"It provides tax revenue to the states that the Federal Government doesn't have to contribute to."

The above appeared in a Campfire thread. Am I the only one here whose jaw dropped to his chest after reading it?

Bill Quimby

Without context it's meaningless, but I'm never surprised anymore at anything I read here.

I'm the one who said it.

Check out the amount of tax revenue that Colorado has accumulated from Marijuana sales.

It's not an insignificant number.

Marijuana is a "taxed" billion dollar a year industry in Colorado.

Why is that so hard to believe?

One reason other states are on board with legalizing pot, they want the tax revenue.

Spend a billion to chase Cheech and Chong around, or collect a billion.

How f'n hard is this to comprehend?

BLM, Mexican gang violence, the militarization of our police, the bizarre level of incarceration in this country, the extraordinary level of drug od's : all of it has it's roots in the war on drugs, and it's utter failure.

We're living in a police state, and think nothing of it.

I don't understand the consternation. What exactly about that statement caused your jaw to drop?



In other news, I was reading an article about the effects of legalizing marijuana and despite a fear of possibly increased accidents caused by all of those stoners suddenly driving, there is some indication to show that traffic accidents actually decrease as alcohol use is replaced by marijuana use.

That should cause some jaws to drop or knees to jerk...

It took me a while to come to the realization that pot isn't that great of a danger. Safer than alcohol or tobacco. The government pretends to try to limit use of both but doesn't want to give up the tax money it generates.

These hit and run posts are a PITA,....you'd think the OP would take the time to respond.

GTC

Pot isn't unlike the lottery in that we don't have to participate. Let the suckers pay.

In much of the country a significant percentage of drivers are already driving around stoned every day. We may not notice much difference after legalization.

"some indication"

Such as....those wanting it to be legal???????

He's still runnin'

"Some people worry that legalizing marijuana would cause an increase in car accidents by “stoned drivers”, who, like drunk drivers, have impaired reflexes and poor judgment, and indeed there is a small but real problem of marijuana-induced car accidents. But Chaloukpa and Laixuthai (1994) crunch the numbers and find that decreased price/increased availability of marijuana is actually associated with decreased car accidents, probably because marijuana is substituting for alcohol in the “have impairing substances and then go driving” population. This finding – that marijuana and alcohol substitute for each other – has been spotted again and again. Anderson & Rees (2013) find that states that legalize medical marijuana see a 5% drop in beer sales. There are however a few dissenting opinions: Cameron & Williams (2001), in complex econometric simulations that may or may not resemble the real world in any respect, find that increasing the price of alcohol increases marijuana use, but increasing the price of marijuana does not affect alcohol use, and the same researcher finds that banning alcohol on a college campus also decreases marijuana use. Also, possibly marijuana use increases smoking? This whole area is confusing, but I am most sympathetic to to the Andersen and Rees statistics which say that medical marijuana states are associated with 13% fewer traffic fatalities."

You can find the whole article here:
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/01/05/marijuana-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/

The part I quoted and which contains active links to the studies cited is in section III, paragraph 9.

The author really isn't for or against marijuana legalization from what I can read, he presents a fairly balanced blog post citing a lot of sources showing possible pros and cons. This blogger seems to have a fairly erudite readership so the comments are always worth perusing.

More:
"So my actual conclusion is:

There is not a sufficiently obvious order-of-magnitude difference between the costs and benefits of marijuana legalization for a evidence-based utilitarian analysis of costs and benefits to inform the debate. You may return to your regularly scheduled wild speculation and shrill accusations.

But I wouldn’t say this exercise is useless. For example, it suggests that whether marijuana legalization is positive or negative on net depends almost entirely on small changes in the road traffic accident rate. This is something I’ve never heard anyone else mention, but which in retrospect should be obvious; the few debatable health effects and the couple of people given short jail sentences absolutely can’t compare to the potential for thousands more (or fewer) traffic accidents which leave people permanently dead.

So my actual actual conclusion is:

We should probably stop caring about health effects of marijuana and about imprisonment for marijuana-related offenses, and concentrate all of our research and political energy on how marijuana affects driving."


This was written in January 2014 so it doesn't have any evidence based research later than that.

Can anyone from the "legal" states chime in as to whether or not there are more related accidents.
Personally I feel it should be taxed and criminalized just like drinking and driving.

