Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 165 posts

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#71

Post by JohnTHaller »

chc wrote: post #47
greghinch wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

Well, except for the whole distribution wars thing where there's this antiquated and unnecessary system of middle men that you must use by law and are used to keep the big players big and lock out the newcomers.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#72

Post by rch »

kristofferR wrote: post #42
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

Everything other than the education component seems inherently wasteful to me. Is there a way to see that these funds are reallocated going forward?

Edit: public health could be alright, but there's no way to tell at this level of specification. It would be great to see some improvement in mental health services, for instance.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#73

Post by EliRivers »

chimeracoder wrote: post #26
glesica wrote: post #19

Earlier 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. Agreed, but legal cartels are (marginally) better in that they are forced to operate under the "light of day". This doesn't automatically solve all the problems in se , but it's an important step. > First, that number is apparently fixed (based on your wording, I'm not familiar personally), but the there is, presumably, no upper-b…

Agreed, but legal cartels are (marginally) better in that they are forced to operate under the "light of day".

Plus, they have much less need to kill people and that.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#74

Post by rch »

carbocation wrote: post #3
gopalv wrote: post #2

Ugh, 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.

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…

Don't forget that edibles are very popular too.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#75

Post by [deleted] »

patio11 wrote: post #45
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 ha…

[deleted]

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#76

Post by DanBC »

chc wrote: post #47
greghinch wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fo…

Alcohol companies in the UK have a sleazy reputation - marketin to under 18s; creating Vertical Drinking Establishments; selling alcohol at below cost; etc.

Any public health measures are rigorously campaigned against.

The all-party parliamentary beer group receives funding from the alcohol trade. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/regis...

(What's the largest uk appg?)

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#77

Post by surement »

hershel wrote: post #17
gopalv wrote: post #2

Ugh, 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.

Technically, there are ways to prevent some of the harms of marijuana: Using e-cigarettes and using marijuana strains who mostly contain CBD(which generally has positive effects) and little THC(which creates feelings of paranoia and might have mental health risks) , so there are possible regulatory means to reduce lots of the risks without reducing tax revenue.

How can you know which strains contain more cannabidiol?

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#78

Post by bane »

So let's do some back of the envelope math

Colorado: 5,268,367 people (2013 est.)

Pot Tax Revenues: $98 million

That's $18.60 per person.

Assuming demand is constant across the U.S. (which is probably not true, but let's go with it)

U.S. population: 317,580,230 (current est.)

That's $5,906,992,278 in tax revenues for the entire country.

2014 is expected to be even bigger.

So what could the nation do with $6 billion+ extra dollars every single year?

Of course even a basic analysis of the situation shows that the money earned/saved is far greater than this: reduced need for enforcement, reduced prison requirements, reduced etc.

The U.S. spends about $74 billion per year on just prisons. What if we could reduce that number by 1/3rd? I wouldn't mind an addition $25 billion/year sloshing around in more productive uses (in addition to the $6b/year in sales tax).

I'm sure there's some more detailed analysis on what the actual numbers might look like, but I'm guessing nationwide, it's something nearing $100 billion/year of money that might be repurposed for things that aren't stupid.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#79

Post by md224 »

SandersAK wrote: post #66
tptacek wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Yglesias is simply pointing out a dynamic which he feels may be under-appreciated: the impact of cannabis sales on the purchase and consumption of other intoxicants. He isn't saying it will go one way or another, but merely drawing attention to this dynamic and its potential implications.

A lot of useful information follows the format of "X may affect Y in one way or another, and we need to be cognizant of how these potential interactions could impact relevant issues." Your dismissal of Yglesias conjecture as useless is, in my opinion, missing the point. Just because we don't yet have data on a specific measure doesn't mean we can't discuss why that measure is significant and worth our attention.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#80

Post by bane »

cdash wrote: post #28
glesica wrote: post #19

Earlier 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 don't think you will find too much argument from people that want it legalized that they would not like marijuana taxed at a normal rate. I just think that it is a battle to fight another day. It is hard to argue that the poor are worse off buying marijuana legally rather than illegally, especially when the prices start to fall below what you would pay on the streets which it will as soon as the supply is able to m…

> Supply is pretty low because the only companies who have licenses are medical marijuana companies that already had a license, more companies will become licensed soon.

It's also a high risk business. You might invest millions on growing a crop only for the Federal administration to change policies in a few years and come in and blowtorch your crop.

Post reply on HN