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

161–165 of 165 posts

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#161

Post by antihero »

just2n wrote: post #87
catshirt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are you seriously proposing making something illegal because you don't like how it smells?

That's clearly what I have proposed. Let's ignore the decades of research that clearly indicates that smoke produced from burning any form of cigarette is carcinogenic and triggers allergy symptoms and complications caused by chronic illnesses like Athsma in others. It takes a certain level of inconsideration to sit there and cause other people to breathe smoke. How much would it impact someone, say yourself, to kill…

Perhaps we should make it illegal to blow smoke in someone's face then. We already have far too many nanny-state style laws. Criminalising such a common thing is not going to be effective or enforced particularly well.

Comparing people who disagree with your flawed proposal to 4channers or redditors is a pathetic attack and just shows that you do not have the ability to back up your argument.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#162

Post by dllthomas »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #160
dllthomas wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That means we should be legalizing cocaine as well, not that we shouldn't be legalizing pot. And reducing the profits (and thus power) of drug cartels a small amount is still substantially better than not reducing them at all (doubly so if it's something we want to do for other reasons as well). Edited to add: Also, while I have no idea as to the veracity, Wikipedia says that over half the cartels' revenue comes from…

You said legalizing marijuana, not all drugs. and legalizing all drugs is much, much different issue. There is a big difference between legalzing just marijuana versus all drugs. I don't think the profits would be reduced at all, simply replaced by other products.

"You said legalizing marijuana, not all drugs."

Well, it wasn't me who said it in the first place, but that aside...

"legalizing all drugs is much, much different issue."

I'm not sure I agree - this is arguably the first step on that path (if we wish to continue down that path). I agree that there will be different outcomes.

That said...

"I don't think the profits would be reduced at all, simply replaced by other products."

I'm not sure you understand how business works. For that to happen, someone needs to start purchasing substantially more cocaine and methamphetamine. If the cartels are capable of making that happen, why aren't they making it happen now?

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#163

Post by tsotha »

glesica wrote: post #156
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…

> There's nothing wrong with taxing stupid. If you're the type of person who doesn't mind people dying in the gutters, then sure, that's true. If you do mind, then taxing stupid is, well, stupid, because you just end up helping the stupid people out even more on the back-end, especially if the money collected from the stupid people doesn't get funneled directly toward helping them out.

Nonsense. If they don't spend it on lottery tickets they'll spend it on booze or drugs. Poor people are poor for a reason.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#164

Post by dinkumthinkum »

dllthomas wrote: post #162
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You said legalizing marijuana, not all drugs. and legalizing all drugs is much, much different issue. There is a big difference between legalzing just marijuana versus all drugs. I don't think the profits would be reduced at all, simply replaced by other products.

"You said legalizing marijuana, not all drugs." Well, it wasn't me who said it in the first place, but that aside... "legalizing all drugs is much, much different issue." I'm not sure I agree - this is arguably the first step on that path (if we wish to continue down that path). I agree that there will be different outcomes. That said... "I don't think the profits would be reduced at all, simply replaced by other pro…

I think I do k ow how it works; I'm not sure you know how black markets, particularly those based on drugs. If you feel there is any lack of demand of cocaine or meth I guess you are free to believe it.

Re: Colorado Pot Tax Proving More Lucrative Than Expected

#165

Post by dllthomas »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #164
dllthomas wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You said legalizing marijuana, not all drugs." Well, it wasn't me who said it in the first place, but that aside... "legalizing all drugs is much, much different issue." I'm not sure I agree - this is arguably the first step on that path (if we wish to continue down that path). I agree that there will be different outcomes. That said... "I don't think the profits would be reduced at all, simply replaced by other pro…

I think I do k ow how it works; I'm not sure you know how black markets, particularly those based on drugs. If you feel there is any lack of demand of cocaine or meth I guess you are free to believe it.

More than doubling your revenues on an existing product is never easy. Doubling production won't do it, because those most willing to pay will be satiated and it won't command the same price. Also, cocaine involves more processing and coca plants grow more slowly and need more space than cannabis, so even doubling revenues isn't going to double profits. It also takes a good year before coca plants can be harvested - and retooling a supply chain can always be expensive. Meth might be easier, but still suffers from the same market depth issue, and still involves building out more infrastructure, which is still expensive. It's also likely to raise the costs of precursors, which will again limit profits.

I really don't see that any of these considerations are any different due to it being a black market - if you think they are, explain why.

Post reply on HN