We’d Make How Much In Taxes If Pot Production Were Legal?

Published on November 14th, 2009

Posted by Uncle Dave in Politics, economy

Click pic to embiggen

43 users responded in " We’d Make How Much In Taxes If Pot Production Were Legal? "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 bobbo, words have meaning AND a context said, on November 14th, 2009 at 5:48 am

Yep, we’ll do the logical and right thing when we have no other options.

Speaking of which, there really should be an upfront recognition that a good % of that revenue should be targeted at drug rehab programs for those that decide to quit or never start==and not just MJ but all drugs/conditions of consequence.

I’ll probably never see a humane social safety net finally legislated for America. “We coulda been contenders!!!”

# 2 Dr Dodd said, on November 14th, 2009 at 6:25 am

Government/Politicians as pushers?

The snowball of decline is decidedly growing larger and picking up speed as it rolls down the hill.

The one thing that should be made clear from the start is WE will not make any money from legalizing Pot. Only pushers gain financially.

What a world.

# 3 ikapuza89 said, on November 14th, 2009 at 6:26 am

It’s alcohol prohibition all over again, only more idiotic.

# 4 gmknobl said, on November 14th, 2009 at 6:45 am

If legalized, we’d make money, reduce crime, save money (by lower spending on law enforcement), prison over-crowding would stop, and we’d be able to slow down the use of stronger and stronger strains of it since it would be much more controllable as a substance, and lastly strangle the Mexican drug cartels’ money supply and help Mexico with their nasty problem.

There simply is nothing bad about legalizing and taxing it. Heck, even the cost of weed would drop. Since the current effect of the drug is like a very strong drink but without as much long term cancer risk I think there’s not even an argument that it’s leading people into bad moral situations. Besides, prohibition proved what a terrible joke the current policy is. Anything that Nixon started should be punted out the window anyway by default.

# 5 bobbo, mental health often is a conscious choice said, on November 14th, 2009 at 6:45 am

#2–Dr Dodd==Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics===leave people alone and have a rational tax policy. There is no morality issue requiring legal nexus regarding free human choices that don’t interfere (legally) with other free human choices.

I don’t care if its in the bibble, or arguably in the bibble, or made up from some other source.

Lets be rational, pragmatic, and libertarian for a change?

# 6 amodedoma said, on November 14th, 2009 at 7:07 am

#1 Bobbo,

MJ doesn’t require drug rehab, no need to ween off slowly or offer drug substitutes, just enough counseling to change habits. Tobacco in fact is more addictive.

It could be argued that all vices are ‘bad’ and therefore should be prohibited, but it’s obvious that a great number of us are gonna go ahead and enjoy them anyways. It’s like when I have the ‘drugs are bad chat’ with my kids, I know that once they’re out that door and down the street there’s nothing I can do. Prohibiting an adolescent from doing something is exactly the same as encouraging him to do it.

Also a society with a 3rd of it’s population stoned, would probably be much more peaceful, relaxed, and laid-back. I’d say there’d be a reduction in violence and crime in general. It would be great to spend less on cops and prisons and still have a safer more pleasant society.

# 7 NAcrackpot-PRTLNDME said, on November 14th, 2009 at 7:13 am

Yeah good luck getting money out of us weed smokers. Well grow our own. Taxes are for pussies.

Oh and this map is so inaccurate.

Maine is the big smoker state. so is Vermont.

Our states are the major routes for the canadian supply. We love it.

Maine we are allowed 2.5oz and its less of a punishment than a parking ticket. 3 parking tickets you get a boot. 3 weed tickets well you just get a forth etc.

# 8 bobbo, mental health often is a conscious choice said, on November 14th, 2009 at 7:14 am

Main Entry: vice
Pronunciation: \ˈvīs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin vitium fault, vice
Date: 14th century

1 a : moral depravity or corruption : wickedness b : a moral fault or failing c : a habitual and usually trivial defect or shortcoming : foible
2 : blemish, defect
3 : a physical imperfection, deformity, or taint
4 a often capitalized : a character representing one of the vices in an English morality play b : buffoon, jester
5 : an abnormal behavior pattern in a domestic animal detrimental to its health or usefulness
6 : sexual immorality; especially : prostitution

I would not include drug use as a vice, you would. You would not include religion as a vice, I would.

We would both agree “excessive” use of either is a vice? AND we arrive right back at having to define what we mean, “vice” as circular as it is adds NOTHING to the conversation.

