Demand curves for drugs aren't super elastic. People who want drugs will get drugs and pay premium prices for them if they have to and will pay bargain prices if they can. I know that the external costs of smoking have been researched and litigated ad nauseum and those costs are quite high. Likewise, alcohol is either the cause of or a contributor to thousands of deaths and injuries each year, to say nothing of alcohol-related injuries.
Of all consumer drugs, pot probably has the lowest amount of negative externalities, but prices have been artificially high for about a hundred years. Only WA's fucking stupid implementation of legalization could have fucked that up, and apparently has.
As an outsider looking in, I think it is hilarious that WA looked at its liquor-control scheme and thought that it works great and should be replicated for pot.
The government had no fucking clue how to handle alcohol coming out of prohibition until the booze companies became large enough to buy off everyone. Weed will do much the same. Politicians are hired goons and legal weed doesn't have enough scratch to get in the game yet.
I still can't figure out why anyone would but from a pot store. People who use it know where to get it and at a price they want to pay. Leave it to the state to fuck this thing up.
I remember talking to a friend who said it should be legalized and have the shit taxed out of it. I said I agreed it should be legal, but why tax the shit out of it? He said something about raising revenue for the state. So basically he didn't have a good answer, just repeating the party line without thinking it through.
Was it too difficult to just legalize it and put the normal (already too high) sales tax on it? FMFYFE.
The Laffer Curve is laffing right now.
When the issue to privatize alcohol was voted on, I voted no after I read the fine print. What a fucked up piece of shit law that is. I'll just continue to go to the liquor store and not pay the ridiculous new tax rate thank you... But somehow it was sold as "privatizing sales will make it cheaper"...yes, it would, if the government go there greedy mitts out of it.
The original referendum that was narrowly defeated the first go around was much better. Then they felt they had to water it down and sweeten for state union interests, thus the steamer we got. I'm convinced the original one would have passed on the second round without changes.
At least Costco is happy...you know, Costco the great noble corporate citizen... Fuck them..
Demand curves for drugs aren't super elastic. People who want drugs will get drugs and pay premium prices for them if they have to and will pay bargain prices if they can. I know that the external costs of smoking have been researched and litigated ad nauseum and those costs are quite high. Likewise, alcohol is either the cause of or a contributor to thousands of deaths and injuries each year, to say nothing of alcohol-related injuries.
Of all consumer drugs, pot probably has the lowest amount of negative externalities, but prices have been artificially high for about a hundred years. Only WA's fucking stupid implementation of legalization could have fucked that up, and apparently has.
As an outsider looking in, I think it is hilarious that WA looked at its liquor-control scheme and thought that it works great and should be replicated for pot.
Demand curves for drugs aren't super elastic. People who want drugs will get drugs and pay premium prices for them if they have to and will pay bargain prices if they can. I know that the external costs of smoking have been researched and litigated ad nauseum and those costs are quite high. Likewise, alcohol is either the cause of or a contributor to thousands of deaths and injuries each year, to say nothing of alcohol-related injuries.
Of all consumer drugs, pot probably has the lowest amount of negative externalities, but prices have been artificially high for about a hundred years. Only WA's fucking stupid implementation of legalization could have fucked that up, and apparently has.
As an outsider looking in, I think it is hilarious that WA looked at its liquor-control scheme and thought that it works great and should be replicated for pot.
Demand curves for drugs aren't super elastic. People who want drugs will get drugs and pay premium prices for them if they have to and will pay bargain prices if they can. I know that the external costs of smoking have been researched and litigated ad nauseum and those costs are quite high. Likewise, alcohol is either the cause of or a contributor to thousands of deaths and injuries each year, to say nothing of alcohol-related injuries.
Of all consumer drugs, pot probably has the lowest amount of negative externalities, but prices have been artificially high for about a hundred years. Only WA's fucking stupid implementation of legalization could have fucked that up, and apparently has.
As an outsider looking in, I think it is hilarious that WA looked at its liquor-control scheme and thought that it works great and should be replicated for pot.
You talked about external costs of drinking and smoking as justification for high taxes on these products. My research says the external costs are small and the taxes collected doesn't mitigate those that do exist... I was thinking maybe you had some data on which to base your statement, but I guess not.
More recent studies provide more precise estimates by taking into account that while smokers have more health related costs, they also die earlier, alleviating the costs of premiums as well as future health related expenses, not to mention savings provided by ending social security benefits earlier. When this is taken into account the actual cost are now estimated to be much lower than previously estimated.
The tobacco settlement was a strong arm tactic by the government to collect more revenue.
If you look at how the revenue from the settlement was used in the last 15 years , you will see it was about money and that the states really aren't interested in preventing smoking.
Comments
Patience.
Welcome to Costco; I love you.
it's good to hear you admit it.
Here's a piece of evidence indicating that the external costs of smoking are quite substantial:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement
The tobacco settlement was a strong arm tactic by the government to collect more revenue.
If you look at how the revenue from the settlement was used in the last 15 years , you will see it was about money and that the states really aren't interested in preventing smoking.
tobaccofreekids.org/what_we_do/state_local/tobacco_settlement/