marijuana displaces legal booze purchases, you're going to see an offsetting decline in alcohol tax revenue. Which would be fine—a big win for public health, in fact—but not quite the financial bounty states may be hoping for. Alternatively, if legal pot leads to a complementary surge in beer drinking, you'll have lots of tax revenue but potentially large problems." So we don't have any evidence or idea if this will affect booze sales, but you know, it could! Also, if it doesn't, there could be other problems, just in general for people...

johnbenwoo 13y ago
Not saying it does, just "asking the question." Gotta love speculative journalism.
- SandersAK 13y ago
  Not only that, but not even explaining how it could be a problem (or not a problem!) with anything specific. You can take the exact same structure he uses there and apply it to any piece of news. But you know, pageviews...
- badman_ting 13y ago
  A generation ago that paragraph would have been about the "risk "of people starting with pot and moving to heroin/crack/whatever. Times change, or maybe they don't.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  It's very clearly not providing an opinion guised as a question. It suggests that it could go up or down, and concludes that it is something to watch out for, because these are two variables very likely to be connected.
lugg 13y ago
I gotta say, I scrolled up and down a couple of times before I realized there wasn't actually another half to that article I missed. It just stops. Should have read top comments first ;/

late_groomer 13y ago

The key question posed by the author is presented as an either/or scenario, it omits a (IMO most likely) third possibility. Alcohol consumption stays the same, as does pot consumption, the only large effect is the revenue stream from pot sales shifts from illegal growers/cartels, to taxable entities. This is not a new drug, it's always been fairly easily attainable.

serge2k 13y ago

How much is it going to save in legal expenses to charge people for posessing/distributing pot?

chc 13y ago

I have to imagine these revenues are inflated by the lack of competition. It will be interesting to see how revenues go when pot tourism isn't a thing anymore.

bane 13y ago

So let's do some back of the envelope math Colorado: 5,268,367 people (2013 est.) Pot Tax Revenues: $98 million That's $18.60 per person. Assuming demand is constant across the U.S. (which is probably not true, but let's go with it) U.S. population: 317,580,230 (current est.) That's $5,906,992,278 in tax revenues for the entire country. 2014 is expected to be even bigger. So what could the nation do with $6 billion+ extra dollars every single year? Of course even a basic analysis of the situation shows that the money earned/saved is far greater than this: reduced need for enforcement, reduced prison requirements, reduced etc. The U.S. spends about $74 billion per year on just prisons. What if we could reduce that number by 1/3rd? I wouldn't mind an addition $25 billion/year sloshing around in more productive uses (in addition to the $6b/year in sales tax). I'm sure there's some more detailed analysis on what the actual numbers might look like, but I'm guessing nationwide, it's something nearing $100 billion/year of money that might be repurposed for things that aren't stupid.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago
How about just giving the money back to taxpayers? Nah, they'll probably just waste it.
rdl 13y ago
Much bigger than the direct costs of arresting/prosecuting/imprisoning people is the economic loss they represent -- assuming those people could do something productive, they'd be contributing a lot more to society than they cost to lock up today. On top of the costs of locking them up. And, the competent people currently working in law enforcement who could be doing other things. And the deadweight losses, etc. from people (rightly, in many communities) being distrustful of law enforcement and the government. Ending the drug war would be a positive of around the same order of magnitude that the War on Terror has been a negative; hundreds of billions per year on an open-ended basis.
derefr 13y ago
Here's a longer, but still mostly back-of-the-envelope calculation: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-tha... It turns out that the tax benefits pale in comparison to the slight reduction in car accidents caused by drunk drivers (because pot use seems to displace alcohol use.)

egypturnash 13y ago

The article notes that it's possible pot purchases may cut into beer purchases. To a certain extent I think that may happen, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people like myself, who smoke a LOT more marijuana than they drink alcohol. I suspect there's a lot more revenue to come from legalizing than there is to lose from people choosing weed over beer.

jonathanmarcus 13y ago

Marijuana should be legal because the US is supposed to be a free country and there is no reason it should be illegal. Tax revenue is a dirty justification that only demonstrates the extreme hypocrisy. It should never be the justification for legality or illegality. The whole discussion about tax revenue allocation is nothing more than red herring. A 25% tax is nothing more than extreme government theft.

nirnira 13y ago
Well said. But that's the conflict of America - lip-service to freedom on the one hand, extreme moral conservatism and idiotic public policy on the other.

andyl 13y ago

Pot, gambling, junk TV, junk food, social media. Escapism and distraction.

nirnira 13y ago

I can't believe America sometime. Americans are supposed to cherish freedom. Yet they cravenly surrender and prostitute their freedoms at the slightest sign of moral outrage and censure from their fellow citizens. What free-minded person would support 25% taxation on a product which, if used correctly, has no negative effect on anyone other than that person (i.e. incurs no negative externalities) - and therefore no conceivable justification for taxation?

Fomite 13y ago
Two thoughts: 1. Your objection applies to all sales tax. 2. Why do I think you would be equally outraged for staggeringly high laws on pollution-generating industries or firearms, which do have negative effects on other people.
- nirnira 13y ago
  1. That might be true. I haven't thought about that in any detail. 2. I don't know why either, because I wouldn't.

tareqak 13y ago

The portion of the tax going to public education should have been $40 million plus a flat 5% of revenue to really scale if it's really that lucrative.