Posted on 04/30/2013 9:17:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
Here’s a new edition of my “you be the judge” series.
These are posts designed to explore some of the more challenging aspects of a pro-libertarian philosophy.
Today’s example comes from Colorado, which had displayed a libertarian streak on issues ranging from school choice to drug legalization.
But the latter issue is the source of today’s quandary. Should marijuana be legal if it means more tax revenue that will be used by the political elite to expand the burden of government spending?
Here are the details from the Denver CBS station.
A draft bill floating around the Capitol late this week suggests that a new ballot question on pot taxes should repeal recreational pot in the state constitution if voters don’t approve 15 percent excise taxes on retail pot and a new 15 percent marijuana sales tax. Those would be in addition to regular state and local sales taxes. …Marijuana activists immediately blasted the proposal as a backhanded effort to repeal the pot vote, in which 55 percent of Coloradans chose to flout federal drug law and declare pot legal in small amounts for adults over 21.
If my math is correct, the politicians want a 30 percent special tax on marijuana, which is on top of the regular taxes that would be imposed.
That would be fine with me – if the proposal specified that the additional tax revenue was offset by a tax cut of equal size.
But as I explained in my “starve-the-beast” post, higher taxes usually finance bigger government.
Indeed, some politicians openly admit that they want the new revenue to expand the budget.
Sen. Larry Crowder, R-Alamosa, said the whole purpose of legalizing recreational marijuana was to raise money for education and other programs. “So if there’s no money, we shouldn’t have marijuana,” Crowder said. …In Washington state, the only other place where voters last year approved recreational pot, the ballot measure set taxes at 75 percent, settling the question. Both states are still waiting to find out whether the federal government plans to sue to block retail sales of the drug, set to begin next year.
Though I didn’t realize that the state of Washington imposes a 75 percent tax on marijuana. How…um…French!
So what’s the bottom line? If I lived in Colorado, would I vote to keep pot legal even if it meant more money from the buffoons in the state capital?
Since drug legalization is about 990 out of 1000 in my list of priorities, I’m tempted to say no.
On the other hand, it would be nice to reduce the onerous burden of the War on Drugs, which has been used an excuse to expand the size and scope of government.
What do you think?
P.S. If you want more examples of “you be the judge,” previous editions are listed below.
If they don't, they'll catch more real criminals with actual victims - a plus in my book, and a legitimate function of government.
Of course not. They will do just like they did back around Prohibition. Give ‘em a different job. Even if it is STILL one they aren’t supposed to be doing.
BATFE is the group I’m referencing in case anyone in the gallery missed it...
Wouldn’t that make welfare more expensive?
I steal my drugs.
Decriminalize drugs since drug prohibition doesn't work. Ask any one taking a hit in prison. The screwups are going to get their high no matter what the laws are.
Give the drug abusers a chance to clean themselves up but if they can't handle living in a free society then they should be stripped of their citizenship and given the boot.
Decent people shouldn't have to give up their liberty or money because a few chowder heads can't hold their liquor.
****They will do just like they did back around Prohibition. Give em a different job.****
Exactly, like maybe Armament Retrieval Officers...
Obviously the stuff makes users (welfare recipients) lethargic, uninhibited, unable to function on so many levels, and is a gateway to other bad behaviors including theft, burglary, driving under the influence and causing MV accidents, neglecting your respondibilities, to name just a few. They seem to create so much havoc in general but don’t try to tell an addict that. They’ll deny it to the end or until their back is up against the wall. I just dont get the need to destroy my life with that crap.
> So we legalize pot, the guv gets more money and needs to spend less money for enforcement. Does anyone here think that the guv will reduce the amount of enforcement officers?
No they’ll just ship them over to DHS
Should pears be legal if it means that kiwis will be orange?
What a waste of time!
No. Cost of screening would be offset by a reduction in benefit payouts...
Of course, we could just always do my idea and re-privatize welfare to the charity based model we used to have.
Sink or swim on your own merits. No more FedGov Nanny to rob us blind with...
Or as they would come to be known, "Reactive Targets".
Many people of all ages take prescription drugs from their relatives and they find other sources to continue their drug habit. It seems crazy but I read an article about a woman who nearly died from household cleaning fluid. It has been a long time since I read the article but I think she tried to breath in the fumes. Some people are so addicted to painkillers that they will use household cleaning agents if they have no other access to drugs.
You have responded to a comment I wrote two years ago.
That must have been quite a nap, citizen!
Just so you know, my comment was intended to make people laugh, not to be taken seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.