I have some bad news and some good news.
The bad news is that politicians have come up with another proposal for an additional tax.
The good news is that they can only impose this new tax if they ease up on the silly Drug War.
That creates a bit of a quandary if you believe in freedom and small government.
But, on net, it’s a move in the right direction.
We have two examples to share. The first is from South America, where the government of Uruguay seems poised to legalize marijuana. Here are some blurbs from an AP report.
Uruguay is pushing ahead to create a legal marijuana market… The Senate planned to debate the pot plan Tuesday, with approval by the ruling coalition widely expected before the night is over. Because senators turned away all requests for amendments after it passed the lower chamber, their vote will be final.
One reason for this proposed reform is to fight organized crime.
President Jose Mujica says the point is not to promote marijuana use, but to push out organized crime. The government hopes that when licensed growers, providers and users can openly trade in the drug, illegal traffickers will be denied their profits and go away.
Let’s give President Mujica an A+ for economics. He recognizes that criminalization creates a black market.
But Uruguay politicians are not exactly dreamy-headed libertarians. Big government would be involved.
Socialist Deputy Julio Bango, who co-authored the proposal, told The Associated Press that “this is not a law to liberalize marijuana consumption, but rather to regulate it. Today there is a market dominated by drug traffickers. We want the state to dominate it.”
And the article also mentions that legalization would be accompanied by heavy taxes. I don’t like that part, but there’s no question this would be a net plus for liberty and crime reduction.
Some lawmakers in New York also seem to understand that prohibition is illogical. Here are some excerpts from a local news report.
State Sen. Liz Krueger’s measure — the Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act — would legalize, regulate and tax marijuana under state law. “It will take the market in marijuana away from the criminal enterprises, just as happened when alcohol prohibition was ended,” she said at a City Hall press conference.
Kudos to Krueger for her grasp of incentives. The Drug War is just as foolish – and just as good for criminals – as prohibition.
Though I wonder whether Sen. Krueger is being too greedy.
“It would establish an excise tax of $50 an ounce of marijuana and authorize localities to charge a sales tax on retail sales if they wish to,” Krueger said. …Liu estimates that a pot tax would generate $431 million in New York City alone.
I’ve never done drugs, so I’m not familiar with the market, but I do know that if the tax is too high on a legal product, you create a black market.
That happens with cigarettes, for instance, and we examples of excessive taxation causing less revenue from Bulgaria, Romania, and Ireland. And we’ve even seen this Laffer Curve effect in Washington, DC.
Last but not least, we should never forget that the Drug War is a horrifying example of Mitchell’s Law, with one bad policy leading to another bad policy.
The War on Drugs, for example, is the reason why politicians imposed costly and ineffective anti-money laundering laws. As well as disgusting and reprehensible asset forfeiture laws.
P.S. Libertarians are not the only ones to think the drug war is foolish. Yes, you find libertarians such as John Stossel and Gary Johnson on the list of those who want to end prohibition. But you also find John McCain, Mona Charen, Pat Robertson, Cory Booker, and Richard Branson.
But maybe you disagree with all those people and would rather be on the same side as Hillary Clinton.
P.P.S. This is not an issue of whether you approve of pot use. You can be strongly against drugs, like me, but also realize that it makes no sense for government to get involved. Particularly since criminals are the ones who benefit.
P.P.P.S. The Drug War gives the government immense powers to engage in bad policy.
- The DEA trying to confiscate a commercial building because a tenant sold some marijuana.
- The government seeking to steal a hotel because some guests sold some marijuana.
- The feds grabbing cash from innocent bystanders in legal cases.
- The government arresting a grandmother for buying cold medicine.
Or sometimes the Drug War merely exposes government stupidity.
[…] Simply stated, if you end drug prohibition, then criminal gangs and cartels will lose their markets. […]
[…] As was so often the case, Friedman was right. If you look at the real-world consequences of the War on Drugs, the net effect of prohibition has been to enrich some very bad people. […]
[…] want marijuana […]
[…] As was so often the case, Friedman was right. If you look at the real-world consequences of the War on Drugs, the net effect of prohibition has been to enrich some very bad people. […]
[…] As was so often the case, Friedman was right. If you look at the real-world consequences of the War on Drugs, the net effect of prohibition has been to enrich some very bad people. […]
[…] War on Drugs is a boon to criminals and the underground […]
Bernie Clinton, the problem is that Socialism never works. No matter how often it has been tried, it always fails.
[…] Sounds like a win-win situation. […]
While the Libertarian Party will not win on this issue with the general public, I personally don’t care what other people do with their own bodies. I am a mind my own business and leave me alone kind of guy. Also, as long as I am not disturbing the peace and hurting anybody, nor is anybody else, government should leave us alone. Period.
As a socialist I strongly agree with the legalization of cannabis for recreational use. It is imperative for the government to do so in order to have an increased tax revenue, lower incarceration rates, and an overall happier public.
Substitute “on balance” for “net”. Now it is a more precise article. Read on.
