Yeah, it'd be interesting to also see how much less / more policing is required, drug rehab programs, anti-drug programs, loss economic behavior due to increased drug use, diversion of consumption from other taxable goods to MJ (say a decrease in alchohol tax revenue), etc. Hopefully much less policing is required, but I don't think it was particularly policed all that much to begin with. In fact, policing tax collection may have increased.
Tourism revenue might see a boost though, but that may decrease over time if other states adopt legalization. It also may be offset by an increase immigration of drug users and emigration of non drug users (assuming you can accurately predict non drug users are more economically valuable than drug users)
Just looking at the topline number I think is pretty meaningless. I think also couching legalization in term of economics might be setting things up for failure and it might make better sense to say it's just philosophically the right thing to do(??)
These are critical parameters that we're completely blind to. I'm pro-legalization myself, because I think the data will ultimately support it as being the best option, but we need to check that hypothesis with reality.
Shouldn't there be an aspect of "what is right?" Just because taxes are more or less, revenues increase or decrease, we were putting a huge financial burden and physical burden on a drug that is no worse than alcohol. I think that is the top consideration, what is right, not which way is more financially helpful.
(Not trying to be argumentative here, sorry if it sounds that way. It feels like this point is heavily missed)
I think a big part of the focus on tax revenue is "marketing". I only say that because a decent subsection of US society would oppose cannabis (or any recreational drug) on principle if it was only a moral issue. By focusing on more objective benefits, legalization proponents are able to bypass some of the "moral" opposition.
Basically, for people like me, morality would dictate that it's wrong to arrest or imprison a person for doing something that is, at worst, a bit unhealthy. Still, just as many people split the other way and think it's immoral to promote "vice" at all. The balance may shift but it's there.
Contrast that with the economic argument and you'll have a hard time finding people who would choose revenue going to the black market over funding something useful or lowering the tax burden on those who don't buy cannabis.
Alcohol is heavily taxed, and as any liquor store owner will tell you, it's taxed at every possible opportunity: production, distribution and end user sales.
We should be striving to bring overall tax rates for tobacco and marijuana up to match alcohol.
The difference is, because of its prohibition, marijuana has a thriving black market. They need to stamp out the black market before they can get taxation to that level.
A friend of mine visited me in Denver from another state. He came back from a weed store with a little bottle and exclaimed "dude, this was only 10 bucks! It'd cost me like $50 back home!"
I'm really looking forward to seeing data on what happens to the black market for other drugs, with marijuana now easier to get legally than illegally.
Considering those get taxed on top of VAT and are even higher in my country (it's not a % tax but a fixed number per defined unit but it comes down to ~30% post VAT on tobacco products for eg.) and AFAIK US has no VAT (maybe I'm wrong ?) I wouldn't call 25% tax incredibly high.
Is it? The numbers earlier suggested Colorado only brought in half the tax for alcohol it did for weed. My bet is alcohol costs the state far more in police and social services than weed does. Weed smokers don't usually get in car wrecks or end up in fights that lead them to the ER.
I'd argue alcohol is way worse than weed. I like my whiskey, but its one of the leading causes of deaths for anything from car accidents to cirrhosis.
I for one would love to see a comprehensive study on the cohesive "value" of both drugs in society and alter taxation accordingly. Alcohol has to cost the most for highway patrol and other social services. Decriminalizing marijuana has to have a substantial savings. Taxation is fair - sin taxes are completely optional and the state needs money. It sounds like the weed tax is too high and the alcohol tax is too low.
I think also couching legalization in term of economics might be setting things up for failure and it might make better sense to say it's just philosophically the right thing to do(??)
Policies like this are almost always better-off as economic rather than moral proposals.
It's hard to get people to agree to what's right, whereas it is distressingly easy to get people to agree to what's profitable.
It's because profitability is a real world concept with factual right and wrong answers---that we might not know at any one time, but can be figured out in principle.
Tourism revenue might see a boost though, but that may decrease over time if other states adopt legalization. It also may be offset by an increase immigration of drug users and emigration of non drug users (assuming you can accurately predict non drug users are more economically valuable than drug users)
Just looking at the topline number I think is pretty meaningless. I think also couching legalization in term of economics might be setting things up for failure and it might make better sense to say it's just philosophically the right thing to do(??)