This is a really unfortunate situation. IMO drugs should be legalized and taxed heavily to discourage consumption. There should be rules restricting where you can consume drugs not to mention on advertising and the like but they should still be legal. Making drugs illegal pushes these people towards other sorts of criminal activities which are much worse than consumption itself.
Incarceration is the ultimate tax on consumption. If the threat of incarceration has no impact on drug usage then what reason have you to believe a ten or twenty or two hundred percent ad valorem tax will have any impact? Cigarrette taxes have run about four hundred percent per pack for a decade and barely any change in consumption. That’s one reason I don’t believe in sin or vice taxes.
The other reason is because when you tax sin and vice, then their purveyors become stakeholders and the government eventually becomes beholden to them. The last thing I want is my city councilman or state representative listening to and assisting a rep of the pimp lobby or the marijuana lobby because, “Hey, I have to listen to them because they are big tax payors.”
Legalize? yes. Regulate? Yes. Tax? I would rather not.
“Pimp Lobby in the hiz-ouse! REPRESENT!”
“The last thing I want is my city councilman or state representative listening to and assisting a rep of the pimp lobby or the marijuana lobby because, “Hey, I have to listen to them because they are big tax payors.””
I think the argument is that it’ll be RJR, not the “pimp lobby,” that will be talking to your state rep, which is already going on with regular cigarettes anyway.
Godzilla,
I’ve been a proponent of taxation, legalization, education and tax funded treatment as needed.
The addiction rates haven’t changed in decades and the ‘war’ on drugs is a sham and a dismal failure. So continuing to spend billions on drug interdiction is more than a waste, it’s crime. Some of the money could be spent for treating those already in trouble with tons of money left over for something worthwhile.
.
.
Jardinero1,
I won’t credit the taxes in tobacco driving down usage, but the U.S. per capita tobacco usage rate has dropped an average of 2.7% per year since 1976. Over a 32 year, and I openly admit math is a weak point for me, is a pretty good drop.
I am referring to the decline during the regime of six dollar a pack cigarettes. Not much to see there except that all the states are now defenders of big tobacco. Most of the decline you refer to is the result of a steady campaign of education and moral suasion.
I went and looked at the CDC numbers, which probably aren’t as accurate as checking the tobacco company records, but it was all I could find in short time searching. The tobacco use decline started in the mid to late 70’s and there was little if any big ‘tax’em to stop’em’ going on then. The drop has been more a societal and educational change.
There was / is no big drop when the taxes started being piled on by any one state. Not anywhere I could find and I just looked again. I’m open to being corrected, but my mind is in MO on this right now.
Too much taxation will just create a black market.
I am torn on legalization. I can appreciate the libertarian perspective but legalizing meth seems like the worst idea ever.
I don’t think there’d be much meth use (or even sales) if better drugs were legally available.
The point behind cigarette taxes seems to be to tax them until the expected cost of paying the tax is roughly equivalent to the expected cost of getting busted and serving time for buying from the black market. Presumably drug taxes would work in similar fashions.
It’d be kind of nice if there were a spot test to make sure that bus drivers weren’t operating under the influence–perhaps legalization could be delayed until a breathalyzer was available.
That’s certainly how alcohol taxes work!
Oh, I don’t know. It has provided economic opportunity for people at the very lowest end of the economic scale by taking commodities that are so cheap they have almost no value, and giving them tremendous value by associating the risk of decades of imprisonment with their sale. Brutal, uneducated people are thus kept fully occupied — those who would be criminals deal drugs, and those who would be police fight them (sometimes). They are thus too busy to bother the elite people at the top, who, oddly, are those who insist on a war on drugs.
I have a hard time believing trillion.
Big problem with the graph: drug addiction does not equal recreational drug use. Addiction is not the only problem. If you want to sway the pro-drug-prohibition crowd, you’ve got to explain how prohibition contributes to or is irrelevant to to recreational drug use.
One thing I’ve wondered…does the fact that “narcotics” are illegal deter addicts from seeking help to overcome addiction? If someone can cogently make that case, that woudl be good ammo for fighting prohibition.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Not everyone gets addicted, not everyone becomes an alcoholic from drinking either. Some people can settle for a milder buzz. Or with alcohol just enjoy the flavor.
People who want to quit generally know that the cat is out of the bag on their addiction. I’ve heard that used as an excuse to stay out of recovery, but when the addicts are ready, they don’t worry about somebody ‘knowing’ they are druggies. There are more people seeking help with drug addiction than they can currently help. Over the years I’ve seen several people who were ready to quit, stuck in addiction for months because they can’t find a facility with an opening.
I’ve found more that alcoholics are worried about bosses / friends / family finding out that hey are headed out for recovery. But it’s a little easier to be a ‘functioning’ drunk than it is a junky or speed freak. Or at least that’s been what I’ve seen among family, friends and others in my sphere.
The graph doesn’t show the addiction rate absent drug laws, and realistically that can only be estimated. There are historic cases, such as opium in China, that suggests drug use absent regulation grows to a destructive saturation point.
The graph doesn’t show the growing counterculture against drug prohibition and accepting casual drug use. Regardless of how harmful the activity, laws are at a disadvantage if the culture doesn’t support the law.
Of course there is no guarantee that the increased dollars are spent well. Violating due process in property seizure under guise of drug enforcement does not help.
