|
KingEup posted:This is a good article: This is a good article, though: http://www.news.colostate.edu/Release/6827 quote:DENVER - A study released today by the Colorado Futures Center at Colorado State University has found that proposed state taxes on recreational marijuana, part of the implementation of Amendment 64, will generate about $130 million in revenue during the first year.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
Welp guys we can't close our budget deficits by taxing stoners. What a goddamn mistake. Pack it up 64-failures, reinforce prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
quote:“To that end, we’ve created a companion online tool that allows anyone to make different assumptions and then immediately see the impact on state revenues. We hope this will be useful for state lawmakers and citizens as Colorado weighs how best to implement Amendment 64 and regulate recreational marijuana.” edit: looks like it's here http://coloradofutures.colostate.edu/calculator/ edit2: interesting that the assumed retail markup is 175%, which is quite high compared to things like retail alcohol. bawfuls fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Apr 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Delta-Wye posted:Welp guys we can't close our budget deficits by taxing stoners. What a goddamn mistake. Pack it up 64-failures, reinforce prohibition. This civil right won't generate money? Take it away!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
Edit. Wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 09:15
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:Wow, what amazing insight. I've certainly never heard this idea expressed months ago at the beginning of this very thread, even! So what exactly are the incremental expenditures related to legalization? Do they consider savings on the law enforcement side?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 10:37
|
|
|
Of course not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
A64 should have specified that any taxes levied on marijuana must be identical to those levied on alcohol. Although, I guess it's not surprising that we're still going to have a black market for cannabis due to it being a taxation beast of burden.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:Of course not. Law enforcement funding wouldn't go down for a while, the fallout from taking away one of the biggest cash cows in a market dominated by violence would not be pretty. It would go away and be worth all the trouble, but you really might want to keep cops around for a few more years as gangs readjust and try and find new sources of income (Something that you might see again years later when police forces end up looking for their piece that is no longer there.) Cops not keeping money from busts might actually take a chunk of that savings out. But honestly, there's a lot of work to be done for police. It's not like other than drugs, cops have everything perfectly down. Without having to worry about drug crime we could improve our murder clearance rates, actually investigate lower tier crimes that go completely ignored (autotheft, burglary, robbery, etc), and work on some serious issues that fly completely under the radar (Human trafficking during major sporting events being the first that springs to mind).
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't see police budgets dropping because of this. On the other hand, I -do- foresee prison budgets dropping. Hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Law enforcement funding wouldn't go down for a while, the fallout from taking away one of the biggest cash cows in a market dominated by violence would not be pretty. It would go away and be worth all the trouble, but you really might want to keep cops around for a few more years as gangs readjust and try and find new sources of income (Something that you might see again years later when police forces end up looking for their piece that is no longer there.) You are missing a huge factor here. Law Enforcement as group is one of the number one proponents of the current federal drug laws simply because of the civil forfeiture income. In actuality I see revenue from police enforcement drop a lot, and never recover. Also as great as it would be to prosecute/solve more murders, those don't pay the bills, in fact they are actually some of the most expensive crimes for the state to take on. I wouldn't be surprised to see DUIs increase however, those bring in money for the state and because of MADD are super easy to prosecute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 21:43
|
|
|
In terms of plans with political possibility, I like the idea of a proposition that states that all civil asset forfeiture revenue will be returned to the taxpayer as a reduction in income tax. Of course it would be a few cents or dollars in sum, but that's not the point. It's not perfect, but who wouldn't get behind that proposal?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
I kind of wonder what the excessive force complaints will be like if police are allowed to use cannabis.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
peengers posted:I kind of wonder what the excessive force complaints will be like if police are allowed to use cannabis. Officer Cheech pulled me over for speeding and wouldn't let me go until I gave him the rest of my bag of cheetos. It was really weird, and somehow he got my number and keeps calling and asking if I want to "chill."
