Greg Pollowitz of Media Blog notes suggestions that the State of California (or if you are governor there, the state of CAHLLLEEEFOOHHHHNIAAA) legalize and tax marijuana as a way to make up for its billions in debt and deficits. The state tax board cited a study that marijuana legalization would bring in $1.4 billion in revenue – too bad that figure is up in smoke.
To reach that amount, the board apparently relied on a source that relied on a source that misquoted a book that misquoted a study, all involving a hazy mix of out-of-date numbers, high margins of error and complete guesswork that could be a mere $700 million off the mark.
Apparently not enough citizens smoke pot. Who would have thought, California’s biggest problems is not enough people use drugs.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
I don’t know. It looks the state tax board, along with its sources and book writers, are using pot pretty heavily.
One of the greatest impediments to the legalization of marijuana are the supporters of legalization. You’ve got the hemp-heads who seem to think we are too stupid to realize that making paper and clothing is just an excuse to toke up. The so-called “medical marijuana” quacks who claim miracle cures as long as the FDA stays away from their herbal remedies. The pot heads who want to ban tobacco at the same time. And these people who think that your corner dope dealer is going to submit quarterly (or monthy, if sales are high enough) checks to the Franchise Tax Board.
One of the greatest impediments to the legalization of marijuana are the supporters of legalization.
A grand point made true every day by potheads everywhere. It’s also one of many reasons the libertarian/pro-legaization so-called moderates won’t ever organize into a successful party. Go on Reason.com, where despite the ongoing problems with health care, the war, the economy and else, roughly half the posts on its Hit and Run blog concern the drug war. I’ve known enough potheads, getting it legal (a case many can make) isn’t necessarily a battle of logic but some deeply induced obsession. Asking them days after Sept. 11 what the biggest problem in the United States, in their minds eye, even while the towers still smoldered,was they couldn’t buy legal pot. No one with that attitude is going to win over anybody. The pro-pot crowd threw itself behind Obama, who promptly cut them loose once he took office – for good reason.
Another factor in the taxing pot argument no one seems to realize – once drugs are legal, the street price will dive. Instead of forced to grow in the backwood of Athens or Orange county, drug dealers can buy high quality soil next to the Interstate if need be. With that comes astronomical increases in supply, which will no doubt outgrow any increase in demand, meaning the prices dive, it becomes more readily available and taxing it becomes less profitable.
JOhn…. it also won’t do away with the black market. There is a multimillion dollar “stamp free” cigarettes and in any case I’d wager some Indian tribes will just sell tax free marijuana in their stores. There’s also still a huge moonshine business.
People will “go John Galt” — do anything to avoid paying taxes. Legalized gambling? Illegal bookmaking and offshore betting are bigger now than ever.
Hey, Raoul
http://www.CopsSayLegalizeDrugs.com
Anecdotes are nice. Look hard enough, and you can find anyone who supports anything. What’s your point?
Changing the subject is the behavior of a troll. Trolling in the name of legalization is another one of those impediments I was talking about. Thank you for reinforcing my point.
(The funny part is, the more you legalization supporters engage in these sorts of tactics, the less people like me are willing to even listen to you.)
It occurs to me that maybe you were trying to offer another example, If so, your point wasn’t clear. In the future, you might want to add a line like, ” Hey, Raoul. Here’s another example” instead of just including an ambiguous link.
That’s what you get when coming up with tax policy in a hot-boxed conversion van.
The main problem with the analysis is that it ignores a few facts about marijuana.
1. Today’s pot ain’t your Woodstock wacky tobacky. THC content is through the roof and there is mounting evidence that marijuana is addictive — unlike the pot glorified in Cheech and Chong movies, Dazed and Confused, etc. Modern agriculture, organized crime, plus globalization — the perfect pot storm.
