I'm not a hippie or anything...but this is real interesting. From what I can tell, these are tax officials recommending this--not the legalization camp. I wonder, though, if they included the huge uptick in sales of snacks and fast food in their calculations for the $1.4 billion. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_re_us/us_marijuana_taxes Calif. tax officials: Legal pot would bring $1.4B AP By MARCUS WOHLSEN, Associated Press Writer Marcus Wohlsen, Associated Press Writer – Wed Jul 15, 9:14 pm ET SAN FRANCISCO – A bill to tax and regulate mar1juana in California like alcohol would generate nearly $1.4 billion in revenue for the cash-strapped state, according to an official analysis released Wednesday by tax officials. The State Board of Equalization report estimates mar1juana retail sales would bring $990 million from a $50-per-ounce fee and $392 million in sales taxes. The bill introduced by San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Tom Ammiano in February would allow adults 21 and older to legally possess, grow and sell mar1juana. Ammiano has promoted the bill as a way to help bridge the state's $26.3 billion budget shortfall. "It defies reason to propose closing parks and eliminating vital services for the poor while this potential revenue is available," Ammiano said in a statement. The way the bill is written, the state could not begin collecting taxes until the federal government legalizes mar1juana. A spokesman says Ammiano plans to amend the bill to remove that provision. The legislation requires all revenue generated by the $50-per-ounce fee to be used for drug education and rehabilitation programs. The state's 9 percent sales tax would be applied to retail sales, while the fee would likely be charged at the wholesale level and built into the retail price. The Equalization Board used law enforcement and academic studies to calculate that about 16 million ounces — or 500 tons — of mar1juana are consumed in California each year. mar1juana use would likely increase by about 30 percent once the law took effect because legalization would lead to falling prices, the board said. Estimates of mar1juana use, cultivation and sales are notoriously difficult to come by because of the drug's status as a black-market substance. Calculations by mar1juana advocates and law enforcement officials often differ widely. "That's one reason why we look at multiple reports from multiple sources — so that no one agenda is considered to be the deciding or determining data," said board spokeswoman Anita Gore. Advocates and opponents do agree that California is by far the country's top pot-producing state. Last year law enforcement agencies in California seized nearly 5.3 million plants. If passed, Ammiano's bill could increase the tension between the state and the U.S. government over mar1juana, which is banned outright under federal law. The two sides have clashed often since state voters passed a ballot measure in 1996 legalizing mar1juana for medical use. At the same time, some medical mar1juana dispensary operators in the state have said they are less fearful of federal raids since U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the Justice Department would defer to state mar1juana regulations. Advocates pounced on the analysis as ammunition for their claim that the ban on mar1juana is obsolete. "We can't borrow or slash our way out of this deficit," said Stephen Gutwillig, California state director of the Drug Policy Alliance. "The legislature must consider innovative sources of new revenue, and mar1juana should be at the top of that list." Ammiano's bill is still in committee. Hearings on the legislation are expected this fall. Also Wednesday, three Los Angeles City Council members proposed taxing medical mar1juana to help close the city's budget gap. Council members Janice Hahn, Dennis Zine and Bill Rosendahl backed a motion asking city finance officials to explore taxing the drug. Hahn said that with more than 400 dispensaries operating in the city, the tax could generate significant revenue. The motion pointed out that a proposed tax increase on medical mar1juana in Oakland, which has only four dispensaries, was projected to bring in more than $300,000 in 2010. Meanwhile, mar1juana supporters have taken the first official step toward putting the legalization question directly to California voters. A trio of Northern California criminal defense attorneys on Wednesday submitted a pot legalization measure to the state attorney general's office, which must provide an official summary before supporters can begin gathering signatures. About 443,000 signatures are necessary to place The Tax, Regulate and Control Cannabis Act on the November 2010 ballot. The measure would repeal all state and local laws that criminalize mar1juana.
I've done some research in this area and posted before on it, but if this were done on a country-wide basis...
get er done. Here's an interesting LA Times site for playing the budget balance game. $1.4B would be a good bump. You balance the budget.
Wow, $1.4b won't make much of a dent in their $26.3b budget shortfall. They'll have to find more things to legalize and tax. Prostitution and gambling are the obvious ones. Then, maybe you can capture the 18 to 21 year old crowd and let them smoke, drink, do pot, gamble and hire hookers for an extra surtax. They'd still have $20 billion or so to go, though. Here's a big one, they could legalize "informal immigration" and put a big tax on that. Maybe they can legalize and tax panhandling. A lot of ways they can go with this idea.
It doesn't matter what position you support, legalizing anything for tax purposes is a bad idea. QUIT SPENDING!
perhaps it wouldn't dent the 26b alone, but if you start taking into account prison space, enforcement of laws on users, etc, perhaps there's more to it than meets the eye. Then what about reduction of a revenue stream that mexican drug cartels are lining their pockets with, and the resources and money used to combat them? I think the previous two posts are somewhat short sighted and reactionary, if not egregious. Not that I think this would be a magic pill for California, and not that it doesn't raise other questions and concerns, but I do think it's something to consider when you take all factors into account and temper our programmed idea of "Drugs'r bad, mmmkayyyy?" with some realism and practicality.
And violent crime would go down saving even MORE money. Ever seen a high person fight anything? It's never happened.
I know you were being sarcastic or snide with this remark, but an ancilliary benefit to regulating the manufacture and distribution of cocaine would be the virtual elimination of crack cocaine, which is a concoction made by drug dealers so that they would have an easily measured, transported, and highly addictive substance to sell. There would be some that would refine and smoke cocaine out of the regulated products (the next generation of energy drinks), but those people would be easy to target treatment options if we also tracked sales.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qZqYV9KKOZQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qZqYV9KKOZQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Yesir, this needs to get done in the absolute worst way. This state is one the verge of being bankrupt within the next few years.
I agree with you that we need to reduce spending, but why should we cede control of and revenues from mind altering chemicals to criminal organizations?
I agree there would be other ancillary benefits to legalization (and ancillary detriments as well). But, this thread is about the tax argument, which is dumb as dirt. If something should be illegal, make it illegal; if it should be legal, make it legal. Don't sell your justice. For once, I agree with Space Ghost; stop spending so much.
Uh, the thing is though, legalizing mar1juana isn't just about the taxes; this argument has two facets. You kinda missed the part about how the gouvernment should quit spending so much money running after potheads on possession charges and jailing them, for example. So in essence, if you want less gouvernment intervention and less gouvernment spending, this would seem to be an ideal marriage of economic benefits and common sense.
