9 ms·

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-t

by 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.

by gopalv 13y ago

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.