2. If pot is legalized — MORE people will use it. Tax revenue would go up no doubt, but so would the attendant social and government expenditures if #1 is true (and it is). Plus it’s a bad thing to have more pot smokers. How do I know it will go up. It always does. Legalize gambling…. gambling increases (and so did illegal gambling). Legalize prostitution? Use of prostitutes goes way up in Clark Co., NV and Deadwood SD. Porn, etc.
Alcohol???? There’s a myth going around that drinking went up during the Depression. Not true… the best estimates I’ve seen (and they are educated guesses because no one kept stats like they do today is that alcohol consumption initially dropped to 30% of pre-Prohibition levels and then gradually rose to about 60-70% of pre-Prohibition consumption level. In other words… the prohibition model results in less drinking — even though Prohibition was vastly unpopular — even with non-drinkers.
Stats from: “ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION DURING PROHIBITION” by Miron, Jeffrey A. and Zwiebel, Jeffrey. American Economic Review 1991 81(2): 242-247 6p.
I sympathize pot legalization, but if we do it let’s be clear-eyed. The will be more pot use and there will be more highway deaths, workplace deaths, and more hard drug usage — and thus there will be less tax revenues and more crime overall.
No doubt the prohibition model “creates criminals” (funny they never say how murder statutes creates murderers) and “War on Drugs” casualties. Drug tolerance has attendant costs — they just don’t show up as line items on budget sheets.
I tried explaining all that to some stoners who were all for legalizing pot. They think if they legalize it, they can just grow it at home. That ain’t going to happen because that’s like having a still and making moonshine. The gov’t wants their share of the profits. So it’s going to be the first thing taxed to hell and it’s going to be expensive the minute it hits the stores and tobacconist’s. And there will still be those guys dealing it on the streets because their prices will be cheaper.
In addition to all that tax revenue, there will also be a jump in tickets and fines from all the DUIs.
“Legalize prostitution? Use of prostitutes goes way up in Clark Co., NV and Deadwood SD. Porn, etc.”
I agree with your take, Floyd. Just one minor problem that really doesn’t change what you’re saying. Prostitution isn’t legal in Clark County (Las Vegas) or Washoe County (Reno). It is legal in all other Nevada counties, however. There is a very large problem with illegal prostitution in both these areas, though, which the police deal with in a never ending battle. Las Vegas closest whorehouse is just north of Pahrump, NV, which is about 50 miles away. And on your other point, even with all the legal gambling in Nevada there is most definitely an illegal gambling problem here. This is the reason why Nevada has a very large, active Gaming Control Commission.
Oops… wrong county. I meant it’s gone up in the counties in which it’s legalized — which brings problems in from outside. We’ll have pot tourism — outsiders coming in for some legal weed into CA.
Just an aside to the prostitution problem here. Last count I heard a couple of years ago was that there were about 1200 prostitutes working Las Vegas, and at least 250 of those had HIV. If they get caught selling their wares with a known HIV diagnosis it can be an automatic charge of attempted manslaughter.
Don’t know about all of California, but here’s what’s up in Oakland passing a tax on medical marijuana. Not the stuff you buy off the street.
Measure F, Oakland, California’s tax initiative on the latest ballot passed overwhelmingly with 80% voting in favor of the measure and 20% against it. The mail-in vote had other revenue issues on the ballot, but for this measure, 40,439 people voted yes, and 10,107 people voted no.
The projected tax could generate between $315,000 — $294,000 more monies than what is currently collected. The new measure would craft a new business tax fee for the four lawful medical marijuana clubs. Although these clubs are currently operating in Oakland, they will now increase their pay to $18 for every $1,000 in gross sales, instead of the $1.20 per $1,000. The current rate will continue until the 2010 fiscal year.
BarryO-
Are you saying the tax revenues would be only $294k? The beaurocracy to track, collect, and administer that would be greater than the tax. Oakland would lose money.
Dude! Like we could, like man, make a lot of, like money or something man, with the . . . uh, money tax-stuff from, like, legal pot.
LEGALIZE EVERETHING!
We are denying the people cheaper ropes! It’s Big Rope that is suppressing the truth!