Posted by alice wilcox, a resident of Livermore, on Jun 24, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Lately there have been so many people caught selling pot, that it seems it would be wise just to legalize & tax heavily like cigarettes. Those that are going to do it, do it anyway, put restraints from smoking while driving, or near public places, or schools,, get the taxes from all this growing. I can see all kinds of revenue from legalization. TAX heavily by the weight when bought. Have growers pay a licencing fee. Treat it like alcohol with all the laws connected, like alcohol. Use the extra money in areas where we are short, like schools, law inforcement, etc. It will create jobs that pay taxes, The price will drop dramatically to buyers, allowing buyers to purchase other things with their money, helping with the activity of our commerce. (the trickle down theory)
Anyway, those are the thoughts of this 65 year old retired woman. (and no,,,, I do not smoke pot)
Posted by x, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 9:02 am
Stacey, I would be interested in hearing your argument on the pitfalls of taxing legal drugs. I take about 7 pills a day, their legal, I pay tax on them, I have a glass a wine at dinner and I pay tax on it. They sky hasn't fallen, but maybe I'm not looking up at the same place you are.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 4:08 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
First, a clarification. I wrote "high taxes on currently legal drugs". A common term for these is "sin" taxes. There are no "sin" taxes on legal drugs like prescriptions or vitamins or other supplements. So I wasn't referring to tax in general, but a specific kind of tax that drives prices high. This large price difference usually is an incentive that drives criminal activity.
There is a "sin" tax on wine though and I think if you do the research you'll be surprised to find all the funny business, so to speak, that goes on with in the distribution and marketing of wine.
Posted by Stacey, a resident of the Amberwood/Wood Meadows neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 4:12 pm Stacey is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
If you bought a case of wine from Costco and pay the tax on it (the revenue of which goes to the State), would you be angry if your tax money instead went into the pockets of someone who gamed the distribution channel and circumvented paying the tax to California?
Posted by x, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jun 25, 2009 at 4:30 pm
You mean like the school administrators are doing with the "good will" money of its citizens? My daughter told me I was a bad person for taking prescriptions because the pharmaceutical were bad people. Is this what you mean by "sin"? Don't get me wrong, I'm merely trying to grasp your distinction between being a bad citizen and a good citizen. I feel I am a good citizen, but if I read you right, I'm promoting sin. I hope not, although my daughter thinks so. I am a good person. I pay taxes. I take legal drugs to stay alive. Other people abuse their fiduciary responsbility, but I don't. I'm having trouble grasping your concept of sin. Sin seems slightly outdated, and that's coming from an old person. Please help me understand your point of view. I do not believe in crime.
Posted by Me, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Jul 1, 2009 at 10:30 am
Examples of people circumventing taxes, does not mean we should eliminate them.
There are extreme social cost with black market distribution. The biggest are probably: Exposure to criminal elements by average citizens resulting in criminal influence, and making a commonly used substance a gateway drug through exposure to a common distribution network with manufactured substances (such as methanphetamine).
If you were trying to say that we need to keep sin taxes low enough that the black market does remain economical, then I agree.