Indiana State Police Chief: Legalize and Tax Pot

[pekv2]

"It’s here, it’s going to stay, there’s an awful lot of victimization that goes with it. If it were up to me, I do believe I would legalize it and tax it, particularly in sight of the fact that several other states have now come to that part of their legal system as well," he said.

Source WFPL
Norml

[hashman]

"The drug war has been the single most devastating dysfunctional social policy since slavery"

- Lieutenant Jack Cole, NJ State Police

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition   leap.cc

[dotcom]

I can feel the winds of change, but I just hope all these states that will end up legalizing it don't have ridiculous tax rates. I don't mind paying a little but I keep hearing politicians talking about 25-30% tax rates and that's just ridiculous.

[Richy_T]

I can feel the winds of change, but I just hope all these states that will end up legalizing it don't have ridiculous tax rates. I don't mind paying a little but I keep hearing politicians talking about 25-30% tax rates and that's just ridiculous.

I understand it's easy to grow. How do they stand on that?

[grantbdev]

Me: Legalize and Tax Pot

[MoonShadow]

I can feel the winds of change, but I just hope all these states that will end up legalizing it don't have ridiculous tax rates. I don't mind paying a little but I keep hearing politicians talking about 25-30% tax rates and that's just ridiculous.

I understand it's easy to grow. How do they stand on that?

Corn hash wiskey is easy to make as well, that fact hasn't prevented an entire industry from being built around alcohol.  And one that, prior to 1913, was the US federal government's primary tax base.

[Richy_T]

True. And I'm sure the feds won't be able to resist putting their fingers in the pie as soon as they can. I'm just wondering how the new laws leave things right now.

[MoonShadow]

True. And I'm sure the feds won't be able to resist putting their fingers in the pie as soon as they can. I'm just wondering how the new laws leave things right now.

It could go either way.

[stochastic]

The government makes more money by having drugs illegal for human consumption rather than taxing it so it can be used medically or recreationally.  Government departments get more power within the government the larger the budget they have.  It does not matter if the government taxes people that want to smoke pot, it already taxes EVERYONE in the United States to not use pot.

This year the federal and state government spent about $40 billion to keep people from not using drugs.  This does not include the cost of incarcerating people or the revenue governments have collected by asset forfeiture.

That is about $133 per American each year to keep other Americans from using drugs (this does not include the interest on the borrowed money to pay for this budget).  If you can get a tax for Americans to use drugs legally that will double that amount then you might have a shot of legalizing drugs that are currently illegal.

The question is, "How many Americans used cannabis at least once a year?

I can not find any reliable statistics, but it is known that ~20% of the population smokes cigarettes.  So lets assume that only 10% of Americans use cannabis at least once a year.  This means that those 10% of users need to make up the revenue that is lost from the other 90% of taxpayers that do not use cannabis and would never pay a tax on cannabis.  Each of those cannibis users would need to pay at least $1,330 each year in taxes to make up for the lost departmental budgets.

[MoonShadow]

okay, that's just depressing.

[stochastic]

okay, that's just depressing.

You should watch Yes, Minister so you can at least have a laugh from depressing things.

[FirstAscent]

The government makes more money by having drugs illegal for human consumption rather than taxing it so it can be used medically or recreationally.  Government departments get more power within the government the larger the budget they have.  It does not matter if the government taxes people that want to smoke pot, it already taxes EVERYONE in the United States to not use pot.

This year the federal and state government spent about $40 billion to keep people from not using drugs.  This does not include the cost of incarcerating people or the revenue governments have collected by asset forfeiture.

That is about $133 per American each year to keep other Americans from using drugs (this does not include the interest on the borrowed money to pay for this budget).  If you can get a tax for Americans to use drugs legally that will double that amount then you might have a shot of legalizing drugs that are currently illegal.

The question is, "How many Americans used cannabis at least once a year?

I can not find any reliable statistics, but it is known that ~20% of the population smokes cigarettes.  So lets assume that only 10% of Americans use cannabis at least once a year.  This means that those 10% of users need to make up the revenue that is lost from the other 90% of taxpayers that do not use cannabis and would never pay a tax on cannabis.  Each of those cannibis users would need to pay at least $1,330 each year in taxes to make up for the lost departmental budgets.

Kind of a silly spin, don't you think? Assume there is no pot tax. Then Americans continue paying the same tax they do now, except the money doesn't go to drug enforcement infrastructure, but other more productive programs. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, Americans pay less in taxes. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, plus a pot tax, tax revenue is increased and the savings plus the tax go to other programs or deficit reduction. Granted, some people are out jobs, but they can possibly be put to use doing things which produce well being, rather than maintain a non-productive process.

[stochastic]

The government makes more money by having drugs illegal for human consumption rather than taxing it so it can be used medically or recreationally.  Government departments get more power within the government the larger the budget they have.  It does not matter if the government taxes people that want to smoke pot, it already taxes EVERYONE in the United States to not use pot.

This year the federal and state government spent about $40 billion to keep people from not using drugs.  This does not include the cost of incarcerating people or the revenue governments have collected by asset forfeiture.

