Legalize And Tax Marijuana?
It was several years ago during the Q&A portion of a presentation I was giving about the federal deficit in a VERY socially and fiscally conservative suburb of Detroit that I was asked a simple and very sincere question: Why doesn't the federal government legalize heroin and crack and then tax the sales?
I was stunned both by the question and by the people who were asking it. They were asking about the mechanics of how it would work, how much revenue legalization would bring in, etc. They were specifically asking about heroin and crack.
And they were completely serious.
Which is why this story by Anita Kumar from yesterday's The Washington Post about a Virginia delegate introducing a bill to figure out how much revenue the state would bring in if it legalized marijuana wasn't as shocking to me as it otherwise might have been.
On the one hand, this is the Commonwealth of Virginia where where the sales of bottled booze are still only available in government-owned stores and religious leaders in the southern and western parts of the state likely would prefer that prohibition return.
On the other hand, this is Virginia which, like most other states, has budget issues and is looking for alternative sources of revenue.
But from a budget perspective (please put aside your religious or moral arguments for a moment), legalizing and taxing actually makes sense because:
- It would be a potentially significant source of revenue.
- It would...or should...reduce the cost of law enforcement.
- It would reduce the amount of time the courts would have to devote to drug-related cases.
- It would reduce the number of people in jail for drug-related convictions.
And...and I suspect this was one of the primary reasons the folks in the Detroit suburb who were asking about it...the tax would only be paid by those buying the drugs. As with any sales tax, you could avoid it if you didn't buy whatever was being sold. That would mean that more revenues would be collected, the deficit would be reduced or spending wouldn't have to be cut, and someone else would be paying for it.
I'm not suggesting that this is going to happen any time soon or perhaps even at all. After all, as the article explains, the proposal just to study the concept isn't likely to come up for a vote let alone be approved in Virginia.
But if the idea can be discussed openly in socially conservative suburbs in the Midwest and a state like Virginia...
The big downside of legalization of pot
Pot is a anti-nausea drug. It's ready availability will cause an increase in alcohol use and that will cost the nation a huge sum in heath care on top of the already huge sum alcohol costs the nation.
The budgetary picture for legalization might even be negative!
From experience, nausea is
From experience, nausea is more likely to result from a combination of pot and alcohol than from alcohol alone.
What are you snorting?
You, GregL, could not be any more wrong. The availability of pot will reduce alcohol consumption, which will reduce traffic accidents, domestic violence, and alcohol combined with drug overdoses.
ALL VICTIMLESS CRIMES SHOULD BE TREATED AS NEW REVENUE STREAMS. Fine prostitutes and their johns, fine drug users, or simple legalize, regulate and tax all of them.
GregL, way to make statements
GregL, way to make statements with absolutly no facts to back them up! Pot is already widely available, it is virtually legal in California, and in Massachusetts possession of up to one ounce is a civil infraction bringing a fine, no arrest. There is no dramatic increase in the use of alcohol in either state that I can find by actually doing research on the subject. I know many people, middle aged, with good jobs and children and a wonderful standing in the community who smoke pot more often then they have a drink. Like pretty much everything that makes you feel good, it's not "good for you" in a physical way although there may be psychological benefits, but I'm not going to say there are because I don't have FACTS to back that up. But there are facts that show it is less harmful than alcohol, and less addictive than almost every drug you can think of, including caffeine and nicotine. (Go to DrugWarFacts.org for more information. The argument is always that the usage of pot would suddenly go through the roof if it was legal, but that's pure speculation. Since Pot is illegal those who sell it don't care how old the purchasers are, therefore it is easier for those underage to get pot than alcohol. (According to a study by the National Center on Addiction and Substance abuse at Columbia University) Making Pot legal takes the criminals out of the sales, and while no system is perfect as underage kids can get alcohol and cigarettes, it makes it more difficult. Also those who sell pot also tend to sell harder drugs, they are called "pushers" for a reason, and at least you get the kids who want to do pot going to the local store that doesn't check ID's vs. the drug dealer who makes more money if he can hook these kids on crack or heroin. This is all before the budget benefits of taxing the hell out of it, and lessening the cost of law enforcement and prision. Once again there has been no increase in the crime rate in California or any other state with less restrictive or defacto decriminilization of marijuana, they just aren't benefitting from the taxes. The biggest opponents of the decriminilization referendum in Cali were the owners of current medical marijuana stores who were afraid of lossing the monopoly. Legalization is a no brainer, the only reason we don't is there are still too many 70+ year olds who equate pot with dirty, smelly hippies - even though their 45 year old dentist son and 42 year old mother of five daughter are sparking it up every Saturday night in the hot tub.
