7 ms·

Looking at how much money Colorado is raking in, I honestly think it's just a matter of time before other states fall in line with legalizing marijuana. Awkward

Looking at how much money Colorado is raking in, I honestly think it's just a matter of time before other states fall in line with legalizing marijuana. Awkward banking situation be damned.

wavefunction 12y ago
Well, and saving money/focusing resources on crimes other than cannabis enforcement compound the economic value of legalized cannabis.
cbd1984 12y ago
I'm waiting for a marijuana case of some kind to come before the Federal courts.
- Alex3917 12y ago
  Already happened, the ruling is going to come within the next three weeks: http://blog.norml.org/2015/02/12/federal-judge-hears-closing-arguments-in-constitutional-challenge-to-cannabis-schedule-i-status/ http://blog.norml.org/2015/02/12/federal-judge-hears-closing...
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    > "It is unimaginable to believe that if heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, or even over-the-counter medications were being distributed in 23 states and the District of Columbia, Congress and the President would abdicate all regulatory authority to those jurisdictions, and then cut off all funds … to intervene in related distribution activities" What does this quote mean? I'm having trouble parsing it properly. Also, in the US, methamphetamine is a legal Schedule II drug for ADHD and obesity.
    - Alex3917 12y ago
      They're saying that if 23 states had legalized heroin then the government would have intervened to stop them. So the fact that the government hasn't intervened shows that it isn't as dangerous as other schedule I drugs, and therefore shouldn't be schedule I. (Even though as you say cocaine and methamphetamine are both legal by prescription, and heroin is basically legal as well in the form of morphine, but whatever.)
  - zxcvcxz 12y ago
    What does it realistically mean if this judge finds that marijuana is improperly scheduled? Does marijuana become default legal? Does it defer to the state laws? Does the process of re-scheduling start? etc.
  - SapphireSun 12y ago
    IANAL, but I'd be very surprised if this case ends up doing anything. The case is subject to "rational basis" review, the weakest form of review. As is mentioned in the article, the government correctly argues that congress doesn't even have to be right, it just has to have a "rational basis" for its action. In fact, the so long as the court can imagine a rational basis of action, even one that is totally unrelated to the legislative history, the government can prevail. The government can easily argue a rational basis by saying "Drugs are bad mkay? While there may be some medicinal uses (which we deny), even if they existed we think that there are better substitutes distilled by pharmaceutical companies in each case presented by the plaintiffs. The government has a legitimate interest in promoting the health of the nation. Therefore, by demonstrating a legitimate interest and precluding medicinal uses, schedule I is rational." Not that I believe this is good policy mind you, just that arguing under these conditions is unlikely to lead to change. http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-laws-3-levels-of-scrutiny-explained.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-la...
imjustsaying 12y ago
I agree with you that the incentive to tax marijuana is high due to the revenue potential for power groups within the state. Others suggest that marijuana should be legalized so that the state can reap tax revenues, as if the state is a creature whose feeding is a virtue in and of itself. I find this puzzling, as taxation an entirely independent concept to legalization. Attaching the two issues together seems unnecessary. The taxes on plants in the various states seem pretty high, and various sources tell me that the retail prices are still not much lower than the previous black market prices. These taxes, especially given how high they are, seem like they are destined to produce the same problems of prohibition.
- mc32 12y ago
  But vices are usually heavily taxed. (Ok, sure, some of this is medicinal, but let's be frank) So, i don't see much of an issue with it. Leveraging taxes makes this appealing to people for whom it might not be. As for the prices being similar to black market, that may be so, for now, but there is one thing which should give it an advantage and that's quality control, aka, branding. And, as others have pointed out, legalizing it, eliminates the social cost of prosecuting what were once crimes --that's a big advantage.
  - researcher88 12y ago
    Why is this so easily accepted? In Denver, the weed sales tax is upwards of 21% with a previous 15% excise tax from cultivator to retail outlet. In Colorado, it's less than 8% tax on a 6 pack of beer and the great majority of this is a federal tax. Weed is demonstrably safer and thus less sinful than alcohol and tobacco. I dislike how easily the tax argument is received. If you can show a relationship that adds to healthcare costs then by all means institute sin taxes, including for soda. But if you are only making a moral judgement about what not to do, then I think the argument is without merit. More details- http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/22/whatever-happened-to-treating-marijuana http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/22/whatever-happened-to-treat...
    - mc32 12y ago
redstripe 12y ago
$52 million revenue for a state with $28500 million in expenditures is a drop in the bucket. However it looks like they spent $770 million on corrections - probably with a sizable portion spent on drug enforcement. Or would drug related incarceration mostly be paid by the federal government? https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-tax-data https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-... http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_state_budget http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_state_budget

Looking at how much money Colorado is raking in, I honestly think it's just a matter of time before other states fall in line with legalizing marijuana. Awkward banking situation be damned.

wavefunction 12y ago

Well, and saving money/focusing resources on crimes other than cannabis enforcement compound the economic value of legalized cannabis.

cbd1984 12y ago

I'm waiting for a marijuana case of some kind to come before the Federal courts.

