Put that in your pipe and smoke it
With a philosophy seemingly diametrically opposed to that of elected law enforcement officials in Los Angeles, the attorney general of Colorado, John Suthers (a Republican), has advised the governor of that state that medical marijuana sales should be regulated and taxed like alcohol and tobacco (and not tax- exempt like pharmaceuticals are, as medical cannabis is not prescribed per se, but "recommended" by doctors). This plan seems consistent with the stark reality in these dark times that state and county governments need to seek new avenues of public funding that will not prove to be politically unpopular. Medical cannabis activists have long been pro-taxation, as it confers legitimacy on the space.
The taxation of medical marijuana sales is something that we hear a lot about in California, and the above graphic gives some idea of how much money would be left on the table should medical marijuana be banned -- or merely hounded and harassed out of business-- here in Los Angeles. City Atty. Carmen Trutanich and Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley have declared their intentions to continue fighting the medical marijuana dispensaries, but it's important to keep in mind that 77% of Los Angeles residents indicated that they were for the regulation and taxation of dispensaries, according to a recent Mason-Dixon poll.
No matter what sort of spin you put on the issue, ignoring the revenue-creating potential of taxing cannabis sales -- which will continue, legally or otherwise -- hardly seems prudent when we live in an era in which local governments can't afford to fix potholes or hire schoolteachers.
-- Richard Metzger
Image credit: Sloshspot
TrackBack:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c630a53ef012875b2de41970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Put that in your pipe and smoke it:
» Pot's potential to help pay state bills from Don't Mess With Taxes
I've blogged repeatedly about the dire financial straits most states find themselves in nowadays. If things don't change, and soon, some state officials might decide to follow Colorado's latest revenue-raising move: taxing medical marijuana. Colorado's... [READ MORE:]



The marijuana debate is not just about medicine. It's time to drive a wedge between the criminal drug dealers and our kids. Licensing, taxing, and regulating marijuana will put the drug dealers out of business and protect our children. Regulate the marijuana business, medical or otherwise. While we’re at it, let’s implement a personal cultivation permit. Limit the number of plants, and put a fee on it, something like a fishing license, with maybe a little extra for education or fixing the roads.
How about $100 per year for a permit to cultivate a dozen plants? It's a win-win.
Posted by: Concerned Parent | 11/20/2009 at 12:21 PM
As your charts show, the taxation on marijuana would only be the icing on the cake. The real windfall comes from not wasting money making the 850,000 marijuana related arrests per year, which cost so many billions of dollars in wasted police productivity, court time, jail expense, and of course the stolen time and productivity of the person arrested as well.
Posted by: Raffi | 11/24/2009 at 09:38 AM
Sadly, D.A. Cooley, in his infinite wisdom, will probably argue that this chart proves that we need to spend way more money to arrest all those people. "One in three! Quick build more prisons!!"
I cannot understand how that man can continue to ignore the fact that every single dispensary they raid sends that much more money back to the gangs and cartels, instead of being taxed and regulated. It's such a basic principle; it makes you wonder who he's really working for...
Posted by: Ryan | 11/27/2009 at 02:45 AM
can you imagine, malboro brand rolled joints. 20 a box of the dankiest tax revenue generating,
drug cartel abolisher, medical wonder all for $10.00 a box plus tax. then multiply by 1 out 3 californians equals $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Posted by: cachimbon | 11/27/2009 at 09:11 AM
Fine.
But put some teeth in the taxation regulation.
Enforcement has to be stringent to prevent a black-market living on the edges of untaxed edges of legality.
Every puff is taxed, one way or another.
1) Every grower, transporter, seller and smoker needs a license--which all cost money to get.
2) Stiff financial and criminal penalties for growing, transporting, selling or smoking without the license.
3) Incentives (rewards) for info leading to arrest & conviction of any unlicensed growing, transporting, sales or smoking.
4) State constitutional guarantees that pot smoking NEVER becomes a "protected" activity and that pot smokers NEVER become a "protected" class. (CA is now close to being smoke-free. That is fantastic. We're not going to backslide into forcing any property owner or business to allow smoking because its "medical" related. This point is non-negotiable.)
When you put those in place, I'm on board.
Posted by: anon | 11/27/2009 at 11:13 AM
The biggest obstacle now to "legalization" is the bad faith that has been shown by medical marijuana backers so far.
They have made a mockery of the law.
Everyone knows it has become a front for recreational use.
Medical practitioners have been suborned into writing spurious prescriptions.
What's to say it won't get even worse if pot smokers are granted any more latitude?
Medical marijuana advocates had their chance...and they blew it.
