Topic: Indiana State Police Chief: Legalize and Tax Pot (Read 1354 times)

Humans have been using medical cannabis to treat a vast array of ailments for thousands of years. Physicians in the United States used it as far back as the 1800s, at which time they were allowed to operate independently, free from government regulation. At that time, cannabis was one of their most commonly used medicines.

Even the pharmaceutical industry utilized cannabis medicinally. By 1850, many pharmaceutical companies were using cannabis for a large variety of illnesses, including cholera, rabies, alcoholism, opiate addiction, typhus, leprosy, insanity, tonsillitis, excessive menstrual bleeding and many others.

But once drugs like aspirin and morphine proved to be more lucrative, the demonization of cannabis soon followed. After the U.S. Food and Drugs Act was passed in 1906, access to cannabis slowly began slipping away.

By 1936, nearly all U.S. states had enacted laws restricting cannabis, some of which are still in effect today.
 

Federal government refuses to acknowledge the many health benefits of cannabis

While a new and more accepting attitude surrounds the use of the plant today, the federal government continues to ignore its medicinal benefits. This is despite mounds of research showing that the plant is useful for humans in combating cancer, reducing and/or eliminating seizures, managing pain and inflammation, and treating neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's.

In early August, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) rejected attempts made by two Democratic governors to ease restrictions on marijuana. The agency stood firm on its current classification for the plant, keeping it as a schedule I drug.

Schedule I drugs include substances or chemicals considered to have no "currently accepted medical use," and "a high potential for abuse," according to the DEA. Other drugs in this category include heroin, LSD, ecstasy and peyote. Even cocaine and opium, Schedule II drugs, have a lower classification than marijuana.

Now, the feds are going after kratom, a plant used for treating pain. On August 30, the DEA announced that it wants to classify the plant as a Schedule I substance.

Corn hash wiskey is easy to make as well, that fact hasn't prevented an entire industry from being built around alcohol.  And one that, prior to 1913, was the US federal government's primary tax base.

FTFY

The [corrupt officials in the] government make more money by having drugs illegal for human consumption rather than taxing it so it can be used medically or recreationally. 

No. I'm just pointing out your spin and the failed mathematics within it. That's all.

Assume there is no pot tax. Then Americans continue paying the same tax they do now, except the money doesn't go to drug enforcement infrastructure, but other more productive programs. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, Americans pay less in taxes. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, plus a pot tax, tax revenue is increased and the savings plus the tax go to other programs or deficit reduction. Granted, some people are out jobs, but they can possibly be put to use doing things which produce well being, rather maintain a non-productive process.

You are thinking too rationally and on the side of tax payers.  You are assuming those people out of jobs (DEA, judges, ect) have no power with their monstrous budgets.  This is the way government beuracracies work.  Those with the largest budgets get more power and they don't want to give up that power.

Kind of a silly spin, don't you think? Assume there is no pot tax. Then Americans continue paying the same tax they do now, except the money doesn't go to drug enforcement infrastructure, but other more productive programs. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, Americans pay less in taxes. Or, in the absence of drug enforcement infrastructure, plus a pot tax, tax revenue is increased and the savings plus the tax go to other programs or deficit reduction. Granted, some people are out jobs, but they can possibly be put to use doing things which produce well being, rather maintain a non-productive process.

The government makes more money by having drugs illegal for human consumption rather than taxing it so it can be used medically or recreationally.  Government departments get more power within the government the larger the budget they have.  It does not matter if the government taxes people that want to smoke pot, it already taxes EVERYONE in the United States to not use pot.

This year the federal and state government spent about $40 billion to keep people from not using drugs.  This does not include the cost of incarcerating people or the revenue governments have collected by asset forfeiture.

That is about $133 per American each year to keep other Americans from using drugs (this does not include the interest on the borrowed money to pay for this budget).  If you can get a tax for Americans to use drugs legally that will double that amount then you might have a shot of legalizing drugs that are currently illegal.

The question is, "How many Americans used cannabis at least once a year?

I can not find any reliable statistics, but it is known that ~20% of the population smokes cigarettes.  So lets assume that only 10% of Americans use cannabis at least once a year.  This means that those 10% of users need to make up the revenue that is lost from the other 90% of taxpayers that do not use cannabis and would never pay a tax on cannabis.  Each of those cannibis users would need to pay at least $1,330 each year in taxes to make up for the lost departmental budgets.

okay, that's just depressing.

True. And I'm sure the feds won't be able to resist putting their fingers in the pie as soon as they can. I'm just wondering how the new laws leave things right now.

I understand it's easy to grow. How do they stand on that?

I can feel the winds of change, but I just hope all these states that will end up legalizing it don't have ridiculous tax rates. I don't mind paying a little but I keep hearing politicians talking about 25-30% tax rates and that's just ridiculous.