The problem with current evidence
We have no statistics that show significant changes in marijuana use with decriminalization because it hasn't happened on any large scale yet. Without variability in the dataset, correlations just can't show up.
And despite your assertion of 'virtual legality', it is still actually illegal. Perhaps more significant, drug use cannot be considered as a plus for employability. Employer drug testing is wide spread and the negative effects are significant.
So the eventual society wide results of acceptance of marijuana use is unknown at this time. My postulate of informed use of marijuana after binge drinking to reduce the after effects of alcohol use is quite reasonable; the corollary of increased binge drinking is on shakier ground. The fact that we have to run a society wide experiment to prove me wrong is unfortunate and risky.
The current criminalization of marijuana is a waste of human potential through imprisonment and economic marginalization. I'd like to fix that and not make other things worse. We can perhaps do that, but I doubt that levering up marijuana as a revenue source for government would result in a moderate use outcome.
Portugal
Portugal decriminalized drugs a while back. CATO has a paper authored by Glenn Greenwald on the results of the decriminalization. Granted, it's not just marijuana, but it gives you a good idea of one result of drug decriminalization done on a large scale.
Thanks, interesting
Portugal took a middle route: decriminalize use while keeping distribution a criminal activity. They have involuntary rehab in place of prison and drug usage is down.
Since the dealers still go to jail, the government can't get any revenue from it, but a very nice outcome in spite of that.
"My postulate of informed use
"My postulate of informed use of marijuana after binge drinking to reduce the after effects of alcohol use is quite reasonable; the corollary of increased binge drinking is on shakier ground."
No, your original "postulate" isn't reasonable, which you would have found out by asking any person with experience in the matter. Marijuana might reduce nausea sometimes, but not nausea induced from drinking. In fact, it makes it worse; it's called "the spins".
You error in your description of my statement
Yes I did error. The sequential use of marijuana first before alcohol will reduce the spins:
http://www.wwu.edu/chw/preventionandwellness/AODWebPDFs/Alcohol&OtherDru...
Sorry, I'm not a user, so much of the particulars don;t stick.
Since you enjoy engaging in discussion of this topic, can you explain why the removal of the massive legal penalties from marijuana use doesn't seem to have any effect on levels of use? One would expect that a cost to deter use and a cost reduce to increase use.
Either something extraordinary must be going on or the data is bad. Which do you think it is?
Relative to the federal
Relative to the federal deficit, such a tax would produce chump change. And given the apparently easy access to grow-your-own pot, it would be a devil to enforce.
The gov't already makes money from pot
The federal government and the prison-industrial complex already make money with pot - through enforcement. This goes for state and municipal police departments that are allowed to confiscate property and money at will.
I sincerely doubt the prison lobby, police unions, or big timber (rayon and paper anybody?) would ever allow marijuana to be legalized. Not to mention big pharma that gets a profit whether you buy your Oxycontin from a crooked doctor or a street dealer.
As for the folks who say people can just grow it and avoid taxes, I don't believe that for one second. We have some very high beer and liquor taxes in my state and I don't see everybody setting up a still or a home brewery. Growing good pot is not as easy as it seems.
This is one of the most
This is one of the most intelligent posts I've seen in a blog comments. Dead on sir. The drug "war" has little to do with drugs. Just read about the Shafer Commission.
