My view on the Drug War is somewhat schizophrenic. In my personal life, I’m basically a social conservative. I don’t like drugs, I’ve never tried drugs, and I urge others to behave the same way.
But I know that prohibition is a costly failure that leads to abusive government (such as intrusive money-laundering laws and Orwellian asset-forfeiture laws).
And even if one doesn’t care about individual rights, the Drug War is an irrational misallocation of law enforcement resources.
So does this make a libertarian on the issue? The answer is yes, of course, but I confess that legalization has a downside. And I’m not talking about more people wrecking their lives with drug abuse (indeed, evidence from Portugal suggests drug use may go down).
Instead, I don’t like the fact that politicians see legalization mostly as an opportunity to generate additional tax revenue.
My fears have materialized. sort of.
According to a CNN report, politicians in California want to be the biggest profiteers from legal pot.
Between customers, retailers and growers, taxes on cannabis may reach as high as 45% in parts of the state, according to a Fitch Ratings report. …Consumers will pay a sales tax ranging from 22.25% to 24.25%,
which includes the state excise tax of 15%, and additional state and local sales taxes ranging from 7.25% to 9.25%. Local businesses will have to pay a tax ranging from 1% to 20% of gross receipts, or $1 to $50 per square foot of marijuana plants, according to the Fitch report. In addition, farmers will be taxed $9.25 per ounce for flower, and $2.75 per ounce for leaves. …Van Bustic, a specialist in the environmental impact of cannabis cultivation for Berkeley’s College of Natural Resources, said that registering with the state and becoming compliant will cost about $100,000.
Geesh, greedy governments can take the fun out of anything!
But not so fast. It seems that politicians are being so greedy that the geese with the golden eggs (or, in this case, drug-addled geese with golden buds) will stay in the shadow economy.
Not that we should be surprised. There is a wealth of evidence showing that high tax burdens lead to evasion and avoidance.
The Wall Street Journal looks at this issue and hits the nail on the head, editorializing that high tax rates on pot are a recipe for non-compliance.
…in California, where recreational pot was legalized last year, citizens now have a much clearer view of the unintended consequences that come from high tax rates. A new report from the global credit-rating firm Fitch Ratings
highlights the effect of California’s high taxes on the marijuana market. The combined local and state rate on non-medical cannabis may be as high as 45% in some places, and Fitch says this acts as an incentive for Californians to shun legal pot dealers who pay the tax in favor of black-market sellers who don’t and can charge lower prices. …The irony is that one argument for legalizing pot has been to reduce illegal trafficking. But by imposing taxes that are too high on legal weed, politicians give pot heads an incentive to go back on the illegal market. This will come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the boon to illegal smokes from high cigarette taxes in places like New York City.
The CNN story cited above also addressed this issue.
Among the eight states where recreational marijuana is legal, only Washington has a higher tax rate at about 50%. Colorado and Nevada both follow with rates of 36%. Oregon has a tax rate of 20% and Alaska has a rate of up to 20%. …If taxes increase the price of cannabis beyond a certain point, the legal market becomes less competitive than the illicit market and then consumers become less likely to make the transition from the illicit market to the legal market,” said John Kagia, analyst for New Frontier Data, which tracks the cannabis industry. The Fitch report says this dynamic has already prompted Colorado, Washington and Oregon to lower their “initially uncompetitive” tax rates.
Indeed. I wrote about Colorado’s experience with pot taxation back in 2015.
A story in the Washington Post confirms that the buzzed version of supply-side economics is alive and well.
High taxes on legal marijuana in California could have the potential to turn many consumers away from the state’s cannabis shops and toward the black market, according to a report
from Fitch Ratings. …“The existing black market for cannabis may prove a formidable competitor to legal markets if new taxes lead to higher prices than available from illicit sources,” the report says. …These high tax rates have the potential to drive customers toward the black market. …Colorado, Oregon and Washington all reduced tax rates after the commencement of legalization to shift customers back toward the legal market.
That last sentence warms my heart. Isn’t it nice when politicians are forced to lower tax burdens even when they don’t want to?
P.S. Government is a buzz-kill in other ways. Deregulation helped unleash the craft beer industry, but also created a new source of tax revenue.
P.P.S. Since I’m a fiscal wonk, legalizing drugs has never been high (no pun intended) on my list of priorities. But when U.N. bureaucrats try to tell American states that they’re not allowed to end prohibition, I’m almost tempted to become a user.