This is a really unfortunate situation. IMO drugs should be legalized and taxed heavily to discourage consumption. There should be rules restricting where you can consume drugs not to mention on advertising and the like but they should still be legal. Making drugs illegal pushes these people towards other sorts of criminal activities which are much worse than consumption itself.
Incarceration is the ultimate tax on consumption. If the threat of incarceration has no impact on drug usage then what reason have you to believe a ten or twenty or two hundred percent ad valorem tax will have any impact? Cigarrette taxes have run about four hundred percent per pack for a decade and barely any change in consumption. That’s one reason I don’t believe in sin or vice taxes.
The other reason is because when you tax sin and vice, then their purveyors become stakeholders and the government eventually becomes beholden to them. The last thing I want is my city councilman or state representative listening to and assisting a rep of the pimp lobby or the marijuana lobby because, “Hey, I have to listen to them because they are big tax payors.”
Legalize? yes. Regulate? Yes. Tax? I would rather not.
“Pimp Lobby in the hiz-ouse! REPRESENT!”
“The last thing I want is my city councilman or state representative listening to and assisting a rep of the pimp lobby or the marijuana lobby because, “Hey, I have to listen to them because they are big tax payors.””
I think the argument is that it’ll be RJR, not the “pimp lobby,” that will be talking to your state rep, which is already going on with regular cigarettes anyway.
Godzilla,
I’ve been a proponent of taxation, legalization, education and tax funded treatment as needed.
The addiction rates haven’t changed in decades and the ‘war’ on drugs is a sham and a dismal failure. So continuing to spend billions on drug interdiction is more than a waste, it’s crime. Some of the money could be spent for treating those already in trouble with tons of money left over for something worthwhile.
.
.
Jardinero1,
I won’t credit the taxes in tobacco driving down usage, but the U.S. per capita tobacco usage rate has dropped an average of 2.7% per year since 1976. Over a 32 year, and I openly admit math is a weak point for me, is a pretty good drop.
I am referring to the decline during the regime of six dollar a pack cigarettes. Not much to see there except that all the states are now defenders of big tobacco. Most of the decline you refer to is the result of a steady campaign of education and moral suasion.
I went and looked at the CDC numbers, which probably aren’t as accurate as checking the tobacco company records, but it was all I could find in short time searching. The tobacco use decline started in the mid to late 70’s and there was little if any big ‘tax’em to stop’em’ going on then. The drop has been more a societal and educational change.
There was / is no big drop when the taxes started being piled on by any one state. Not anywhere I could find and I just looked again. I’m open to being corrected, but my mind is in MO on this right now.
Too much taxation will just create a black market.
I am torn on legalization. I can appreciate the libertarian perspective but legalizing meth seems like the worst idea ever.
I don’t think there’d be much meth use (or even sales) if better drugs were legally available.
The point behind cigarette taxes seems to be to tax them until the expected cost of paying the tax is roughly equivalent to the expected cost of getting busted and serving time for buying from the black market. Presumably drug taxes would work in similar fashions.
It’d be kind of nice if there were a spot test to make sure that bus drivers weren’t operating under the influence–perhaps legalization could be delayed until a breathalyzer was available.
That’s certainly how alcohol taxes work!
Oh, I don’t know. It has provided economic opportunity for people at the very lowest end of the economic scale by taking commodities that are so cheap they have almost no value, and giving them tremendous value by associating the risk of decades of imprisonment with their sale. Brutal, uneducated people are thus kept fully occupied — those who would be criminals deal drugs, and those who would be police fight them (sometimes). They are thus too busy to bother the elite people at the top, who, oddly, are those who insist on a war on drugs.
I have a hard time believing trillion.
Big problem with the graph: drug addiction does not equal recreational drug use. Addiction is not the only problem. If you want to sway the pro-drug-prohibition crowd, you’ve got to explain how prohibition contributes to or is irrelevant to to recreational drug use.
One thing I’ve wondered…does the fact that “narcotics” are illegal deter addicts from seeking help to overcome addiction? If someone can cogently make that case, that woudl be good ammo for fighting prohibition.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. Not everyone gets addicted, not everyone becomes an alcoholic from drinking either. Some people can settle for a milder buzz. Or with alcohol just enjoy the flavor.
People who want to quit generally know that the cat is out of the bag on their addiction. I’ve heard that used as an excuse to stay out of recovery, but when the addicts are ready, they don’t worry about somebody ‘knowing’ they are druggies. There are more people seeking help with drug addiction than they can currently help. Over the years I’ve seen several people who were ready to quit, stuck in addiction for months because they can’t find a facility with an opening.
I’ve found more that alcoholics are worried about bosses / friends / family finding out that hey are headed out for recovery. But it’s a little easier to be a ‘functioning’ drunk than it is a junky or speed freak. Or at least that’s been what I’ve seen among family, friends and others in my sphere.
The graph doesn’t show the addiction rate absent drug laws, and realistically that can only be estimated. There are historic cases, such as opium in China, that suggests drug use absent regulation grows to a destructive saturation point.
The graph doesn’t show the growing counterculture against drug prohibition and accepting casual drug use. Regardless of how harmful the activity, laws are at a disadvantage if the culture doesn’t support the law.
Of course there is no guarantee that the increased dollars are spent well. Violating due process in property seizure under guise of drug enforcement does not help.