BUT,BUT,BUT, Pot is a gateway drug in that it makes everybody that uses it go directly to Heroin! Everybody knows that!
from 1964 to 1973 i smoked daily(all day) with the heaviest use in 69' and 70.
never used H or any other needle drug. mushrooms yes, coke yes, but just grew out of it. 1973 to 1991 was in a bottle.
worst time of my life. booze caused so much more strife in my life than pot there is no comparison. been clean and sober since 91 but still don't see the claim that pot is evil.

Sweet Louise, it's pretty easy to understood what made the OP's jaw drop.

His point is: States generate more tax income via pot, which means the Federal government needs to give less tax money to said states. Since the states need less money from the FEDS, the FEDS will need to collect less money from you and me.

Does anyone believe that A) the states will want less money from the FEDS? B) That the FEDS will collect less money from us?

I think, as time goes on the states are going to have to come up with some way to pay their debts without putting the pinch on the federal government.

Right now one of the big debts in many states are government pensions.

At some point, the states are going to have to find some way to fund those pensions or tell the people that they're going to have to do without them.

,..and keep in mind,..these are government employees who are going to take the hit.

So,..when the debt problems of a state government starts to directly affect the incomes of the employees of the state government, the state government will look for ways to generate revenue.

Right now, big chunks of revenue are getting sent to the cartels in Mexico.

So a decision has to be made.

Do you want the Mexican cartels to get your pensions and your benefits?,...or do you want to keep them for yourself?

It's a no brainer.

Ok, I don't disagree with that. Still doesn't mean that A)they will want LESS from the FEDS B) that the FEDS will give them less.

And, the Cartels are losing money due to the pot legalizing, so, they are now importing Heroin.

Hmmm--

The pot industry is YUGE....
Now building plastic injection molds for pot containers.
Different sizes and different colors.
Pretty nice work.


dave

Taxes are never revoked. Whare the funds go to is a different story.

he probably burned a fatty and has been watching ren and stimpy reruns all day.

[[

That is the real thing to understand; there are already smokers out there. Just like prohibition, when no one drank anything until it was repealed.

The 2 things that concern me are greedy governments taxing too high creating another opportunity for smugglers; and the potency of some of the stuff compared to what would be available if it had never been outlawed.

As for taxes, does it matter if I pay the feds, or the state? It is still my money. I guess what I need to do is figure some way for someone else to pay taxes, then use the money for my benefit.

At least at the state level we have a more influential say in how that tax money is spent, and more of a say how much we are taxed.

And yes, I think the locoweed tax here in Colorado is as high as it can possily go without creating another illicit industry. The best thing the legal side of locoweed has going for it is apparently quality--I had no idea there were so many versions on that stuff..........


Casey

it's just as believe able as a super slick wonder lube that adds 200 fps to any given round

If the author truly thought legalization was the impetus to smoking followed by driving, he is far from an intellectual. Pot users driving stoned have been with us for decades. They're the ones the rest of us cuss for driving the speed limit.

You didn't read it, did you?

I don't smoke or shoot drugs Drink some but very little.If people are going into pot Go for it the states make money but H and the rest of drugs no way just my point of thought. Drinking smoking pot and driving no

Here in west Nebraska, the Sheriff Departments and State Patrol are wasting millions on patrolling highways and chasing potentially illegal pot buyers/transporters on our borders while the child abusers, meth brewers conduct business as usual.

Back in college when beer was more popular than weed (at my college anyway) a friend of some friends got into that [bleep]. Watched him skip classes, drop grades and generally circle the drain until our mutual friends intervened. Successfully. Taught me all I needed to know about it.

Most of my college buddies dropped out because they were too hung over to go to class. one roommate got his ass kicked when he was drunk and mouthing off, and ended up with his jaw wired shut.

Yeah, alcohol is such a benevolent drug......

Most of the potheads were a little paranoid, and their pizza bill was a little high, but they did ok.

Drinking age in upstate NY was 18 then. Sure, that was a problem for some but not like weed. With Rockefeller drug laws the potheads were way paranoid but kept tokin' anyway.

Binary morality is always easier to defend.

"This" thing (which by the way is the thing I use) is all good, people who use it are all responsible and it never causes any problems.
But "that" thing (which by the way is the thing all those loser asswholes use) is all bad, people who use it are all pathetic idiots and it does nothing but cause problems.

The reality is that some people can’t handle alcohol and it interferes in their lives from minor problems to total ruination. Some people can handle alcohol and never suffer much more than an occasional hangover. Some people can’t handle pot and let it take over their lives. Some people can handle pot and never suffer much more than an occasional spacey feeling the morning after, plus having empty pizza boxes and open bags of chips lying around.

