Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com