Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected • Hacker News Board

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#41

Post by rayiner » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 8:18 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #22

chimeracoder wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I disagree that legalization will be "just a blip", it's interesting to note that the original law that prohibited marijuana in the US was actually a cleverly worded tax law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937 Basically, marijuana was legal, but you were required to purchase a tax stamp (that was never issued) in order to prove that you had paid taxes on it. There were many reasons for this…

That is because Congress has enumerated powers, and the Commerce Clause was then accepted in the intended meaning of only controlling commerce with other countries, between the states, and with Indian tribes. Sales inside of a state are obviously out of the purview of that clause. Today, of course, the Commerce Clause is interpreted insanely broadly to cover everything from civil rights to environmental protection. W…

My personal theory of the Commerce Power is that it can be seen as giving the federal government the power to regulate issues that could be described in economic terms as collective action problems. Eliminating infernal tariffs and trade barriers were of course the original animating rationale, but at root that's just one example of a collective action problem. I.e. it makes the country better off not to have internal trade barriers, but states have an incentive to erect trade barriers without some higher authority preventing them from doing so.

While the framers probably didn't fully understand the ramifications, I think the broad language of the Commerce Clause lends itself to a fair reading that Congress can act on matters in which individual states acting alone would face collective action or race to the bottom problems. So something like environmental regulations fits quite naturally into this framework. Pollution doesn't respect state bounderies and states face a race to the bottom problem in attempting to regulate it. Therefore Congress is empowered to act.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#42

Post by kristofferR » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 8:19 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #14

It'll be interesting to see how this windfall tax revenue is actually spent. Under Amendment 64, the Colorado state constitution requires that the first $40MM of revenue each year be allocated towards public schools[0]. To my knowledge, the rest of the tax money has not yet been earmarked, so it's currently up for grabs. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_64 .

According to CNN:

$40 million to public school construction

$86 million for drug prevension, treatment

$12,4 million on public health

$3 million for law enforcement and public safety

$2 million for marijuana industry oversight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eT6YYkFK4e0&t=2m0s

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#43

Post by adventured » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 8:28 PM UTC

hayksaakian wrote: post #37

I wonder how its doing in WA state.

If I recall correctly, the implementation in Washington isn't nearly as far along as in Colorado.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#44

Post by just2n » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 8:34 PM UTC

I wonder if there is any (increased) consideration for stronger laws against smoking in public areas. Particularly on high traffic sidewalks.

Cigarette smoke is bad enough (and should also be banned in such areas), but Marijuana smoke is far more pungent. It's bad enough we have to deal with exhaust from cars that are clearly illegal (emissions wise), why is it OK to spray toxic fumes all over a sidewalk with a smell that is aptly described as a public nuisance?

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#45

Post by patio11 » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 8:35 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #14

It'll be interesting to see how this windfall tax revenue is actually spent. Under Amendment 64, the Colorado state constitution requires that the first $40MM of revenue each year be allocated towards public schools[0]. To my knowledge, the rest of the tax money has not yet been earmarked, so it's currently up for grabs. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Amendment_64 .

Since money is fungible (a dollar is a dollar no matter from which hand it comes from or pocket it goes into), it doesn't matter. They'll simply have a bit of handwringing the next time the budget gets tight, then offset the education spending by the amount it is increased by the pot tax.

This happens with remarkable consistency across the US on earmarked taxes, generally sin taxes or lottery receipts. [+] It also happens in a variety of other contexts -- donating $1,000,000 to your university as cash or with the proviso "must be used ONLY for undergraduate scholarships" has the same effect either way.

[+] Edit to add: I wildly underestimated how many taxes were actually earmarked. See: http://mercatus.org/publication/effects-dedicating-tax-reven...

