Making things legal on the idea of being able to tax it

[Aunt Spiker]

There are several things debated in this subject - marijuana and other drugs and prostitution to name just two.

So, in support of these people often bring up the subject of all the tax-profit the government could net if they simply made these things legal.

But is that a legitimate focus? Should people support the legalization of things purely on the fact that it might net the government more profit?

 

[reefedjib]

There are several things debated in this subject - marijuana and other drugs and prostitution to name just two.

So, in support of these people often bring up the subject of all the tax-profit the government could net if they simply made these things legal.

But is that a legitimate focus? Should people support the legalization of things purely on the fact that it might net the government more profit?

I think that legalization would desired if it doesn't violate the [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle]Harm principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] and that it could generate taxes from a sin tax.

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

– John Stuart Mill,

 

[Kushinator]

But is that a legitimate focus? Should people support the legalization of things purely on the fact that it might net the government more profit?

Hell no! This is a sick world we live in. People demand murder, child pornography, violence, etc... That does not mean the government should legalize them to pull tax revenue.

What are the societal costs of people using cannabis? What are the societal costs of people paying for sex? There is not even a way to "ordinal rank" them.

I do know how much the war on drugs cost, how many people go to jail for possession, and that gangs are formed to scale in potential drug profits.

Do the costs outweigh the benefits? No ****ing way in hell! Unless of course you build prisons.

 

[MrFungus420]

Hell no! This is a sick world we live in. People demand murder, child pornography, violence, etc... That does not mean the government should legalize them to pull tax revenue.

Complete non-sequitur. We're talking about adults consuming a product.

What are the societal costs of people using cannabis? What are the societal costs of people paying for sex? There is not even a way to "ordinal rank" them.

I do know how much the war on drugs cost, how many people go to jail for possession, and that gangs are formed to scale in potential drug profits.

Do the costs outweigh the benefits? No ****ing way in hell! Unless of course you build prisons.

(so much for your "Libetarian" lean...)

The Drug War costs society billions upon billions of dollars.

The Drug War is the cause of the violence that is associated with the drug trade. (Just like Prohibition, when it was in force, gang violence skyrocketed fueled by Prohibition. The violence virtually disappeared when Prohibition was repealed.)

How idiotic is it? If someone grows their own pot, it is possible for them to never leave their house, and not interact with any other people, yet they can still be convicted on at least 4 different charges.

1-drug production.
2-drug possession.
3-drug use
4-possession with intent to sell. (this is entirely determined by amount)

All for growing plants in their own home for their own use.

 

[rathi]

There are several things debated in this subject - marijuana and other drugs and prostitution to name just two.

So, in support of these people often bring up the subject of all the tax-profit the government could net if they simply made these things legal.

But is that a legitimate focus? Should people support the legalization of things purely on the fact that it might net the government more profit?

The taxation concept is mostly for persuading others not so willing to support legalization on more ideological merits. Its appeals because it provides the illusion of still calling marijuana "bad" by applying a sin tax, and because in cash-strapped times we need all the billions we can get.

 

[Kushinator]

Complete non-sequitur. We're talking about adults consuming a product.



(so much for your "Libetarian" lean...)

The Drug War costs society billions upon billions of dollars.

The Drug War is the cause of the violence that is associated with the drug trade. (Just like Prohibition, when it was in force, gang violence skyrocketed fueled by Prohibition. The violence virtually disappeared when Prohibition was repealed.)

How idiotic is it? If someone grows their own pot, it is possible for them to never leave their house, and not interact with any other people, yet they can still be convicted on at least 4 different charges.

1-drug production.
2-drug possession.
3-drug use
4-possession with intent to sell. (this is entirely determined by amount)

All for growing plants in their own home for their own use.

Dude are you high? My post addresses the question (taxing illegal goods/services on the basis of bringing in increased revenue)

Do explain how my post is anti-legalization.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

But is that a legitimate focus? Should people support the legalization of things purely on the fact that it might net the government more profit?

It's a legitimate focus, especially when combined with evidence that law enforcement measures do more harm than the prohibited activities themselves. On the other hand, I'm not convinced it's necessarily compelling, unless the evidence shows that the law enforcement measures are doing far more harm or that the prohibited activities are themselves not harmful.

 

[marduc]

Being able to tax something should NOT be the factor in determining the legality of something.

Instead it should be considered a convenient side effect after determining legality based on evaluating other evidence from a mindset of harm reduction, and allowing for personal liberties

 

[Regicollis]

Being able to tax something can never be anything but a secondary argument for legalisation. With marijuana I think it should be legalised but controlled. Th Netherlands with their liberal policy on marijuana don't see more use than other western European countries with a total ban. So clearly the ban seems to do nothing. A controlled legalisation would not only move trade from illegal gang-controlled markets to legal ones, create better possibilities for providing information and getting in touch with addicts who need treatment - it might also be able to generate some tax revenue.

Taxation instead of prohibition can also sometimes be enough to reach the goals set. In the early 1900's western nations faced huge problems with alcohol abuse. The US tried prohibition which led to lawlessness and violence and turned millions of ordinary citizens into criminals. Other countries were able to curb alcoholism just by taxing alcohol without the many negative side-effects of prohibition.