New York City Health Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden recently published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine advocating a penny-per-ounce tax on sodas and sports drinks that contain sugar. Frieden argues such a tax would be instrumental in increasing public health and curbing America's obesity epidemic, as well as raise $1.2 billion a year in state revenue. Given the state of the economy and the recent rash of proposed goods-tax increases, I'd say the latter is likely a stronger motivational force than Frieden has admitted.
Another recent tax proposal - that on beer in Oregon - would purportedly go to promote public health through alcohol and substance abuse rehabilitation programs. And the federal cigarette tax increase earlier this year is supposed to pay for expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Such reasons are undoubtedly genuine, and admirable at that. But I'm not convinced that a "sugar" tax (that's essentially what Frieden's proposal is) or a 1,000-percent tax increase on beer in a state so firmly attached to its breweries would gain the same ground or even be on the table if states weren't facing such significant deficits and so desperately in need of revenue.
Furthermore, I'm at a loss to understand why the government doesn't see the logical alternative to such "grasping at straws"-type taxing that is staring it straight in the face: legalizing and taxing marijuana.
As the argument goes, cigarettes and alcohol kill millions each year, while the vast majority of marijuana-related health problems are a result of drug-trade violence that wouldn't even be an issue were the "drug" legal. Even sugary beverages contribute to far more deaths than marijuana (in 2005, the CDC estimated about 112,000 obesity-related deaths each year in the United States).
We've all heard the list of arguments in support of legalizing the plant, but from an economic standpoint, it has never made more sense for the United States to decriminalize the production, sale and use of marijuana by adults.
In February, California State Assembly member Tom Ammiano introduced legislation to regulate cultivation and sale of marijuana in his state, and then tax it. California's economy is among the hardest hit in the nation, with unemployment close to 12 percent, and the San Francisco lawmaker argues legalizing marijuana could bring huge revenue hikes to the state. According to a March 3 article on Salon.com, marijuana's annual sales of $14 billion make it California's biggest cash crop by far (vegetables, No. 2, only bring in $5.7 billion and grapes create a mere $2.6 billion).
Back in 2008, an initiative proposed in Oregon would have allowed state-controlled liquor stores to legally sell marijuana with a tax, 90 percent of which would have gone to Oregon's General Fund and likely lowered Oregon citizens' state tax burden. At the federal level, American citizens would also save the tax money that currently goes to fight an absurdly ineffective drug war against marijuana.
The proposed Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act would treat pot like alcohol - it would only be available to citizens over the age of 21, and illegal to drive under its influence. And by imposing a tax on the plant, the state's tax collectors, according to the same article, would rake in close to $1.3 billion in new revenues a year. The production and supply of pot would no longer be under the control of illegal drug cartels, and jobs - green ones, at that - would be created.
All of this is not even to mention the law enforcement money that would be saved, at the state and federal level. Illegal sales would decline, the flow of people into prison would subside and the government would no longer be dedicating extensive funds to nonviolent drug offenses.
The American people seem more than ready to treat marijuana as just another legal, controlled substance, so why isn't the administration? When the government ignores the immense benefits of such actions in the face of dire economic downturn, it must be asked, why? If you ask me, the issue comes down to plain and simple hypocrisy.
According to California judge Jim Gray, an advocate of drug policy reform, 75 percent of all Americans who use any illicit drugs use only marijuana, and if that 75 percent were no longer illegal drug users, there would be no justification for the colossal amount of funding and bureaucracy that goes into fighting the drug war. Nearly every federal agency receives extra funding to fight the war, Gray says, including those such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Agriculture, and has become unwilling to do without that funding, which will continue to flow as long as the government continues to wage an unwinnable drug war.
As the country's economic situation continues to grow grimmer, I can only hope the government will recognize that desperate times call for progressive measures. Maybe it will take a complete economic collapse for our government to realize the error of its ways, but I certainly hope not.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Daily Emerald
Author: Andrew Edwards
Contact: Daily Emerald
Copyright: 2009 Oregon Daily Emerald
Website: Tokin' Tax
Another recent tax proposal - that on beer in Oregon - would purportedly go to promote public health through alcohol and substance abuse rehabilitation programs. And the federal cigarette tax increase earlier this year is supposed to pay for expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Such reasons are undoubtedly genuine, and admirable at that. But I'm not convinced that a "sugar" tax (that's essentially what Frieden's proposal is) or a 1,000-percent tax increase on beer in a state so firmly attached to its breweries would gain the same ground or even be on the table if states weren't facing such significant deficits and so desperately in need of revenue.
Furthermore, I'm at a loss to understand why the government doesn't see the logical alternative to such "grasping at straws"-type taxing that is staring it straight in the face: legalizing and taxing marijuana.
As the argument goes, cigarettes and alcohol kill millions each year, while the vast majority of marijuana-related health problems are a result of drug-trade violence that wouldn't even be an issue were the "drug" legal. Even sugary beverages contribute to far more deaths than marijuana (in 2005, the CDC estimated about 112,000 obesity-related deaths each year in the United States).
We've all heard the list of arguments in support of legalizing the plant, but from an economic standpoint, it has never made more sense for the United States to decriminalize the production, sale and use of marijuana by adults.
In February, California State Assembly member Tom Ammiano introduced legislation to regulate cultivation and sale of marijuana in his state, and then tax it. California's economy is among the hardest hit in the nation, with unemployment close to 12 percent, and the San Francisco lawmaker argues legalizing marijuana could bring huge revenue hikes to the state. According to a March 3 article on Salon.com, marijuana's annual sales of $14 billion make it California's biggest cash crop by far (vegetables, No. 2, only bring in $5.7 billion and grapes create a mere $2.6 billion).
Back in 2008, an initiative proposed in Oregon would have allowed state-controlled liquor stores to legally sell marijuana with a tax, 90 percent of which would have gone to Oregon's General Fund and likely lowered Oregon citizens' state tax burden. At the federal level, American citizens would also save the tax money that currently goes to fight an absurdly ineffective drug war against marijuana.
The proposed Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act would treat pot like alcohol - it would only be available to citizens over the age of 21, and illegal to drive under its influence. And by imposing a tax on the plant, the state's tax collectors, according to the same article, would rake in close to $1.3 billion in new revenues a year. The production and supply of pot would no longer be under the control of illegal drug cartels, and jobs - green ones, at that - would be created.
All of this is not even to mention the law enforcement money that would be saved, at the state and federal level. Illegal sales would decline, the flow of people into prison would subside and the government would no longer be dedicating extensive funds to nonviolent drug offenses.
The American people seem more than ready to treat marijuana as just another legal, controlled substance, so why isn't the administration? When the government ignores the immense benefits of such actions in the face of dire economic downturn, it must be asked, why? If you ask me, the issue comes down to plain and simple hypocrisy.
According to California judge Jim Gray, an advocate of drug policy reform, 75 percent of all Americans who use any illicit drugs use only marijuana, and if that 75 percent were no longer illegal drug users, there would be no justification for the colossal amount of funding and bureaucracy that goes into fighting the drug war. Nearly every federal agency receives extra funding to fight the war, Gray says, including those such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Agriculture, and has become unwilling to do without that funding, which will continue to flow as long as the government continues to wage an unwinnable drug war.
As the country's economic situation continues to grow grimmer, I can only hope the government will recognize that desperate times call for progressive measures. Maybe it will take a complete economic collapse for our government to realize the error of its ways, but I certainly hope not.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Daily Emerald
Author: Andrew Edwards
Contact: Daily Emerald
Copyright: 2009 Oregon Daily Emerald
Website: Tokin' Tax