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#46

Post by carbocation » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 8:37 PM UTC

chimeracoder wrote: post #32

carbocation wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary function and lung cancer risk. The experts with whom I have discussed this (a few pulmonologists) usually ask about marijuana smoke in the same breath as tobacco smoke, and consider it a probable carcinogen. Fun somewhat-related fact that I learned last week: a one h…

> Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary function and lung cancer risk. Knowledge is potentially unbounded, but I wouldn't say we "lack" anything. Marijuana is probably the single most well-studied substance on the planet. Most FDA-approved drugs have gone through only a fraction of the level of study and…

> Consuming marijuana in edible or vapor form possesses no risk of cancer.

I would like to see a citation of a study that is powered to detect population-level effects which demonstrates that claim.

As an aside, I'd also like to see solid data on vapor form tobacco. There is not a definitive study at this point to demonstrate safety or clearly delineate the risk. It would be nice the be able to give meaningful guidance to patients on the topic of marijuana and tobacco, but right now I believe the most accurate and responsible thing to say is "I don't know."

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#47

Post by chc » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 8:46 PM UTC

greghinch wrote: post #23

tomphoolery wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it will be quite the same. Big Tobacco really profits off the fact that most people can't grow tobacco year round, and thus must purchase it at some point throughout the year. That basic fact is what ensures those companies never die. Tobacco was always grown outdoors, and there was never a need to research how to cultivate it clandestinely, be it indoors or small numbers. On the other hand, pot can b…

I can brew my own beer relatively easily in the comfort of my own home, for the final price of less than $1 per beer in ingredients. I still buy much more beer at the store than I brew.

The point is not that there won't be a thriving marijuana industry because you can grow your own, but that the industry will not necessarily share the evils of the tobacco industry.

The beer industry is a good example. It's nowhere near as powerful or nefarious as Big Tobacco, and in fact the phrase "Big Beer" doesn't doesn't even exist. Beer companies tend to be fairly benign, while the tobacco industry is famous for stunts like marketing cigarettes to kids and trying to suppress anything that suggests their products are harmful or addictive.

So if the marijuana industry turns out like the beer industry, that will be a pretty good outcome, really.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#48

Post by carbocation » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 8:50 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #9

carbocation wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding the health aspects of marijuana, we of course lack the wealth of knowledge that we now have on the detrimental effects of tobacco on pulmonary function and lung cancer risk. The experts with whom I have discussed this (a few pulmonologists) usually ask about marijuana smoke in the same breath as tobacco smoke, and consider it a probable carcinogen. Fun somewhat-related fact that I learned last week: a one h…

Your last statement sounded weird to me. The matching figure from here: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/tobac... would be the volume of smoke inhaled (hookah session = 150 cigarettes). Equivalent is probably the wrong word to describe that.

> Equivalent is probably the wrong word to describe that.

This known carcinogen should be treated with respect, even when taken by alternative routes, until there is data demonstrating that the cooling mechanism actually improves safety.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#49

Post by dmicah » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 8:53 PM UTC

hfsktr wrote: post #40

tsotha wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think the concern was that we're just replacing illegal cartels with legal cartels. If that means fewer bear traps and less rat poison in our national parks, it's a win as far as I'm concerned. >Second, vice taxes tend to be regressive, the poor pay a higher percentage of their incomes. Some of the "education lotteries" (state lotteries that benefit education) are basically mechanisms for transferring wealth from…

Am I reading that correctly? You are saying that poor people are stupid?

I believe he's saying that the odds of winning the lottery and not in one's favor, so it's foolish to play.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#50

Post by SandersAK » Sat, Feb 22, 2014, 8:55 PM UTC

The "think piece" part of this article, which makes up most of the text, is pretty hilarious:

"A key question about the public health impact of legal marijuana is how does it change alcohol consumption patterns. To the extent that legal marijuana displaces legal booze purchases, you're going to see an offsetting decline in alcohol tax revenue. Which would be fine—a big win for public health, in fact—but not quite the financial bounty states may be hoping for. Alternatively, if legal pot leads to a complementary surge in beer drinking, you'll have lots of tax revenue but potentially large problems."

So we don't have any evidence or idea if this will affect booze sales, but you know, it could! Also, if it doesn't, there could be other problems, just in general for people...