Alex3917 12y ago
Already happened, the ruling is going to come within the next three weeks: http://blog.norml.org/2015/02/12/federal-judge-hears-closing-arguments-in-constitutional-challenge-to-cannabis-schedule-i-status/ http://blog.norml.org/2015/02/12/federal-judge-hears-closing...
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  > "It is unimaginable to believe that if heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, or even over-the-counter medications were being distributed in 23 states and the District of Columbia, Congress and the President would abdicate all regulatory authority to those jurisdictions, and then cut off all funds … to intervene in related distribution activities" What does this quote mean? I'm having trouble parsing it properly. Also, in the US, methamphetamine is a legal Schedule II drug for ADHD and obesity.
  - Alex3917 12y ago
    They're saying that if 23 states had legalized heroin then the government would have intervened to stop them. So the fact that the government hasn't intervened shows that it isn't as dangerous as other schedule I drugs, and therefore shouldn't be schedule I. (Even though as you say cocaine and methamphetamine are both legal by prescription, and heroin is basically legal as well in the form of morphine, but whatever.)
- zxcvcxz 12y ago
  What does it realistically mean if this judge finds that marijuana is improperly scheduled? Does marijuana become default legal? Does it defer to the state laws? Does the process of re-scheduling start? etc.
- SapphireSun 12y ago
  IANAL, but I'd be very surprised if this case ends up doing anything. The case is subject to "rational basis" review, the weakest form of review. As is mentioned in the article, the government correctly argues that congress doesn't even have to be right, it just has to have a "rational basis" for its action. In fact, the so long as the court can imagine a rational basis of action, even one that is totally unrelated to the legislative history, the government can prevail. The government can easily argue a rational basis by saying "Drugs are bad mkay? While there may be some medicinal uses (which we deny), even if they existed we think that there are better substitutes distilled by pharmaceutical companies in each case presented by the plaintiffs. The government has a legitimate interest in promoting the health of the nation. Therefore, by demonstrating a legitimate interest and precluding medicinal uses, schedule I is rational." Not that I believe this is good policy mind you, just that arguing under these conditions is unlikely to lead to change. http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-laws-3-levels-of-scrutiny-explained.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-la...

imjustsaying 12y ago

I agree with you that the incentive to tax marijuana is high due to the revenue potential for power groups within the state. Others suggest that marijuana should be legalized so that the state can reap tax revenues, as if the state is a creature whose feeding is a virtue in and of itself. I find this puzzling, as taxation an entirely independent concept to legalization. Attaching the two issues together seems unnecessary. The taxes on plants in the various states seem pretty high, and various sources tell me that the retail prices are still not much lower than the previous black market prices. These taxes, especially given how high they are, seem like they are destined to produce the same problems of prohibition.

mc32 12y ago
But vices are usually heavily taxed. (Ok, sure, some of this is medicinal, but let's be frank) So, i don't see much of an issue with it. Leveraging taxes makes this appealing to people for whom it might not be. As for the prices being similar to black market, that may be so, for now, but there is one thing which should give it an advantage and that's quality control, aka, branding. And, as others have pointed out, legalizing it, eliminates the social cost of prosecuting what were once crimes --that's a big advantage.
- researcher88 12y ago
  Why is this so easily accepted? In Denver, the weed sales tax is upwards of 21% with a previous 15% excise tax from cultivator to retail outlet. In Colorado, it's less than 8% tax on a 6 pack of beer and the great majority of this is a federal tax. Weed is demonstrably safer and thus less sinful than alcohol and tobacco. I dislike how easily the tax argument is received. If you can show a relationship that adds to healthcare costs then by all means institute sin taxes, including for soda. But if you are only making a moral judgement about what not to do, then I think the argument is without merit. More details- http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/22/whatever-happened-to-treating-marijuana http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/22/whatever-happened-to-treat...
  - mc32 12y ago

redstripe 12y ago

$52 million revenue for a state with $28500 million in expenditures is a drop in the bucket. However it looks like they spent $770 million on corrections - probably with a sizable portion spent on drug enforcement. Or would drug related incarceration mostly be paid by the federal government? https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-tax-data https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/revenue/colorado-marijuana-... http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_state_budget http://ballotpedia.org/Colorado_state_budget