That is about $133 per American each year to keep other Americans from using drugs (this does not include the interest on the borrowed money to pay for this budget).  If you can get a tax for Americans to use drugs legally that will double that amount then you might have a shot of legalizing drugs that are currently illegal.

The question is, "How many Americans used cannabis at least once a year?

I can not find any reliable statistics, but it is known that ~20% of the population smokes cigarettes.  So lets assume that only 10% of Americans use cannabis at least once a year.  This means that those 10% of users need to make up the revenue that is lost from the other 90% of taxpayers that do not use cannabis and would never pay a tax on cannabis.  Each of those cannibis users would need to pay at least $1,330 each year in taxes to make up for the lost departmental budgets.

Kind of a silly spin, don't you think? Assume there is no pot tax. Then Americans continue paying the same tax they do now, except the money doesn't go to drug enforcement infrastructure, but other more productive programs. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, Americans pay less in taxes. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, plus a pot tax, tax revenue is increased and the savings plus the tax go to other programs or deficit reduction. Granted, some people are out jobs, but they can possibly be put to use doing things which produce well being, rather maintain a non-productive process.

You are thinking too rationally and on the side of tax payers.  You are assuming those people out of jobs (DEA, judges, ect) have no power with their monstrous budgets.  This is the way government beuracracies work.  Those with the largest budgets get more power and they don't want to give up that power.

[FirstAscent]

The government makes more money by having drugs illegal for human consumption rather than taxing it so it can be used medically or recreationally.  Government departments get more power within the government the larger the budget they have.  It does not matter if the government taxes people that want to smoke pot, it already taxes EVERYONE in the United States to not use pot.

This year the federal and state government spent about $40 billion to keep people from not using drugs.  This does not include the cost of incarcerating people or the revenue governments have collected by asset forfeiture.

That is about $133 per American each year to keep other Americans from using drugs (this does not include the interest on the borrowed money to pay for this budget).  If you can get a tax for Americans to use drugs legally that will double that amount then you might have a shot of legalizing drugs that are currently illegal.

The question is, "How many Americans used cannabis at least once a year?

I can not find any reliable statistics, but it is known that ~20% of the population smokes cigarettes.  So lets assume that only 10% of Americans use cannabis at least once a year.  This means that those 10% of users need to make up the revenue that is lost from the other 90% of taxpayers that do not use cannabis and would never pay a tax on cannabis.  Each of those cannibis users would need to pay at least $1,330 each year in taxes to make up for the lost departmental budgets.

Kind of a silly spin, don't you think? Assume there is no pot tax. Then Americans continue paying the same tax they do now, except the money doesn't go to drug enforcement infrastructure, but other more productive programs. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, Americans pay less in taxes. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, plus a pot tax, tax revenue is increased and the savings plus the tax go to other programs or deficit reduction. Granted, some people are out jobs, but they can possibly be put to use doing things which produce well being, rather maintain a non-productive process.

You are thinking too rationally and on the side of tax payers.  You are assuming those people out of jobs (DEA, judges, ect) have no power with their monstrous budgets.  This is the way government beuracracies work.  Those with the largest budgets get more power and they don't want to give up that power.

No. I'm just pointing out your spin and the failed mathematics within it. That's all.

[stochastic]

No. I'm just pointing out your spin and the failed mathematics within it. That's all.

Assume there is no pot tax. Then Americans continue paying the same tax they do now, except the money doesn't go to drug enforcement infrastructure, but other more productive programs. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, Americans pay less in taxes. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, plus a pot tax, tax revenue is increased and the savings plus the tax go to other programs or deficit reduction. Granted, some people are out jobs, but they can possibly be put to use doing things which produce well being, rather maintain a non-productive process.

Here, I underlined the points where you are thinking rationally in an irrational system.  If the system was rational then these drugs would never have been illegal in the beginning.

[hashman]

The [corrupt officials in the] government make more money by having drugs illegal for human consumption rather than taxing it so it can be used medically or recreationally. 

FTFY

[myrkul]

The [corrupt officials in the] government make more money by having drugs illegal for human consumption rather than taxing it so it can be used medically or recreationally. 

FTFY

It needs no corruption to see that if pot is legalized, the DEA will be getting less funding, so it's in their best interest to keep it illegal.

[RodeoX]

I can feel the winds of change, but I just hope all these states that will end up legalizing it don't have ridiculous tax rates. I don't mind paying a little but I keep hearing politicians talking about 25-30% tax rates and that's just ridiculous.

I understand it's easy to grow. How do they stand on that?

Corn hash wiskey is easy to make as well, that fact hasn't prevented an entire industry from being built around alcohol.  And one that, prior to 1913, was the US federal government's primary tax base.

They can't charge too much in tax or it will just go back underground. Besides, there should be enough for a high tax and some real profits; and it could still be cheaper.

[AndrewBUD]

Small tax.. like regular sales tax.. 5-15%


Sell permits to grow/sell marijuana.

[AndrewBUD]

We have Provincial and Federal Sales tax in one. "HST" it's 13%