Jacob Sullum in Forbes on the Perils of High Pot Taxes

Supporters of the marijuana legalization initiatives that voters in Washington and Colorado approved last fall emphasized the revenue that the government could reap by recognizing cannabis production and distribution as a legitimate business. The tricky part, Senior Editor Jacob Sullum says in Forbes, is balancing the desire for tax revenue against the desire to eliminate the black market created by prohibition. Or as UCLA drug policy expert Mark Kleiman, an adviser to Washington's marijuana regulators, puts it: "What if we gave a pot legalization and nobody came?"
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is a problem that will take care of itself. Once those greedy fuckers realize they can steal more OPM by lowering the taxes rather than raising them, it will happen.
I like your optimism but haven't they already been punching themselves in the dick with tobacco taxes.
Cigarettes are a good example, actually. They keep taxes very high, but not quite high enough to create a major black market. The vast majority of cigarettes are sold legally and taxed.
Of course you'll never eliminate the black market entirely due to tax differences between countries and regions.
I was thinking more along the line of how they have shrunk the number of tobacco users with higher taxes, thus reducing total tax revenue. BTW, I hope you are right.
But the black market in places like New York is indeed "major".
That kinds of assumes the purpose of the tax is revenue rather than just being punitive.
You could also say that once these greedy fuckers realize they can steal more money from a thriving economy if only they'd stop strangling it with excessive taxation and regulation, they'll stop that, too. But we all know that will never happen because they can always steal money in other ways while still stroking their control boner.
Huh? Tobacco taxes are one of the better things are government does! Not only does it decrease use of a cancer causing product, it raises revenue to help prevent children from starting to use it. More republican nonsense.
Stupid troll is stupid.
Once again, a republican who can't handle an argument. What a tool!
You're not a troll because of your argument. You're a troll because of your name-calling.
Who are you to decide what other people should put in their own bodies? All activities have associated risks and rewards. Why can't you let people decide which outweighs the other?
You are correct that government uses tax policy to influence social outcomes. That government does it makes it neither right nor desirable. If government were concerned about tobacco being a cancer causing product they would ban it. Government is not. As for 'the children' there is a wonderful system in place to protect them from all sorts of evil-it is called "parents".
Thank you for responding to the troll Carol so I don't.
We Floridians have to stick together. Lord knows we can use all the help we can get.
Yup. Damn pythons always trying to take us out. 🙂