Printable View
I understand what you are saying, I just can't bring myself to say that because one thing is heavily taxed, then something else should be, because I believe too strongly that neither should be heavily taxed. I think the Federal gas tax is closer to $1.00 a gallon isn't it? I can't argue right now that weed is any different than any other product that has a sin tax put on it.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/sta...ohol-tax-ratesQuote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Federal gas taxes are 18.4 cents per gallon, that's tax only not all the epa fees, tank fees, etc on top of that, which is a tax of course, but like Obama care and CO license plates we're supposed to believe that those aren't taxes. Not to mention the upstream taxes of petro products during the extraction, refining, and logistical processes (this is roughly the same on all products in that those taxes are ultimately paid by the consumer as they are passed down in the costs of production)
I agree in a perfect world none of these things should be taxed the way they are, but in the reality of the situation, if you're taking something that's currently prohibited, like MJ and previously Alcohol, to think it's not going to get the same scrutiny and thereby taxes, is just not realistic. Hell Gasoline and diesel are 100% necessary to the function of our economy and they aren't immune to it. Simply put its better to tax it and get something back into the .gov for it than it is to spend billions a year trying to prohibit it. Maybe (and I realize this is completely star eyed) it could provide an avenue to lighten up on some of the other taxes we all have to pay, a portion of which is dedicated to fighting the "war on drugs" aka bottomless hole of tax dollars wasted over stupidity.
All sin taxes should be done away with since they have been proven ineffective in curbing the consumption of the products they are taxing. The ATF should be abolished as tobacco & alcohol don't need federal oversight or regulation. These should be state regulated. And are they really using the taxes for the stated purpose? Isn't Colorado's tobacco tax used to fund child healthcare? The MJ tax is for schools. None of the taxes are being used to address the negative social aspects of the products.
We need to stop adding power and taxation ability to the federal government. If the feds would decriminalize MJ, the states would be free to do as their citizens see fit. But then why should a product that is legal in 1 state be illegal in others. I don't see how state gun laws pass this test. A piece of plastic in WY is legal, but not in CO.
In principal, I 100% agree, but the facts of the reality we deal with now are a whole other story. ie It'll never happen under current governmental and societal status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric P
Simply put the only way the majority of people in this country (and more so those in government) would go for it is under similar regulation as Alcohol and Tobacco, and with that similar regulation will come similar or more taxation.
Look at how long it took for it to be taxed in CO, on ballot initiative no less, imagine if it went federally, it wouldn't make it a day past legalization and the House would introduce an excise tax bill on it, if it wasn't already included in the decriminalization bill.
It's just the reality of the situation we live in, do I wish it were different, absolutely. I wish the EPA, BATFE, USDA, DEA, TSA, FEMA, most of the FBI and IRS (if not all), and most every other federal government agency were disbanded tomorrow, as honestly they don't have a charter in the constitution for their existence, but I guarantee that's not going to happen anytime soon, and if it ever does happen, it's not going to be a fun road to get there.
As to the part of your post that I put in bold, basically they pass the smell test because of the way the constitution was written and intended, it's a set of restrictions on the federal government, not the individual states, and unless it's specifically listed as a function of the federal government it's left to the states. So in the first half of that statement as regards to pot, you have it right in how it's supposed to be, however the gun issue has been tested in the SC many times and the SC seems to think that shall not be infringed doesn't necessarily apply to all forms of arms, and it's why we have to have organizations like the NRA and our fight never seems to end. By strict letter of the constitution, the GCA and NFA are simply unconstitutional (because they are federal), but somewhere along the line that's been lost.
I totally agree with your statement. The Supreme Court has consistently expanded Federal power through expansion os the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The big power grab was Wicard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
The current issue with State MJ laws was previously decided By the Supreme Court in 2005. The Court held:
"Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law. Pp. 6—31."
IF the Supreme Court actually issues a decision in this case upholding CO MJ laws they would need to overturn decades of decisions upholding (expanding) the Commerce Clause. If the Court decides against CO how do you force the Federal Government to enforce the Federal MJ laws?
In my opinion the best solution is for the new Congress to enact Federal legislation overturning the current Federal MJ Laws.
Mike