I am not for any drug but as long as people want to get intoxicated on anything we’ll never get rid of intoxicants, but the way we handle alcohol is about the best compromise I’ve seen.

You are allowed to possess and use alcohol but the minute you let your use of it cause a safety problem to others you are liable for punishment. Same standards should be applied to any other intoxicants. That allows the responsible people to use responsibly, and gives the only weapons an otherwise free country should be able to have to deter those who cannot use their intoxicant of choice responsibly.

Punctuation. Get ya some.

It ain't about dope. It is the idea that the Feds could get money from any source other than the people in the States.

As if the Feds have another source of revenue and they use it to "contribute to the States".

Ain't a surprise to me that all of you missed his point.

26 states and DC have laws legalizing marijuana in some form.
Here in Colorado taxes for both wholesale and retail came to 129 M or 1.3% of total tax revenue.
I personally find it a sad state of affairs the NFL continues to punish players for using it. Most of the ones that do use it, use it to deal with pain. The NFL prefers them to use opioids to deal with their pain.

250 Million dollars last year.

More then we collected from Cigarette taxes.

Anyone that thinks marijuana is harmless is fooling themselves. The cost will be more than the tax revenue brings in.

same is true of alcohol. Wanna ban it, too?

Ironically, cigarettes bring in enough taxes to cover their costs.

Do you think no one was smoking it before we taxed it?

The burning question ( pun intended ) to me is how much exactly were they able to lower other taxes????

LOL, when do they ever lower other taxes???????
They just ADD to the taxes.... The way government figures taxes, when they do not raise taxes a significant amount they are saving you tax money. By bringing in other taxes ,such as marijuana tax, they are saving people ,by not increasing the other taxes"as Much".......

My point exactly! It wont relieve your other taxes, and it comes with a schittload of unintended consequences. Dope is never a good thing.

I know a few folks who can not handle alcohol, and have spent their lives as hard core alcoholics.

I know bunches of folks who drink seldom or occasionaly with no apparent ill effects.

I used to know a lot of guys who smoked weed. They all quit within a couple years, or they turned into complete burned out, wasted porheads. I never saw anyhing in between.

This, in my opinion, is the difference between pot and booze.

Personally, I wish pot was still just as illegal as it was in 1970. I do not want any of his crap to become easier for my grandkids to acquire.

Were I King, every convicted drug dealer or mule would be summarily executed.

Even more so when revenue = zero and the cops are getting shot over it.

Remember, tax stamps are an outgrowth of Prohibition.

My personal conclusion from watching people that worked under my supervision over the years, is that a lower percentage of people can deal with the effects of pot, compared to alcohol. Potheads tend to get very lazy, while the drinkers work hard, with a hangover, while saying "never again". miles

I did not intend to hit and run, as someone put it. I have been busy with other things. I took the quote away from the debate about legalizing marijuana because my shock at the statement had nothing to do with drugs.

It probably was just me because no one else has said anything about the original post suggesting tax revenues originate with the beleaguered federal government (note that the original statement capitalized both words) and the states could not exist without Big Daddy.

Quite frankly, our all-powerful Big Daddy is going to pot.

Bill Quimby

No Bill not everybody missed your point.

Fixt.

Some states get a lot of money from the Federal Government. Some get less.

Those states which generate more tax revenue require less from the Federal Government.

That was my point and it's correct.

State sovereignty is a different subject.

Here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

Amen!

Thanks. Would you also get me a couple of their value menu burgers or cheeseburgers? Please

"Back in college when beer was more popular than weed (at my college anyway) a friend of some friends got into that [bleep]. Watched him skip classes, drop grades and generally circle the drain until our mutual friends intervened. Successfully. Taught me all I needed to know about it."

Well the flip side of that is back in my college days one of the guys in my frat was growing and selling stuff just as good as they have in Colorado now, and smoking copious amounts daily, hourly. He paid for his education though a trailer house with a greenhouse roof. He also was an honor student, aced everything he took. He has been a professor for the 25 years since then. Published a few well known history books, and put up a few documentaries. Many of you would know the name, but I'll never tell.

.gov will either fine you if they keep pot illegal, or tax you if they make it legal. One way or the other your money will be used to grow a bigger and more expensive .gov.

curdog4570:

(I missed your earlier post).

The question I asked in the title has been answered. We obviously are alone in believing there is something wrong with the thinking that led to the original quote, and it has nothing to do with marijuana.

Bill Quimby