Should We Tax Pot?

Ms. RedEye

Well-Known Member
Barack Obama is probably getting more letters than Santa Claus this year.

The transition office's mailbox must be full of pleas: "Dear President-elect Obama: I really want a My Little Pony Pinkie Pie - Love, Susie," and "Dear President-elect Obama: I really want a Mustang hybrid model that will sell half a million units in the first year - Love, Alan Mulally."

In Philadelphia this week, the nation's governors did everything but climb into Obama's lap with their wish lists for money to build roads and bridges and schools. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's list alone runs to about $28 billion. Americans want healthcare reform and safe pensions and, truly, world peace.

But who's coming up with the money for this? Do we think we can stick our bicuspids under the pillow and the national tooth fairy will leave $800 billion? No? Then what about legalizing and taxing one of our biggest, oldest vices?

That notion arose because Friday is the 75th anniversary of the end of a nationwide ban on a substance that millions of Americans broke the law and bought anyway: liquor. Criminalizing it turned out to have complications so enormous and expensive that in 1933 a new president, faced with a profound economic crisis, wanted it legalized and taxed again.

Now, as we're desperately trying to reinvent the economy, should we consider marijuana?

We've dipped a toe in those waters already in California. Sales of medical marijuana are taxable - $11.4-million worth for 2005-2006, the most recent (though admittedly murky) figures available.

How much more might we raise from the tons of now-illegal marijuana? When we tried to tax it decades ago, it wasn't so much about raising money as about cutting the demand for dope. In 1937, a new federal tax added so much cost and red tape to purveying marijuana that even doctors were priced out of legally prescribing the stuff. Once pot was banned outright, the tax became a double-dipping opportunity for lawmen. They got you for possessing or selling and for not paying the tax too. In 1968, the feds busted a Santa Barbara couple with 600 pounds of marijuana - and gave them a tax bill for $1,622,000.

Of course, by paying the tax, you would be confessing to breaking the law. Timothy Leary was busted for not paying a marijuana "transfer" tax, but the Supreme Court said the law amounted to self-incrimination and threw his case out.

However, if we keep charging a tax - something above and beyond a sales tax - but take away the criminality, we'd be win-win, right? We don't mind paying "sin" taxes, or levying them, like Schwarzenegger's plan to help beat the deficit with a new 5-cent-a-drink tax.

Marijuana is a huge component of the nation's underground economy. A couple of years ago, the legalize-it forces estimated that the U.S. marijuana crop was worth $35 billion a year. California's share of that was $13.8 billion.

If the number is even half that, any tax windfall, on top of money saved by not prosecuting marijuana crimes, would mean a bonanza, wouldn't it?

Sacramento would be doing the backstroke in black ink. With all the new parks and health clinics, we'd have more ribbon-cuttings than a baby shower. Is this just a pipe dream?

Rosalie Pacula says that in all likelihood, yes. She's a senior economist at the Rand Corp. and co-director of its drug policy research center. Here's how she burst my bubble:

First, you have to consider that legalizing it would have its own costs. Recent research, Pacula says, shows marijuana to be more addictive than was thought. Because marijuana is illegal, and because its users often smoke tobacco or use other drugs, teasing out marijuana's health effects and associated costs is almost impossible. And more people would smoke it regularly if it were legal - Pacula estimates 60% to 70% of the population as opposed to 20% to 30% now - and the social costs would rise.

She takes issue with figures from Harvard's Jeffrey Miron, among others, who says that billions spent on enforcing marijuana laws could all be saved by legalization. Rand's research, Pacula says, finds that many marijuana arrests are collateral - say, part of DUI checks or curfew arrests - and many arrestees already have criminal records, meaning they might wind up behind bars for something else even if marijuana were legal.

Legalization also wouldn't do away with pot-related crime entirely. There would likely be a black market, just as there is in other regulated substances, such as cigarettes and liquor. That means police and prosecution, which cost money.

As to the tax benefit, that's partly a function of the price point for legalized pot. If everyone could legally grow and consume dope, then the crop probably wouldn't be worth $35 billion and the taxes wouldn't be anything to write home about.

"I have a hard time believing the tax revenue would offset the full cost of regulating and enforcing the legal market," Pacula concludes.

No golden pot tax in the pot at the end of the rainbow, then? Pacula left me thinking that the unintended consequences of legalizing marijuana in 2009 might match the unintended consequences of outlawing liquor in 1919.

