A new tax everyone will like!

[Ravariel]

I propose the decriminilization, regulation and taxation of cannabis.

Approximately 4% of the world's adult population uses marijuana at least once every year.

Source.

Apply that to the current population of the United States (300 million) and we get approximately 1.2 million users per year... many of them repeat users... but assuming each of them only uses a legal marijuana once per year, we continue...

To estimate the taxation we should apply, we need only to look at alcohol and tobacco, both heavily regulated and taxed by State and Federal govenment. I propose a 100% tax on Manufactured Marijuana cigarettes.

Let us assume that a pack will go for a similar amount of money to regular cigarettes, $5.00. With the tax, that would mean that $2.50 was actual cost, and $2.50 was tax, going to our government.

Now, assuming that our 1.2million users only bought a single pack each every year, that would amount to $30,000,000.00 of tax revenue introduced into State and Federal government. Now, 30 million might not sound like much compared to say, the price of the Iraq war... but that only assumes a single pack per year per user (based on the 4% linked, which may be slightly different as far as the US is concerned).

$30 million in tax revenues alone.

Now let us look at side-effects.

With marijuana posession and sale now legal, the taxpayer no longer needs to spend money catching, trying, convicting, and incarcerating those folk involved.

Over 42% of drug-related arrests (out of over 1.8 million nationwide) in 2005 were for marijuana.

Source.

I don't have the time or really th inclination to source out how much on average each arrest costs the public, but we can assume it's more than, say $1000.00. So, taking this extremely low-balled estimation of the cost of apprehending, trying and incarcerating a marijuana offender, and plugging it into our known values for arrests (42% of 1.8 million = 756,000), we get a cost of $756,000,000.00 a year.

Makes that 30 mil in tax revenue look rather paltry, don't it?

Now let's look at the economic repercussions. I.E. a whole new industry. Growers, processors, manufacturers, distributors, sellers, nevermind the regulation bureaucracy... the jobs and growth benefits of what would be an enormous new industry are inestimable.

With this much economic benefit to such a plan, and the dangers of the product well-documented as being similar to tobacco and alcohol (which would probably be reduced considerably by federal regulation and quality standards)... how can anyone argue against its decriminalization...

Nearly $800 million a year in gained and saved tax revenue, and the addition of an enormous new industry. What, exactly, is stopping us?

[Tancrisism]

Not to mention the ethical fact that it would stop helping drug lords with terroristic impulses.

And it probably wouldn't be advertised anymore than it is now. More rehabs could then in turn be opened, and anti-drug advertisements should still play.

[Ravariel]

At 1/14/07 01:52 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Not to mention the ethical fact that it would stop helping drug lords with terroristic impulses.

Ooooh, good one... an even harder argument to dismiss for those hard-right folk than money!

And it probably wouldn't be advertised anymore than it is now. More rehabs could then in turn be opened, and anti-drug advertisements should still play.

Even more industry and money!? Woo-hoo!

[SyntheticTacos]

Why should it be taxed more than anything else? =(

[Ravariel]

At 1/14/07 02:08 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Why should it be taxed more than anything else? =(

Why not?

Luxury taxes often run up that high... hell, I think Cigarette taxes are nearly half the cost of the pack as it is. It's basically a way to limit through cost the "boom" effect the new industry and decriminilization would have on the populus. Not only that, taxing it higher than normal sends yet another signal to those who believe that it's more dangerous than tobacco and alcohol, that the government is giving it the due consideration for that "added danger", and "hindering" it's distribution by increasing the price, possibly to the pint where fewer people will purchase it.

[SyntheticTacos]

At 1/14/07 02:15 AM, Ravariel wrote:

Why not?

Luxury taxes often run up that high... hell, I think Cigarette taxes are nearly half the cost of the pack as it is. It's basically a way to limit through cost the "boom" effect the new industry and decriminilization would have on the populus. Not only that, taxing it higher than normal sends yet another signal to those who believe that it's more dangerous than tobacco and alcohol, that the government is giving it the due consideration for that "added danger", and "hindering" it's distribution by increasing the price, possibly to the pint where fewer people will purchase it.

Why should it be limited? It is not more dangerous than alcohol and why should fewer people purchase it? I'd rather have more stoned potheads around than angry drunks. :)

But I think what you're trying to imply is a compromise... but what's your view?

[Ravariel]

At 1/14/07 02:26 AM, SyntheticTacos wrote: Why should it be limited? It is not more dangerous than alcohol and why should fewer people purchase it? I'd rather have more stoned potheads around than angry drunks. :)

But I think what you're trying to imply is a compromise... but what's your view?

I am, an economic tourniquet to the spewing of anti-marijuana bile that this move would undoubtedly cause.