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/04/25/2573492/judge-again-orders-tacoma-police.htmlquote:Give the man his marijuana. That was the gist of a simple order Tacoma Municipal Court Judge Jack Emery gave to Tacoma police two months ago. People predicted exactly this up-thread, where the conflict between a passive action (choosing not to prosecute under federal law) comes into conflict with taking an affirmative action (trafficking a controlled substance) to return evidence. Is this the first case that's come to court on this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:You are missing a huge factor here. Law Enforcement as group is one of the number one proponents of the current federal drug laws simply because of the civil forfeiture income. In actuality I see revenue from police enforcement drop a lot, and never recover. mugrim posted:Law enforcement funding wouldn't go down for a while, the fallout from taking away one of the biggest cash cows in a market dominated by violence would not be pretty. It would go away and be worth all the trouble, but you really might want to keep cops around for a few more years as gangs readjust and try and find new sources of income (Something that you might see again years later when police forces end up looking for their piece that is no longer there.) That's what the bolded statements meant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 05:09
|
|
|
Harik posted:http://www.thenewstribune.com/2013/04/25/2573492/judge-again-orders-tacoma-police.html This give me a nice warm feeling inside. Judges are finally getting tired of the travesty that is the war on drugs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 13:28
|
|
|
Fine! If we can't tax it, no civil liberties for anyone!quote:The source of the outrage is a draft bill floating around the Capitol late this week that would open the door to repeal. Great job! Now if you could just give us a quote saying "should gays really even be considered human?" I can fill out my pure evil republican bingo card.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Fine! If we can't tax it, no civil liberties for anyone! That doesn't even make sense, the taxes are in the black, it's not like they're LOSING money by lifting statewide prohibition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
I don't see why taxing the hell out of pot is a big deal. WA state has 25% tax on producers, 25% on distributors, and 25% on retail sales. It will make the government a pile of money that would have otherwise gone to the cartels. Which is desperately needed due to the recent ruling on education by the State Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 19:55
|
|
|
I really don't think this legalization thing is going to happen after all, the blow back is just starting up.I think things are going to get a little better, and then swing all the way back to being worse than before. I had a lot of hope, but lately I've come to realize money always wins, and marijuana does not have enough money to win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
What it will really take is the powers that be (large corporate interests) realizing that it's easier to sell their gross consumer culture to people when those people are baked all the time. Once that happens, they'll be all over it. Think about how much more money McDonalds would make if their average consumer started getting baked a few times a week. Goddrat.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
Xeom posted:I really don't think this legalization thing is going to happen after all, the blow back is just starting up.I think things are going to get a little better, and then swing all the way back to being worse than before. Marijuana has a LOT of money in it. Legalization has a lot of 'hidden' benefits, such as reduced prison costs(not to mention the cost to society having a large chunk of population locked up), and taking a chunk of cash away from the cartels. But to push the local governments into defending legalization against a hostile Fed, they need a good($$$) reason. Decently high taxes are that reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
RichieWolk posted:Fine! If we can't tax it, no civil liberties for anyone! How the hell is that even legal? To change the wording of a ballot question after it's been voted on?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
The Maroon Hawk posted:How the hell is that even legal? To change the wording of a ballot question after it's been voted on? Colorado is one of those crazy states where the voters have to vote on tax increases. This is a new tax. It has to be voted on by the state at large. This isn't completely insane as part of the previous measure required taxation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 02:59
|
|
|
I thought the whole idea is that they'd add on tons of sin taxes anyway. The whole "if this doesn't pass it's repealed" thing is shady as hell but the tax itself isn't that terrible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Colorado is one of those crazy states where the voters have to vote on tax increases. This is a new tax. It has to be voted on by the state at large. I know that, I live here  I'm just baffled at the thought that they can go back and add a provision like that to a ballot measure that's already been voted on and passed. That's like if I were to ask questions in a survey of a bunch of people, then go back and edit my questions after they've already answered them.EDIT: Whoops, never mind. They're not talking about revising the Amendment 64 provision, they're talking about revising the eventual tax ballot question. Silly me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 04:22