Posted by: anon | 11/27/2009 at 11:31 AM
anon, you're missing the point. Cannabis should be completely legalized for the benefit of society. The restrictions you've postulated are, in my opinion, still too stringent. You advocate the implementation of a system of licenses to cultivate while exacting punishment (both financial AND criminal) on those who don't step in line. This leaves those who don't have the financial means to pay for a license, holding the short end of the blunt. We'll still be wasting money prosecuting and ruining the lives of people with lower incomes and all because "they didn't pay to play."
With all due respect, I think people should be allowed to grow and smoke freely. Regulation should be in the commercial distribution of cannabis. Those who want to sell cannabis, must keep accurate books, and collect sales tax from each sale. We don't tax your neighborhood grandmothers because they choose to grow their own tomatoes, but we do have people making sure that Albertson's pays its taxes when they sell theirs.
As for eradicating the black market, all we need to do is legalize it!
Posted by: Jeff | 11/28/2009 at 12:29 PM
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
http://www.leap.cc
Posted by: George Thornton | 11/28/2009 at 05:02 PM
Hey Anon
1) Every grower, transporter, seller and smoker needs a license--which all cost money to get.
Easy there, that's overkill, those in commerce, should licensed, but not users.
2) Stiff financial and criminal penalties for growing, transporting, selling or smoking without the license.
We already have those and they didn't work. Same as alcohol would be fine.
3) Incentives (rewards) for info leading to arrest & conviction of any unlicensed growing, transporting, sales or smoking.
Bad idea, overkill, and not at all necessary. Calm down. A suceessfull elimination of the black market means making it like other things like alcohol.
Posted by: eah | 11/28/2009 at 11:20 PM
how about have it more like booze.
Posted by: charles m harper | 11/28/2009 at 11:36 PM
how about treat it like booze
Posted by: charles m harper | 11/28/2009 at 11:38 PM
STOP!! All of these arguments are so INANE!!
Taxes? I've got my card and I'm growing my own at home. Pass any laws you want, I'm not going to pay taxes on a weed I grow at home for my own use. Did anyone consider people like me when they calculated tax revenue?
Laws? ENOUGH ALREADY with the government trying to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own damn body! These politicians must own shares in prison REITs (an ownership structure in which prisons are owned by private investors who demand ever-increasing profits which can only be achieved by expanding the prison population). I've been smoking MJ since 1966. In that time, I supported a family, had a reasonably successful career (I ain't no millionaire, but I'm comfy), paid all my bills and am in good health. My ex-wife, on the other hand, ended up in jail for drunk driving resulting in injuries, and eventually died from "acute alcoholism" (according to her death certificate).
Y'all go do what you want to do. I'm going to keep growin' and smokin' my weed until my ultimate appointment with The Reaper.
"LAWS MEANT TO PROTECT US FROM EACH OTHER ARE GOOD LAWS AND SHOULD BE OBEYED. LAWS MEANT TO PROTECT US FROM OURSELVES SHOULD BE LAUGHED AT AND IGNORED."
Posted by: SAM | 12/01/2009 at 06:15 AM
Deficit buster? Fair taxation would be a real deficit buster. That means progressive taxation. All neoliberal governments are playing this ruse on the people where they may like the deficit is an evil thing that we can't have, while they create them and use them as leverage against the people and their demands for governments (they were encouraged via a supposedly democratic process to help create) to do social spending. Social spending is spending on the people. You know? The little ones who 'have' to pay their taxes?
Those tax cuts, together with national security ideology that is shoved down peoples' throats to make them accept all those subsidies going to the military industrial complex, together with a zillion other tax breaks and loopholes, mean deficits that those who didn't ask for them are now told to fix - by lowering their expectation of what their elected politicians can do for them. (See 'Take The Rich Off Welfare', by Mark Zepezauer)
And then there's offshore tax havens and banking secrecy. Obama has squeaked a little about that. But where's that effort gone? Besides, I don't expect much from corporacrats who sit in the White House while their armies are permitted to hijack other countries (Iraq, Afghanistan) or ignore it when their capitalist allies do the same (Honduras).
Posted by: Arby | 12/01/2009 at 07:24 AM
The only tax free marijuana should be what you grow on your own property for your personal use. I specifically said "on your own property" because if you have it grow on your "primary caregiver" property or a friend's property and pay that person to grow it for you, that person should pay income taxes on what he/she earns from the sales.
The seeds purchased should be taxed, the water needed to grow it is taxed, the property you grow it on is also taxed. All other material needed to grow marijuana is also taxed. Remember, not everybody would want to grow their own. I for one live in a condo and would not want to grow it. I would prefer to purchase it.
Lets all pray 2010 is our year to decriminalize marijuana in 2010.
Posted by: Warrren | 12/01/2009 at 09:59 AM
You know this will never go through. There are to many people, agencies, groups making money or there livelihood based on the illegality of drugs, all drugs not just marijuana. Cops, lawyers, prison guards, the whole legal system, prison construction, prison maintenance-the list goes on.
