Marijuana Legalisation - Tax, And Tax Again

[sano]

Marijuana legalisation

 

Tax, and tax again

 

America’s first market for recreational marijuana will be far from free



Mar 9th 2013
| LOS ANGELES

 

FREE-THE-WEED campaigners speak not of “legalising” marijuana but of
“taxing and regulating” it. True to their word, the ballot measure they
placed before Colorado’s voters last November, which won the support of
55% of them, was called the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act and
contained provisions for a 15% excise tax. Now that the law is taking
shape, the signs are that one of the world’s first fully legal marijuana
markets (Washington state also backed legalisation) will have all the
taxes and rules anyone could have wished for.

Soon after Colorado’s law was passed John Hickenlooper, the governor,
appointed a task-force to produce a set of proposals for its
implementation. The 24-member group concluded its hearings on February
28th and will formally issue its findings to lawmakers next week. A bill
should be passed by early May.

I

In what its co-chair, Jack Finlaw, calls “a crazy couple of
months”, the task-force rattled through dozens of issues. Many of its
ideas are straightforward enough: rules on labelling, restrictions on
advertising and provisions to protect youngsters. Non-residents should
be allowed to buy weed, though in smaller amounts than locals. Joe
Megyesy, a pro-legalisation lobbyist, calls the proposals “thoughtful
and responsible”. But they add up to a far more restrictive market than
exists for alcohol.

Most importantly, the group wants to maintain, for three years, the
“vertical integration” model that has governed Colorado’s
medical-marijuana industry. Under this system retailers must grow at
least 70% of the dope they sell. This forces licence-holders to master a
suite of skills from cultivation to distribution. The task-force also
suggests that for the law’s first year, only established
medical-marijuana dispensaries should be granted retail licences. Some
campaigners mutter about protectionism, though grudgingly admit that
dispensaries deserve some reward for their pioneering (and risky) work.

Mr Finlaw admits that vertical integration makes it hard to apply the
excise tax: licence-holders will have an incentive to undervalue their
product. That may help explain another proposal: to slap a tax on
marijuana sales, on top of existing state and local sales taxes and the
proposed excise tax. No figure will be presented to the legislature, but
an “example” of 25% was floated in hearings.

Regulators say they need the funds to enforce their rules. But set
taxes too high, fear campaigners, and you leave the illegal market in
place, which destroys one of the principal purposes of legalisation in
the first place. Either way, any new taxes will have to be approved
again by Colorado’s voters, probably in November.

Over-tight rules create opportunities for rent-seeking and cosy
relationships between the industry and regulators. But Colorado’s
legislators must perform a balancing act, because they are being watched
by the federal government. Marijuana remains illegal under federal law,
and should Barack Obama’s administration decide to crack down, as it
has done in some medical-marijuana states, the work of the task-force
would rapidly come undone. In December Eric Holder, the
attorney-general, said the Department of Justice would issue its
response to the votes in Colorado and Washington “relatively soon”; on
February 26th he upgraded that forecast to “soon”.

Some members of the prohibition industry are running out of patience.
On March 5th the president of the International Narcotics Control
Board, an arm of the UN, said that marijuana legalisation in America
violated international treaties and threatened public health. Hours
later, eight former heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration, which
has led America’s drug war for decades, expressed alarm that federal
laws were not being enforced. One predicted that stoned drivers would
leave roads “littered with fatalities”.

Cooler heads have prevailed in Colorado, at least for now. As the
task-force wrapped up its work Mr Hickenlooper, a legalisation sceptic,
told members that although he feared the unforeseen consequences of
Amendment 64, he acknowledged the need for pragmatism. With luck, his
attitude may prove infectious.

 

 

http://f5web1.economist.com/news/united-states/21573135-americas-first-market-recreational-marijuana-will-be-far-free-tax-and-tax-again

[sano]

Pela 3ª semana seguida a The Economist vem falando em legalização... pelo menos é uma revista lida por formadores de opinião!

[Green Knight]

É Sano o mundo já abriu os olhos e ta caminhando aso poucos.... enquanto isso temos a veja, globo e o pastores no governo andando para tras! Triste esse nosso pais!

[BomConheiroX]

Total!

[de_pendente]

Pode ser que tenhamos uma surpresa e mais rápido do que esperamos.

[saporo]

é o que eu disse em outro tópico....É impossível deter o avanço da cannabis para uma economia legalizada. Não é mais possível ignorar a produção nos Estados Unidos.

[ricco y locco]

Pode ser que tenhamos uma surpresa e mais rápido do que esperamos.

INCA

[rsfan]

A The Economist sempre bateu na tecla a legalização.

Enquanto ela defende a causa com argumentos coerentes, a Veja descaradamente mente sobre a cannabis.

Infelizmente o estado quer sempre meter a mão em todos os lugares. Taxar demais a maconha é uma burrice incrível.

[Juniaum]

'

A The Economist sempre bateu na tecla a legalização.

Enquanto ela defende a causa com argumentos coerentes, a Veja descaradamente mente sobre a cannabis.

Infelizmente o estado quer sempre meter a mão em todos os lugares. Taxar demais a maconha é uma burrice incrível.

É ai que começa à surgir a economia informal.