I asked about two cases. What about in the Sanchez case? Why distinguish a tax from a penalty in that one?
The court said that a tax was valid even when it acted as a penalty designed to inhibit behavior.
It is obvious that § 2590, by imposing a severe burden on transfers to unregistered persons, implements the congressional purpose of restricting traffic in marihuana to accepted industrial and medicinal channels. Hence, the attack here rests on the regulatory character and prohibitive burden of the section, as well as the penal nature of the imposition. But, despite the regulatory effect and the close resemblance to a penalty, it does not follow that the levy is invalid.