I'm sorry to let you down, President-elect Obama.

I think I'll go have a drink. Here's your tax nickel, Arnold. Oh heck - I want to do my bit for California. Here's a dime.


News Hawk: MsRedEye: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Los Angeles Times
Author: Patt Morrison
Copyright: 2008 Los Angeles Times
Contact: How to Contact the Los Angeles Times - Los Angeles Times
Website: Should we tax pot? - Los Angeles Times
 
Re: Should We Tax Pot

Nice article, but i still believe that Cannabis should be legalized in regulated if for no other reason then to keep it out of the hands of our children. Prohibition makes it easier for them to get Cannabis and in turn the dealers turn them onto harder drugs BECAUSE they have access to them. This kinda blows up the Governments whole "Gateway Theory" But this is about Taxing it. Well even with the fact that it would be much cheaper, we would still be regulating it through pharmacies and such, which would set a price and get taxes... Sure people will grow there own but not everybody can or will grow there own. I know many people who brew their own beer, but look how much money is gained from taxing alcohol. You can grow your own tobacco but the majority still just go to the store and buy a pack. Thus contributing to the economy through taxes.... So yeah maybe it wont gain X billion of dollars but it will raise x million of dollars.
 
Re: Should We Tax Pot

It's be interested what happens at the Boston Freedom rally this year.

Will they be handing out tickets?

Will they have realized they were spanked at the voting booth and just leave the people alone?

Will they hassle and intimidate, per the old standard operating procedure?
 
Re: Should We Tax Pot

I want to reply to the thread title not the article. No we should not tax pot. Nor should we make it legal. We shouldnt have to do these things because weed shouldnt be illegal in the first place, nor should we have to pax extra for it. Cannabis was here before humans were here....Its going to be here way long after were gone. How the hell are we a country of so many people yet we let so few make all the damn decisions. The only way things are going to get moving in America is if we as a people stand up and do something. So stop reading this get off your ass and go do something! =]
 
Re: Should We Tax Pot

So stop reading this get off your ass and go do something! =]
Stoner's right, how many people that contribute to the forums here are politicly active? I know I am, President Obama and Vice President Biden has a transition team that has asked for opinions from me on every issue we face as a nation.I could of been safe and made generic feel good stements but I did NOT. I detailed plans of a Cannabis Nation,from fuels and textile to medicine [most of you know the bennifits of Cannabis so I will spare the rest of what good would this plant do.] They have thanked me for my input and I know that Big Government is listing to what we have to say,we need more people to step up and rwite your elected officials and let them know where you stand.The time is here folks lets not sqaunder it on waiting for someone to say whats on your mind ,Tell them yourself. Get active be feirce and put yourself into the fire.I have, now you should.
:peace:
 
Re: Should We Tax Pot

Like most things to the government, marijuana is only good if it's making them money. I am disgusted by the fact that their motavation is not in getting sick people the medicine they need or to simply end the jailing of non-violent drug offenders and a failing war on marijuana, but rather to make it a source of revenue in an attempt to fulfill all these new spend-thrift initiatives.

These days every state agency, big business and bank and is bellying up to the bar with their hands out. It's plain to see where all this "bailout" money will be coming from... directly out of the collective pockets of you and I. :peace:
 
Re: Should We Tax Pot

Cannabis should be legalized if for no other reason than to keep it out of the hands of our children. Prohibition makes it easier for them to get Cannabis and in turn the dealers turn them onto harder drugs BECAUSE they have access to them. This kinda blows up the Governments whole "Gateway Theory".
I'm in total agreement with you on that.

As far as taxes, I see ADs from dispensaries who are already charging $700-800 an ounce or more. PT Barnum would be proud. ;) Personally, I can't imagine paying $300 an ounce but I digress. Add on a bunch of taxes to the $700-$800 price tag and who is going to be able to afford $1000 an oz cannabis? Who exactly would that be helping?

Will growers have to pay taxes on each plant they grow? How much would that be and who would verify it? Will I have to allow authorities into my home/garden on a regular basis to inspect my plants? Would the same rate be charged for 1' plants than is charged for 15' plants? There's lots of things to consider here.

This is an interesting topic for discussion but I don't see anything changing, except for the worst. MJ has been so demonized, we're not gonna see changes anytime soon.

