Hacker News Reader

Comment by imjustsaying | Hacker News Reader

I agree with you that the incentive to tax marijuana is high due to the revenue potential for power groups within the state.

Others suggest that marijuana should be legalized so that the state can reap tax revenues, as if the state is a creature whose feeding is a virtue in and of itself. I find this puzzling, as taxation an entirely independent concept to legalization. Attaching the two issues together seems unnecessary.

The taxes on plants in the various states seem pretty high, and various sources tell me that the retail prices are still not much lower than the previous black market prices. These taxes, especially given how high they are, seem like they are destined to produce the same problems of prohibition.

View on HN

Adding that high tax was always about winning the support of a broad coalition of interest groups and voters that was necessary to push the bill through, at least that was the case in Washington. There were plenty of people who, while not strongly opposed to marijuana, would have just as soon left it illegal if not for the promise of some sort of broader benefit to non-users in the form of additional tax revenue. Still, I agree with your fundamental point that it is a shame that we feel the need to justify something which just makes good policy sense by using tax dollars as a carrot.

Incidentally, in Seattle at least, the high taxes and difficult restrictions on where marijuana can be sold means that a lot of people there still get there weed the same way they did before: either through the more loosely regulated dispensary system or illegal growers.

But vices are usually heavily taxed. (Ok, sure, some of this is medicinal, but let's be frank) So, i don't see much of an issue with it.

Leveraging taxes makes this appealing to people for whom it might not be.

As for the prices being similar to black market, that may be so, for now, but there is one thing which should give it an advantage and that's quality control, aka, branding.

And, as others have pointed out, legalizing it, eliminates the social cost of prosecuting what were once crimes --that's a big advantage.

Why is this so easily accepted?

In Denver, the weed sales tax is upwards of 21% with a previous 15% excise tax from cultivator to retail outlet.

In Colorado, it's less than 8% tax on a 6 pack of beer and the great majority of this is a federal tax.

Weed is demonstrably safer and thus less sinful than alcohol and tobacco. I dislike how easily the tax argument is received. If you can show a relationship that adds to healthcare costs then by all means institute sin taxes, including for soda. But if you are only making a moral judgement about what not to do, then I think the argument is without merit.

More details-

http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/22/whatever-happened-to-treat...

Tobacco (which gets mostly smoked) and liquor can be heavily taxed, depending on jurisdiction, so if AKs want to put 10% or 50% or 120% tax rate and pass that resolution, what's the problem?

As to why beer might be taxed less, I think some of these things are due to history. Beer has been a mainstream vice since prehistory. If you were to introduce "New Vice #47", I'm going to guess, it would get a relatively high tax too, no matter how mild it might be to your health.

By the way, not that it means anything, but I'd be totally for high taxes on beer and sugary drinks.

While the "sin tax" is a philosophy that some people might prescribe to, the main incentive for the tax revenue is mainly the ability for the government to make money and fund whatever the government wants to fund with it. I don't think morality enters into it.

eh, if the argument is go to jail or pay some extra money, I'd rather accept the lesser evil. Even more so if it is helping states pay for socially beneficial programs with lots of positive externalities.

And let's be frank, there's still lots of black market sales in Colorado, for people that want lesser quality marijuana at cheaper prices. Many people don't mind the premium markup and the taxes for the convenience, legality and quality of legalized pot.

It's not an argument from first principles about what weed "should" cost. It's about what people will accept. People are used to weed costing relatively infinite money (i.e. it can cost you your freedom and no amount of money can replace that). Therefore, even expensive weed seems cheap by comparison and feels like a win for consumers.

Likewise, expressways are massively expensive to build and maintain, but we're used to driving on them for free, so charging even a small toll that doesn't fully recover the costs feels expensive and is widely resisted.

Are you saying you don't have an issue with the taxation of vices, or that you do not have an issue with the taxation of marijuana because the taxation of vices is already common?

I agree with both ways of framing it. I don't have a problem with taxing vice --gambling, prostitution, drugs (alcohol, tobacco, MJ), including some goods of dubious utility, sugar, etc. Taxation of such vice being common, makes it an easy sell. There's a frame of reference, precedence.

Unless it can be shown to have adverse health effects I'm not sure I would agree with taxation either, that said. Baby steps. Taking it from omg-lock-your-doors-theyre-doing-marijuana illegal, to on the same prohibited level as tobacco or alcohol is easier to digest for more conservative people.

Once it's legal and we've aborted this embarrassing War On Drugs, we can begin to address the rationale behind the taxation of harmless vices. It's a little bit of a bait and switch, if you think of it in the long-term, but don't tell them that.

> as if the state is a creature whose feeding is a virtue in and of itself.

This isn't why people suggest it. People suggest it because they recognize many Americans are incapable of seeing the value of doing something if there is no economic incentive for it. So they come up with an economic incentive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com