Trying to tax something that is illegal does not effects the bottom lone. the 14,000,000,000 spent will remain the same and possibly increase because the status quo will demand a cut.
Drugs should be decriminalized as in Portugal as a start --with full legalization for most drugs in the future.
Posted by: MARK ROBISON | 12/01/2009 at 10:03 AM
Well, it's about time we looked at this. In fact lets just legalize all drugs. Just think of the money we can save jails, drugs rehab (court ordered), policing, border control, disassemble the DEA, end all the "Drug task-forces" and related expenses. We will no longer be the country with the most incarcerated persons. We will help the Mexicans and the south Americans with their own "war on drugs" by removing the single largest source of illegal revenue for terrorists and narcogangsters. By taxing it we can solve some of the current budget issues and provide a new source of jobs and tax revenue for the US. Perhaps it might also pay for Health Care? There are so many reasons to legalize all of it. Too bad the entrenched interests and politicos cant see it. If someone chooses to smoke crack and let their brain runs out their ears it is no skin off my nose.It is only a problem when you need to steal from someone for the money. If it were a few dollars a rock instead of 25-50...Well, do the math people, write to your legislators!!
Posted by: Phil | 12/04/2009 at 07:53 AM
I THInK IT SHOULD BE LEGAL ALR3ADII.
Posted by: andrea Lawless | 12/04/2009 at 09:52 AM
All you pot smokers out there. When you go to the clubs demand organic, and no pesticides used on my medicine
Posted by: peter | 12/04/2009 at 10:41 AM
anon | 11/27/2009 at 11:13 AM: my main problem with your regulation requirements is the idea that every toke should be taxed. People can manufacture alcohol for their own use without taxation. Given that cannabis is clearly far, far less deadly than alcohol, why should the law take alcohol's side in this or any other matter? I can live with your other requirements, but prohibiting adult cannabis users who have no history of causing problems from growing enough cannabis for their own use is as unfair as it is unwise. Make the penalty severe, include a huge fine, for abusing the right to engage in personal cultivation. .Maybe you haven't considered the problems caused by how the current law forces people to use alcohol, including people who simply can't handle alcohol. Alcohol leaves the system so quickly that people on probation or parole for alcohol related offenses, who undergo routine drug testing, wind up being more effectively tested for cannabis than for the drug whose use caused their offense.
Yep, you read that right, drunk drivers under court supervision, even those prohibited from using alcohol, are normally tested much more effectively for whether they are using cannabis than for whether they are using the drug that could easily have led to their murdering an innocent person.
Posted by: newageblues | 12/05/2009 at 10:07 PM
This country has a middle name. Apathy.
American's moto is to keep the status quo.
I had a supervisor ask me for a vote on shift change
scheduling. He told me the proposed change would be
better for all and would not hold it against me if i wanted
it. He said he knows the change would be better for him,
but he was used to the way things were. Any questions??
Posted by: msmith9339 | 12/08/2009 at 03:34 AM
GO WEED
Posted by: stoner | 12/08/2009 at 07:20 AM
"Money going to gangs and cartels..."???? My sister grows pot for a living in Northern California and she's 64 years old. Things are not so stereotypical.
Posted by: Just a guy | 12/08/2009 at 07:40 AM
Taxing a major earner is a no brainer! This "blue law"system is a destructively harmful program. The multiple uses of hemp, or cannabis, could rescue much of what is wrong with our dependance on foreign oil. Even calling it marijuana is racist jingoism to make middle America afraid of it as foreign substance. Educate the public to recognize it as a social asset which has a shadow side as well; yes, just like alcohol. An arrest every 38 seconds underlines the wasteful double negative - loss of individual income and public treasury - of the present policy. Of course, people, especially kids, see 'forbidden fruit' with unequal curiosity. The taxes on tobacco and alcohol facilitates education and rehab programs. Let us join the 21st Century in our approach to this manageable problem.
Posted by: Chamae Deosil | 12/08/2009 at 08:39 AM
Smoking = bad
Fast Food = bad
Profits = bad
Legalizing pot? Well why not? I mean everyone is, has or wants to do it. Makes perfect sense.
Posted by: CaliforniansForATeaparty | 12/08/2009 at 11:13 AM
When they repealed Prohibition, a lot of the criminal gangs had to get real jobs, selling liquor legally, paying taxes and following the regulations and the law.
We need to get over our Puritanical hangups and start to realize that marijuana and such vices as prostitution should be legalized, regulated and taxed. Only then will the criminal elements be forced to get real jobs and pay real taxes and live real lives.
Posted by: skd | 12/11/2009 at 12:17 AM