The key question posed by the author is presented as an either/or scenario, it omits a (IMO most likely) third possibility. Alcohol consumption stays the same, as does pot consumption, the only large effect is the revenue stream from pot sales shifts from illegal growers/cartels, to taxable entities. This is not a new drug, it's always been fairly easily attainable.
Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected
61–70 of 165 posts
Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected
#62The "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…
Why is that hilarious? The article isn't advocating against legalization (no Slate article ever would). It's suggesting that you can't simply look at one revenue stream in isolation, because a regulatory change that boosts one revenue stream might suppress another. Which is obviously true.
Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected
#63Earlier 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. 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 guidan…
I've been in the vapor scene for a while, I'm starting to hear a few horror stories about liquid build up in the lungs. My guess is over use but its something to watch for.
Regarding pot not causing lung cancer I can't really argue, emphasima on the other hand is a very real thing. While this is anecdotal, my mother is a nurse in a country town where there are a lot of weed only life long smokers and most of the old boys are starting to show up in hospital with emphasima.
My understanding was that there is about 10 cigarettes worth of tar in a similarly sized joint.
I have heard the old wives story about weed doesn't cause cancer many times. Never have I found any study pertaining to it. Or have I been shown any proof. The idea that there is no carcinogens created from burning plant material of any kind is laughable to me. The amount is questionable only maybe.
As from personal experience, heavy daily usage is certainly detrimental to health and breathing capacity.
There is a lot of misinformation out there take my views and others with a grain of salt.
Disclosure, ive always been a staunch legalisation supporter. Never been a fan of decriminalization.
Edit, and no I dont smoke anymore.
Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected
#64How much is it going to save in legal expenses to charge people for posessing/distributing pot?
Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected
#65The "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…
I don't know if beer has any special rules regarding it's taxation, but assuming it doesn't and knowing the beer craziness here in Colorado, I'm not too concerned.
Furthermore, if we finally killed our remaining blue laws (Only one location of any chain store can have alcohol in the state) I'd imagine the alcohol revenue would bump back up.
Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected
#66The "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…
Why is that hilarious? The article isn't advocating against legalization (no Slate article ever would). It's suggesting that you can't simply look at one revenue stream in isolation, because a regulatory change that boosts one revenue stream might suppress another. Which is obviously true.
Might is the key word.
Lots of things "Might" happen. But it's all just speculation without any sort of insight or evidence.
If he had cited reports, studies etc. in other states, or even countries that showed ANYTHING it would be helpful.
Instead he links to another Slate article (his own) with the same speculation, again with no sources or citation.
It'd be like if I wrote this:
"WhatsApp might be the worst thing that happened to Facebook. Imagine if everyone stops using WhatsApp because they hate facebook. That would be disastrous. Or what if they all use facebook and then stop using WhatsApp, that could be good or bad too.
Regardless, Facebook has a lot on its hands now."
Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected
#67Ugh, is this going to look like Big Tobacco in 50 years? Vice taxes and revenue streams to be kept alive for the district? That's going to be such a kick-in-the-backside for everyone who just wanted to decriminalize it & stop putting people away for years.
In some ways it does resemble a bribe in exchange for freedom. There's also an exchange of power, where they introduce various permits and licenses associated with regulating the industry.
Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected
#68I have to imagine these revenues are inflated by the lack of competition. It will be interesting to see how revenues go when pot tourism isn't a thing anymore.
Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Marijuana is a drug that encourages people to be less political active(the "laziness" effect) . I would think governments would like such a thing in politically unstable times.
I don't think governments have big evil long-term schemes like this
You forgot your sarcasm tag, I hope.
Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the concern was that we're just replacing illegal cartels with legal cartels. The tax revenue thing is also kind of misleading. First, that number is apparently fixed (based on your wording, I'm not familiar personally), but the there is, presumably, no upper-bound on the actual revenues, so as revenues increase, a smaller percentage goes to education. Second, vice taxes tend to be regressive, the poor pay a…
>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…
Buying a lottery ticket is no more irrational than buying a movie ticket. It buys you a little thrill -- the possibility that you may become rich.