But yes, I view marijuana as no different than tobacco or alcohol, and in many ways, much safer. No conclusive studies have been able to link marijuana smoke to lung cancer, or many of the other health risks of tobacco, and it doesn't have the quasi-stimulant effect of alcohol which is the cause of many of it's harmful side-effects (beating wives and kids, beer-goggles, that sort of thing).

[geforce7800GT]

Your numbers are a bit off... WAY more than 4% of the USA's population uses it. In fact, about the number for the amount of people in the USA who have tried it stands at about 39%.

[geforce7800GT]

At 1/14/07 03:59 PM, Shawtey wrote:

At 1/14/07 01:52 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Not to mention the ethical fact that it would stop helping drug lords with terroristic impulses.

And it probably wouldn't be advertised anymore than it is now. More rehabs could then in turn be opened, and anti-drug advertisements should still play.

that too and it would make it harder for minors to get a hold of it... its harder for a minor to get alcohol than weed in this country... so now weed would be out of the hands of minors... well at least be harder to get...

Legalizing pot would make it much harder for minors to get. Illegal drug dealers who do not discriminate on the basis of age would be put out of business by Government sales.

[Ravariel]

At 1/14/07 03:25 PM, geforce7800GT wrote: Your numbers are a bit off... WAY more than 4% of the USA's population uses it. In fact, about the number for the amount of people in the USA who have tried it stands at about 39%.

My number was taken from the global average, so I have no doubt it's off for the US. However, while your number of 39% of the US population may be correct (source, plz), it doesn't mention when those uses happened. My source was a per-year number... 39% of the US population could haveused it over say the last 39 years, making our annual usage just 1%.

Regardless, I lowballed every estimate for the express purpose of showing that even the most conservative of estimates net us a vast amount of revenue.

[Draconias]

At 1/14/07 03:25 PM, geforce7800GT wrote: Your numbers are a bit off... WAY more than 4% of the USA's population uses it. In fact, about the number for the amount of people in the USA who have tried it stands at about 39%.

I might believe that 39% as "tried it in their lifetime" but not "used in the last year."

[MindControlFun]

At 1/14/07 01:45 AM, Ravariel wrote: I propose the decriminilization, regulation and taxation of cannabis.

There's a difference between decriminalization and legalization.
Decriminalization means it's just a fine if you're caught with say, 13g or less instead of arrested and charged and having a criminal report filed.

Then, getting caught with marijuana would be similar to a moving violation instead of a murder or assault.

Therefore, you can't tax something that's illegal, you can only fine it.

However, I don't think that we should all-out legalize it right away though, steps need to be taken to wean down the puishments, and then eventually eliminate the law. Doing something that drastic all at once will have detrimental effects and cause the ban to be reinstated, with a much less likey second try.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Why tax it.

We tax to much already, just legalize it and let the market take care of it.

[Ravariel]

At 1/15/07 06:07 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Why tax it.

We tax to much already, just legalize it and let the market take care of it.

Because money rules politics. Politicians would never go for the plan unless there was an incentive... and we've already established that the savings from removing the criminality of the substance aren't enough... the generation of palpable revenue might do it.

And anyway, all luxuries are taxed... it's the one thing that SHOULD be taxed out the wazoo. Luxury taxes are the great equalizer. The poor (generally) purchase fewer luxuries, needing to focus more of their income on necessities. Those with the money to burn may do so, but it benefits the overall good by giving more money to the ones who manage the country.

You just want cheaper pot. :P

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/15/07 11:29 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 1/15/07 06:07 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

You just want cheaper pot. :P

I don't smoke.

I want lesser government intervention.

[geforce7800GT]

I think pot should be taxed because...
1. It would provide incentive for its legality in the first place
2. The price difference would be so minimal anyway... which I really wouldn't mind paying
3. It would be good to know that the extra money would go toward helping to fix society, and would go toward good causes such as helping real hard drug addicts.

[Ravariel]

At 1/16/07 02:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I don't smoke.

Heard that before... :P

I want lesser government intervention.

So regulating consumer product should only be up to the companies themselves? Cigs and alcohol shouldn't be taxed anymore? Where, exactly, do you intend to make up the lost revenue? By lowering taxes..?

owait...

Anyway, the exact amount this luxury is taxed is, basically, a moot point. Any tax will net us an insignificant amount of State and Federal revenue compared to the removal of all the systems in place jailing pot smokers.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/16/07 08:50 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 1/16/07 02:55 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

So regulating consumer product should only be up to the companies themselves? Cigs and alcohol shouldn't be taxed anymore? Where, exactly, do you intend to make up the lost revenue? By lowering taxes..?

By redirecting taxes, minimalizing useless spending, generally just clean up our current tax revenue. I'm more then sure that our government can squeeze many dollars out of our bloated budget.