[…] Regular readers know that I don’t approve of drug use, but that I also favor legalization because the Drug War has been a costly and ineffective failure. […]
[…] Regular readers know that I don’t approve of drug use, but that I also favor legalization because the Drug War has been a costly and ineffective failure. […]
[…] And make life easier for the folks in this cartoon. […]
[…] And make life easier for the folks in this cartoon. […]
Ms. Coduri…
thank you for your perspective and insights… know that they are appreciated….
best…
The Economist has chosen my country, Uruguay, as country of the year for, among other reasons, its phoney pot legalization (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21591872-resilient-ireland-booming-south-sudan-tumultuous-turkey-our-country-year-earths-got?fb_action_ids=10202784515200065&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=scn%2Ffb_ec%2Fearth_s_got_talent&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582).
This is my letter to the Editor:
Country of the year? a disappointed Uruguayan reader wishes the Economist would check its facts
Dear Editor,
I am a Uruguayan reader of The Economist since the age of 18 (and subscriber) and it is so disappointing to see when your journalistic work only limits itself to echo other publications without a minimum of facts-based research and analysis.
I gather you have not bothered to read the cannabis “legalization” law (http://subrayado.com.uy/Resources/Uploads/RelatedFiles/Docs/regulacion_marihuana_bancada_fa.pdf), otherwise you would not call it such. This law only adds a new layer of corruption to the drug trade: government corruption. Under this soviet-style regime, users must register as such, pharmacies are forced to sell cannabis, amounts are rigidly fixed for growers and users, licenses for growing marihuana are required, and new bureaucracies in charge of enforcing these useless regulations are created. I might add that the Uruguayan Government is not famous for its efficiency, for example, it has recently proven itself incapable of assuring that tap water is drinkable.
Why did the Government not simply decriminalize? some see the hand of a great new business in marihuana seeds and trade behind the NGOs, etc. pushing for marihuana regulation, or the natural leftist tendency to expand state control and hide behind smoke screens our really pressing problems, as the terrible and falling ratings received in the latest PISA surveys, which show 4 of every 10 young Uruguayans do not finish high school – in times when my country is flooded with money from its highly priced commodities exports.
Anyway, The Economist should check its facts before calling Uruguayan “liberals”: one of the most prestigious survey firms (CIFRA, http://www.cifra.com.uy/novedades.php?idNoticia=182) concluded that 64% of Uruguayans are against cannabis legalization (which I would fervently favor if it were REAL legalization).
And calling Uruguayans “fun loving”? The Economist has not bothered to talk to any Latin American which would quickly confirm that Uruguayans are the famously boring and conservative neighbors of Argentines and Brazilians!
Lastly, I am proud of the Uruguayan austere tradition, which every Uruguayan President up to this date has reflected. Unfortunately, José Mujica has only added to this tradition the sad honor of being the President who, with his wife, in democratic times, were one of the few illuminated who killed, tortured and robbed other Uruguayans in the name of Socialist Revolution and contributed to the coming of the military regime in 1973.
Regards,
Inés Coduri
I have to admit, I don’t know what I find more unpleasant. Illegal marijuana or paying Nancy Pelosi $50 an ounce.
An environment that would allow taxes to be set locally seems attractive.
But the biggest problem will be all those Uruguayan drug dealers moving to NY to peddle 64oz big gulps to unsuspecting overweight minority children.
Pot is called “weed” because that’s how it grows. Therefore, illegal/black market pot can always undersell highly regulated and taxed legal pot.
The question for the illegal markets will be how much profit can be made verses the potential penalties. Penalties for smoking illegal verses legal pot will probably be drastically reduced, so penalties for the sellers are critical in evaluating risk in the potential market.
A tax of $50/ounce will probably put legal sellers out of business, since regular users will find black market sources.
Hi Dan,
Unfortunately, the Uruguayan law seems only to add a new layer of corruption to the drug trade, that is, governmental corruption on top of drug trafficking.
Under this law, users will be required to register, pharmacies will be forced to sell, amounts are rigidly fixed for growers and users, public licenses for growing marihuana will be required, new public offices in charge of enforcing all these useless regulations will be created, and a long list of soviet style etcs. that make me so sad when I read all the international news praising this phoney liberalization and my country.
Why not simply decriminalize? It beats me, but some see the hand of a great new business in marihuana seeds and trade behind all these NGO, etc. pushing for marihuana regulations. For example, the campaign for “liberalization” in Uruguay was financed by Soros through the Open Society foundation. I am naturally disinclined to believe in conspiration theories, but it is hard to find other explanations, besides the natural tendency of this leftist government to expand state control and to hide pressing problems (as the terrible ratings Uruguay has received in the lastest PISA education survey).
Best, Ins
Efforts in New York are being pushed because state politicians realized it was a way to raise taxes. Nothing upsets politicians more than realizing they are cut out of the action. They are greedy and want tax money and campaign cash. This will create a new class of special interests among pot growers who will now lobby Albany. the pot growers will have to probably create The 420 PAC or POTPAC to maintain their influence. Thats a win win for dirty politicians.
I think libertarians could actually get somewhere with pot legalization if they also found solutions to restrict its access to drugs among welfare recipients.