[…] more people to get hooked on drugs, but we also need to pay attention to the politicians who are so addicted to tax revenue that they are enabling black markets to […]
[…] those states won’t then make the mistake of over-taxing prostitution. Based on how they have overtaxed pot, I’m not overly […]
[…] stated, excessive taxation means illegal sellers will stay in business because their prices will be much lower than their legal (but highly taxed) […]
[…] they see it as a way of having a new product to tax (and they’re botching that). And, as illustrated by today’s story, they see it as a way […]
[…] legalize prostitution because they wanted more revenue. But instead of legalizing and taxing (like they do – often to excess – with marijuana), what if they followed the lottery approach and we […]
[…] by contrast, are interested in legalization because they see dollar signs. They want to tax marijuana consumption to they can have more money to spend (I half-joked that […]
[…] that want a more detailed and serious look at the economics of taxation and drug prohibition, this column from last November is a good place to […]
[…] those that want a more detailed and serious look at the economics of taxation and drug prohibition, this column from last November is a good place to […]
If you legalized, taxed and regulated the sale and use of drugs, drug use may go down. On the flip side, it could also go up. Ultimately, the war on drugs is a war on personal freedom.
[…] Drugs, Prohibition, and Taxation […]
California is presently spending around 9 billion pr. year caring for undocumented aliens and their kids… as a sanctuary state… CA can expect millions more of the world’s poor migrating to the “golden state”… it will be fun watching CA turn into Venezuela… i’ll bet cartel pot will be cheaper than moonbeam pot… what’ll you bet?
I doubt that a 45% tax would drive a majority of marijuana activity underground. It does not seem to have happened with alcohol or cigarettes. High income people in California are already subject to a higher than 50% effective combined tax rate and while there’s some evasion and avoidance most economic activity remains above ground. By comparison, the marijuana implicit tax rate/premium in prohibition environments is over 1000%. It is the premium someone had to pay to put his/her freedom on the line and engage in a marijuana transaction.
What the tax may do though is drive a lot more home growing. I’m not an expert but I imagine that growing a plant is easier than making your own beer. Of course the commercial product may end up being much better quality?
Finally, the tax is starting at 45%. If it follows the typical tax trajectory, it is bound to increase sooner rather than later.
What seems to be more distorting is the $100,000 startup tax/fees/environmental impact penalties which will keep a lot of small growers underground. Especially as legalization drops prices and making $100,000 on a small operation will not be an easy task. So much for the hippie dream of making a few extra legal bucks by turning the old VW van into a greenhouse.
If I said how I really feel about the UN, I’d be banned.
Let’s just say UN stands for Useless Nitwits.
.
As to the “drug war”, it should be common knowledge that the FDA is a wholly owned subsidiary of big pharma. (and big agra)
Printing headline style type on top of the text makes it nearly impossible to read.
R Hencke
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:49 AM, International Liberty wrote:
> Dan Mitchell posted: “My view on the Drug War is somewhat schizophrenic. > In my personal life, I’m basically a social conservative. I don’t like > drugs, I’ve never tried drugs, and I urge others to behave the same way. > But I know that prohibition is a costly failure that lead” >
[…] via Drugs, Prohibition, and Taxation | International Liberty […]
I have said here before that Peter Hitchens has it right when he has been saying for years that there is no war against drugs. Most jurisdictions have not prosecuted possession of illegal drugs for many years (Japan is a rare exception). Most people do not want a criminal record. They would avoid use of drugs rather than risk a record for having drugs on their person for their own use. It is necessary to target the users. Do not respond with what about Prohibition. Prohibition was nothing of the sort. It did not prohibit the drinking of alcohol. Libertarians who support complete decriminalization of illegal drugs are demonstrating their amorality. Peter Hitchens is not unknown in the USA, so responding that one has never heard of him is no excuse.
Actually, it is worse. Government is the facilitator of the illegal drug and addiction industry. By raising the costs, and reducing the access, to drugs (all drugs), the government has established the economic incentives to go illegal. The entire marijuana, opium, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, tobacco, and even sugar, are playthings of government intervention in search for revenues to largely support a government and industries colluding to subsidize/protect profits,while producing revenues to expand, and control, monopoly public services, i.e., the Deep State. There are exceptions, historically, e.g., the taxation of alcohol to pay off, and support the federal government’s military, and international debt that financed the war of independence,… and adminstrative overhead. The latter opened Pandora’s Box, and became the tail that now wags the dog, i.e., the essential security and defense of the nation).
Wow! Having written this, I feel like the child that blurted out that, “The king has no clothes on!”
Back in 2013 I wrote very brief piece about this. Some might enjoy my sarcastic take on it.
http://whatwethinkandwhy.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-cheech-and-chong-solution-to-war-on.html