:peace:

Harry
 
Re: Should We Tax Pot

Rosalie Pacula has some good points on the surface only...money from black markets funds criminal enterprises including the taliban terrorist organizations...so legalizing would not only have economic benefits but Home Land Security would be better...but just like with Home Brews, 'Beer' it is legal and costly on the supplies and time for the production, so you really only see Hobbiest doing this...and who wants to live with a bunch of plants or a few taking up places like master bedroom bathrooms for people in apts or homes with close neighbors so growing outdoors is no help either... when legal pot at cheap prices can be bought like going to the store for a bottle of wine....easier, practicle, cheaper, revenue....her pesimistic opinion is driven by who she has to answer to and her own agenda...just like every other entity holding us back with their lieing, illogical, non scientific theories they use to fight this war on 'not drugs' but the real War is on The People....Something akin to a 'Civil War'...They say drugs have no boundaries but all you have to do is look at the 1.7 million prisoners out of 2.4 or so Nationally and one might think Racism is alive and well in the good ole U.S of A. ...Now on a Humorous Note ... the last line of the article should have been "Oh heck - I want to do my bit for California. Here's a dime BAG"...hahahahahahahahahahaha
 
De Crim-no tax. Tax imports if necessary. Remember the intrusiveness and suspension of rights in old war on moonshine. Taxing domestic will just create a new bureaucratic nightmare and subsequent war on individual rights.
 
I created an account to reply to this article. In my opinion it is blatant propaganda.

Is this just a pipe dream?

Rosalie Pacula says that in all likelihood, yes. She's a senior economist at the Rand Corp. and co-director of its drug policy research center. Here's how she burst my bubble:

First, you have to consider that legalizing it would have its own costs. Recent research, Pacula says, shows marijuana to be more addictive than was thought. Because marijuana is illegal, and because its users often smoke tobacco or use other drugs, teasing out marijuana's health effects and associated costs is almost impossible.

Actually, there have been quite a few cannabis only health studies done. They have specifically screened for people who use other substances and one of the studies even directly compares the effects of cannabis in tobacco smokers vs. non-tobacco smokers. Also, even if marijuana is more addictive than previously thought, there are plenty of addictive substances legally sold every day. Cigarettes, alcohol, nasal spray...

Proof

And more people would smoke it regularly if it were legal - Pacula estimates 60% to 70% of the population as opposed to 20% to 30% now - and the social costs would rise.

This article offers no proof, just Pacula's word. 60% to 70% is a pretty ridicules number in my honest opinion -- how does one even go about estimating how many people will become regular users, and what defines "regular" use? Also keep in mind regular use is different from heavy use. MapInc). Tell me we wouldn't save a boat load money if the DEA became a regulatory agency like the ATF. Personally, I'd rather see the agency responsible for keeping guns and explosives out of the hands of terrorists get more money than the DEA.

As to the tax benefit, that's partly a function of the price point for legalized pot. If everyone could legally grow and consume dope, then the crop probably wouldn't be worth $35 billion and the taxes wouldn't be anything to write home about.

"I have a hard time believing the tax revenue would offset the full cost of regulating and enforcing the legal market," Pacula concludes.

Everyone can legally brew or distill their own alcohol, yet surprisingly the majority of people who drink don't. Why? Mostly because its a pain in the ass. Growing cannabis is equally a pain in the ass. Anyone who knows anything about cannabis knows that it is not easy to produce commercial quality buds. It requires love, care, attention to detail, and most importantly TIME. Sure, prices would probably go down but to say that the industry would bottom out and have a negligible impact on our economy is just stupid. Too many people want to get stoned NOW not in 3 months.

Also, if Pacula's estimation of 60%-70% of the population becoming regular users is correct then the industry would boom even more upon legalization.

So, I think I've adequately refuted any claims made in this article. There are more links to prove what I say out there, I just didn't have time to find any more.
 