|
|
|
wilfredmerriweathr posted:What it will really take is the powers that be (large corporate interests) realizing that it's easier to sell their gross consumer culture to people when those people are baked all the time. Once that happens, they'll be all over it. Think about how much more money McDonalds would make if their average consumer started getting baked a few times a week. Goddrat. If anything gets McDonalds to expand their breakfast hours that'd be it. Of course, I'd be in real loving trouble if $1 sausage mcmuffins and hash browns became more available.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Mrit posted:Marijuana has a LOT of money in it. Legalization has a lot of 'hidden' benefits, such as reduced prison costs(not to mention the cost to society having a large chunk of population locked up), and taking a chunk of cash away from the cartels. But to push the local governments into defending legalization against a hostile Fed, they need a good($$$) reason. Decently high taxes are that reason. There's less money than people think though, which is why years of promises of huge tax gains from those against prohibition is now hurting the cause. Best case scenario the feds end prohibition and pot is no different than cigarettes legally, its price will plummet. This nation is obsessed with the lowest price possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Republicans posted:If anything gets McDonalds to expand their breakfast hours that'd be it. I'd open a Diner on the premise of catering to the baked. Hell I see chains of 'The Green Lounge' popping up all over places.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:I'd open a Diner on the premise of catering to the baked. What do you think Taco Bell is? Also here in Texas we have a 24 hour dining place called The Kettle which is pretty decent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
Xeom posted:I really don't think this legalization thing is going to happen after all, the blow back is just starting up.I think things are going to get a little better, and then swing all the way back to being worse than before. Also, there are more marijuana dispensaries in Denver than liquor stores. That's just medical shops too, just wait til general retail starts. I don't think you can say there's no money in it, maybe the money isn't as concentrated as it is with Coors or Anheuser-Busch, but there's lots of money to be made. There is even more money to be made when you consider the industrial hemp portion of 64, hemp requires less water than corn and the products you can make with it are numerous and diverse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
What blowback could there ever possibly be? Weed will be legal, that will become the new norm, and people will care about its legality past that point as they do about alcohol's legality.(i.e. not at all since no one is ever going to try to ban it again)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
NathanScottPhillips posted:What's this blow back you're talking about? I live in Denver and it seems like pot acceptance just keeps growing and growing. Like that article says, more people in Colorado voted to legalize pot than for Obama, if there is a real effort to repeal 64 there will be riots. The price, along with all associated taxes, will drop. That drop will piss off lawmakers as they were expecting that money. Americans really like cheap drugs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 16:56
|
|
|
mugrim posted:The price, along with all associated taxes, will drop. That drop will piss off lawmakers as they were expecting that money. Americans really like cheap drugs. Just set an excise tax per whatever quantity like cigarettes and liquor. Its not hard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Just set an excise tax per whatever quantity like cigarettes and liquor. Its not hard. You'll find that plenty of states have very low taxes on those. E.g. Colorado's excise tax on a pack of cigarettes is only 84 cents, while the highest state tax is New York's $4.35. (Both of course being on top of the federal $1.01)
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:You'll find that plenty of states have very low taxes on those. E.g. Colorado's excise tax on a pack of cigarettes is only 84 cents, while the highest state tax is New York's $4.35. (Both of course being on top of the federal $1.01) Those really aren't that low as a percentage of the cost of a pack.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Those really aren't that low as a percentage of the cost of a pack. Considering the difference between the price of weed as it is now, and the price of weed with proper mass manufacturing and legality, it doesn't come anywhere close.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Two bill were passed yesterday in Colorado, first to create a regulatory agency and the second is to add the marijuana tax to the November ballot. http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2013/05/08/colorado-lawmakers-pass-landmark.html quote:Here are some key provisions from HB 1317:
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
What justifies levying a special tax on marijuana and not alcohol?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2013 16:22
|
|