This is capitalism, everything is ultimately reduced to who stands to profit.
Long overdue
The extra revenue would be nice, but its not the real benefit. Rather, it would put a nice dent in the prison industrial complex and their selfish overpaid unions (see California, Exhibit 1). Plus, its also a basic question of human freedom and liberty. A bit like the way online gambling has always been illegal - the nanny state (from both parties) butting into the lives of individuals.
I thought drug sales were already taxed
"It was several years ago during the Q&A portion of a presentation I was giving about the federal deficit in a VERY socially and fiscally conservative suburb of Detroit that I was asked a simple and very sincere question: Why doesn't the federal government legalize heroin and crack and then tax the sales? Why doesn't the federal government legalize heroin and crack and then tax the sales?"
I trust that your first reaction was that your talk was about the federal deficit, not state budget deficicts and that it is generally not up to the federal government to de-criminalize the sale and/or possession of drugs. Despite areas of overlapping criminal jurisdiction, the vast majority of existing drug crimes are prosecuted in state criminal courts pursuant to their own criminal codes. That's why the discussion in Virginia has to do with their own budget deficit, not the federal deficit and that's why it has been noted that the laws are different in California than they are in, say, Massachusetts.
As far as taxation is concerned, any profit derived from the sale of illegal substances is already subject to federal and, where applicable, state income taxes. See section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code. I've never found any exception to that general rule for the illegal sale of narcotics (didn't Al Capone get convicted of evading his income taxes?). These transactions are likely also subject to most state sales taxes. Making it legal does not change that---it merely makes these transactions easier to track and regulate.
Of course, legalizing the possession and sale of drugs would result in much less revenue to the federal government from forfeitures....
I hope this reminder encourages your readers to amend their income tax returns, if appropriate.
It all sounds good when
It all sounds good when voiced by middle class citizens who probably have a general sense of responsibility.
Not so good, though, if you have a high-school age kid who is zoned out and flunking most of his subjects.
Just like there is an addicted class or under-class or whatever name you want that is badly damaged by easy access to alcohol, so to with any drug from pot onward.
'Sin taxes' are easy for those with minimal sin, but we ride over somebody's life with our easy revenue.
Cannabis Demand?
I thought this web site was for capitalists? Isn't it conservatives who always tell us minion liberals to "get government out of my way". That government IS the problem. What's that saying Mitt Romney and Republicans always say..... "Let the Market Decide"? Its obvious that there is "demand" for cannabis products nation wide. I also think the market has decided as well. Its hilarious to see people like GregL respond to this issue. Straw men all the way. The real problem with this mentality is that when cannabis is finally legalized in (Colorado/Washington 2012) and the sky DOESN"T fall, what will the moral crusaders say then?
It is funny to listen to the
It is funny to listen to the opinions of people who clearly have little to no experience with drugs.
Marijuana is far safer than alcohol and people like GregL clearly don't know what they are talking about. The prohibition was fueled by racism and the government has ignored all scientific studies on the issue.
Don't expect big revenue on taxing marijuana, the big gain will be from reducing spending in law enforcement, prisons, and the stupid war on drugs.
I might not smoke it
But I'm all for legalizing it.Ironically the people who I know who smoke it for recreational use don't really drink that much alcohol other than socially after work once and a while or at dinner.
I think people here are also missing the boat on another new economic benefit. The increased food sales from people who get the munchies after smoking pot.
The demand for fast food will go thru the roof. If legalized I'll be adding to positions in mcdonalds,wendy's,chipotle mexican grill etc etc.
Then once americans get even fatter you will see increased demand for programs like Jenny Craig etc and you will also see drug sales spike even more in an effort to reduce cholesterol etc etc.
The trickle down effect from this will be a boon to the govt and investors who rotate their portfolios and position themselves for this
Yeah but, Prisons create so
Yeah but, Prisons create so much more private wealth.....
Post new comment