Strong points on rebuttal (to Patt Morrison the author)

You also don't see too many people growing their own tobacco or coffee. Not cost effective or worth the bother when you can pick up what you need at nearly every store in the US
 
Everyone can NOT distill their own alcohol and are limited as to how much beer and wine they can produce. Beer and wine are allowed up to a certain point. I am in an area where many do both, with wine made from various fruits being exchanged and tasted. Some have offered the distilled products of various wines, which I have declined as I don't use it.
To say that it is too much trouble to do or make or grow anything ignores reality.
In my past, I have done home brew, as did my father before me, made wine and distilled various fermented drinks. I have grown many things, one of which was pot, and for the most part, it was not at all difficult.
So, please don't label other peoples opinions "propaganda" and stick statements that begin with "everyone knows" into the old compost heap.
Freedom of choice forever!
 
I say HELL FU#KIN NO!!!!

They did that with her*oin, coc*aine and marijuana at different times. The reasoning was that they could charge more than the vast majority could afford, thus making it illegal to posses unless you had the stamp; which wasn't issued intentionally. Keep the government out of it if possible, as the fools in charge dont want their pharmaceutical lobbyists to stop contributing to their wallets. It is and always has been about money, and there is never going to be more money in an unrefined product like pot as one that has been created like any of the morphine based DRUGS. Technically speaking prisons are Americas #1 industry, most of which are filled to the brink with non-violent drug offenders. I believe we need to let some of our brothers and sisters out of the slammer so they arent being supported by our tax dollars, and let them get jobs so they can contribute. But that would hurt the pockets of ALL levels of law enforcement, as well as the venders who make billions on the food and clothing, etc......How much does a trial for a grower cost the taxpayers these days? Its all bs politics and no one can change it, there is too wide spread corruption which has tainted the whole system.:scratchinghead::bitingnails:
 
I hate to hear things like what flyfishinrock is saying. You people sound like you have already given up! What have you done as your part in this fight other then buy/use/grow? All these people come here saying "its too late, theirs too much money too be made keeping it illegal, the man is never gonna change the laws." Im SO let down when I hear these things from my fellow tokers.
We have to ALL fight back, I mean they are the ones calling it a WAR ON DRUGS so lets get our people gathered and fighting on the front line as one force! One huge tidal wave of activists doing everything possible rather then leaving those that have already stood up solo. If every single person who didn't believe in the war on drugs voiced their opinion daily to anyone and everyone the war would end real quickly.
I know this because look how many people see the drug war as a failure. The list of people is HUGE, think of every single profession and almost guarenteed you could find one person that is anti-drug war. If we all spoke as such and let everyone know in every way possible drug prohibition would be another chapter in the history books.

GanjaGardener Gardening Ganja since 2004
 
^ I have given a speech at my college about the stance our draconian government has taken over the last hundred years in regards to drug laws. I have personally done all the leg work for two and soon to be 4 people to become med patients, I have donated to the cause in Canada to fight extradition for mark emery. I have lost my freedom for the cause on two occasions. I could do more, but who couldnt. My thoughts are that we are still a generation or two away from accomplishing real change, that dosent mean we should stop fighting we should just be realistic. When some more of the "good 'ol boys" drop from power, we need compassionate educated people to fill their place. Say what you want but the American population has no power, as an elected body can and has trampled on our rights for years. With patience and perserverance we can overgrow the gov; but it will be our children who do it when they become the empowered ones. I pray I am wrong and things change sooner than later.
 
First off, where did this supposed letter from President Elect Obama come from? There are no sources referenced other than peoples names, and that only gives a little credibility to anything. Second I do believe that Obama is much more likely to consider the legalization of marijuana for the simple fact that it would keep so many people out of incarceration.
 
Of course....but I am confused

As a regular smoker I do think it should be legalized and taxed....but hey what smoker doesn't??? I honestly do not know a whole lot about this issue and do look forward to learning more about the subject but I have one question that is burning in my mind....WHY THE HELL IS IT ILLEGAL IN THE FIRST PLACE? What made them decide this plant that was used by important religious figures and I am sure many MANY great minds in our worlds past to be illegal? It was here before any of us were...it grew from the ground and is 100 percent natural.....NATURAL....I just might need to do some more research but I don't get this at all. I ask if any of you could enlighten me please!

Peace and Toke
:roorrip:
JmiZZLe
 
its illegal because hurst and dupont didnt want to compete with hemp. Hurst had a vast timber empire as well as controlled the nations most read newspapers. Dupont had just invented nylon for ropes and new it wasnt as good as hemp fiber. Both played the race card to scare white america into thinking stoned blacks and mexicans would rape white girls. Money, fear, ignorance.
 
Back
Top Bottom