Anyway, the exact amount this luxury is taxed is, basically, a moot point. Any tax will net us an insignificant amount of State and Federal revenue compared to the removal of all the systems in place jailing pot smokers.

I agree.

I simply just don't like high taxes and current government spending.

[Imxset]

Well, you didn't live through Reagan, kid. You have NO IDEA.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/16/07 09:17 PM, Imxset wrote: Well, you didn't live through Reagan, kid. You have NO IDEA.

Shut up.

[Imxset]

Hehe...... "War on Drugs" that was funny....

But I didnt mean you were wrong, its just that I have experienced it before, and trust me, its not pretty.

[JudgeDredd]

At 1/16/07 09:33 PM, Imxset wrote: Hehe...... "War on Drugs" that was funny....

Almost as funny as the "War on Thugs" ..hehe.

The other day i googled "how to make ice?" and sure enough, near the top of the results list was a crystal-meth recipe. Made me think how screwy the world must look to a kid who just want's to know what ice-cubes are made of!

[Ravariel]

At 1/16/07 10:05 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: The other day i googled "how to make ice?" and sure enough, near the top of the results list was a crystal-meth recipe. Made me think how screwy the world must look to a kid who just want's to know what ice-cubes are made of!

Is this a question young people need to ask these days? So pressing an issue they need to google it?

...wow...

At 1/16/07 09:02 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: By redirecting taxes, minimalizing useless spending, generally just clean up our current tax revenue. I'm more then sure that our government can squeeze many dollars out of our bloated budget.

I completely agree. However, luxury taxes are some of the things that in my mind should be kept, and in some cases, increased. These luxuries aren't necessary to anyone (hence the term luxury) and, as such, you can avoid paying the taxes by not purchasing the product. Viola, problem solved.

[Memorize]

At 1/17/07 05:32 PM, HexagonClock wrote:

Only 4%? Man, you must be living in a drug free world, then. Everyone I know smokes pot almost daily.

Just because everyone you know smokes it, doesn't mean everyone in the world smokes it. Where do you live? East LA?

[Ravariel]

At 1/17/07 05:32 PM, HexagonClock wrote:
Only 4%? Man, you must be living in a drug free world, then. Everyone I know smokes pot almost daily.

The stat ain't mine... I just looked it up. You can bicker the scources with Wikipedia.

:P

Also, it was brought up in that other thread (that spawned this one), about the legalization of the drug actually outsourcing much of our money, and creating industries... just not here in the US. My only answer to that (though noone brought it up in here) is that we can grow it ourselves just fine... we just aren't allowed to. I'm sure it'll be difficult to compete with other countries with the infrastructure already in place to grow large amounts of marijuana, but I have great faith that we can still make a decent industry of our own.

And for the humanitarians out there, it might even boost the economies of struggling Central-American countries as well as loosen the stranglehold (if only slightly) that drug cartels have on the governments and people down there.

[GraveForkast]

At 1/14/07 01:52 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Not to mention the ethical fact that it would stop helping drug lords with terroristic impulses.

Something you don't take into account though is that said drug lords use their influance and connections to help keep it illegal, so that they can stay rich.

[Ravariel]

At 1/18/07 09:49 AM, GraveForkast wrote:

At 1/14/07 01:52 AM, Tancrisism wrote: Not to mention the ethical fact that it would stop helping drug lords with terroristic impulses.

Something you don't take into account though is that said drug lords use their influance and connections to help keep it illegal, so that they can stay rich.

Somehow I don't really think that foreign and domestic drug lords have all that much power of the american government...

[Ravariel]

Because of a few new legalization threads, I'll give this a bump.

[Drakim]

With that high tax on it, it would be sold black. Since it is possible to buy it legaly, it would be impossible to bust those who buy it black.

[Proteas]

At 1/14/07 10:02 AM, MercatorMap wrote: I believe Tennessee already taxes Marijuana, even though it is illegal!!!!

We do. But the thing is, it's really more of a legal loophole for the government to screw over drug dealers and pot farmers, because if they don't pay the tax, then the government has the right to seize any personally held property they own and sell it off in order to pay that tax.

At 1/15/07 06:07 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Why tax it.
We tax to much already, just legalize it and let the market take care of it.

Because taxing the shit out of everything is the American way?

But if you want to talk about some REAL bullshit with regards to taxation of commercial products, I've got the perfect example for you; here in Tennessee, they just raised the "sin tax" on ciggarettes up to about 43 cents a pack. The idea behind the sin tax is that they tax the hell out ofsomething that is inherintly bad for you in the hopes that you will quit using the product....

But here's where the real bullshit comes into play; they intend to use the tax money from the increased sin tax to help pay for budget shortfalls (namely education), and they left the tax on all other tobacco products (i.e.; chewing tobacco, snuff, pipe tobacco) ALONE.