Again==COYOTE. Don’t you read these posts before responding????

# 9 Grandpa said, on November 14th, 2009 at 7:23 am

I think every idiot should be allowed to kill themselves. As long as it’s done in private.

# 10 Postman said, on November 14th, 2009 at 7:51 am

I think Obama should nationalize big pharmacy, and buy all the precursor chemicals for painkillers from Afghanistan, and kill two birds with one stone.

# 11 Dr Dodd said, on November 14th, 2009 at 8:08 am

#5-bobbo-Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics

Yeah, you’re right bobbo. No since having old tired ethics when it’s much easier to live like animals.

With the employment rate increasing I can see the advantage of government using Pot to help keep the sheeple docile.

After all, a sedated populous is a happy populous, right?

# 12 bobbo, mental health often is a conscious choice said, on November 14th, 2009 at 8:16 am

#11–Dr Dodd==hah, hah. Thats right:

1. “Its a Vice!”
2. “Its being an Animal.”

Got any more totally vacuous dogma to spew?

Now, I agree YOU might behave like an animal commiting all kinds of heinous vices if you slip the bonds of your imagined limitations, but others would not.

Why should those who can be limited by those who can’t?

# 13 Improbus said, on November 14th, 2009 at 8:21 am

Wake me up when I can go get some pot seedlings at my local garden supply center.

Yeah, I will take half a dozen BC bud seedlings and some fertilizer. Thanks.

# 14 chuck said, on November 14th, 2009 at 8:30 am

#11 – I believe the word that you seem to consistently misspell is “sense”, not “since”.

#7 – collecting the tax is the real trick. OTOH by not having to spend $billions on DEA and prisons to enforce marijuana drug laws, I think there’s be significant $savings.

There are also 1000s of “drug-paraphernalia” businesses that are quite happy to pay taxes.

# 15 SparkyOne said, on November 14th, 2009 at 8:46 am

California is is ready!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And a tax for returning all of that carbon to the atmosphere, I am sure.

And a pot use tax
And a pot growth tax
And a green pot tax
And a water 4 pot tax
And an oxygen 4 pot tax
And a pot distribution tax
And a pot sales tax
And a pot waste disposal tax

# 16 Angel H. Wong said, on November 14th, 2009 at 8:54 am

Psst, if you promise the Evangelical church 10% of the pot taxes then the Republican party will support legalizing marijuana.

# 17 ECA said, on November 14th, 2009 at 9:03 am

AND.
The law is against HEMP. not JUST MJ.
Which can be used to create…
Paper products
Cloths
Wood type products.
OILS
FUEL
ALCOHOL
Medicines

# 18 Dennis said, on November 14th, 2009 at 9:50 am

You Asked: ” We’d Make How Much In Taxes If Pot Production Were Legal? ”

More than we make now. And it would be going into the pockets of AMERICAN entrepreneurs, rather than any other nationality.

So, thats why its bad.

# 19 RTaylor said, on November 14th, 2009 at 9:53 am

You have to remember employers could still screen for cannabis use, if the employee signs a contract. You would see a spike in use at first for the novelty, but usage would probably level off near current levels. The delivery method by smoking still puts a lot of crap in your lungs. There is a large mass called middle America that takes a lot of inertia to move. If I remember at the end of prohibition over 90% of Americans was against it. You would get no were near that with decriminalizing cannabis with current polling.

# 20 Box said, on November 14th, 2009 at 9:56 am

That doesn’t include the increased healthcare costs.

# 21 soundwash said, on November 14th, 2009 at 10:06 am

Oh now that is THE perfect graphic!

Hey people, what ya think..

I control this domain:

http://legalizeandtaxit.com/

last year a friend and I thought about the whole taxation thing and figured lets reg the domain for now, and will come up with a theme later.

He’s was working on a t-shirt selling idea for the interim, however recent family events have consumed all his time.

-and i’m kinda lost studying pre-history and re-educating myself in learning the “real” science of everything. (universe, etc)

-should ask for permission to use that graphic? it’s almost perfect in relation to the domain.

or just upload this pic of an errant seed that sprouted, -sitting out front by the car??

http://soundwash.net/urban/pics/the_lonely_plant.jpg

-s

If anyone has any better (real) suggestions for the domain, i’m all ears..and no i wont sell it.

contact: my email is in the whois info of the domain.

# 22 Thomas said, on November 14th, 2009 at 10:17 am

IMO, the primary reason pot is not legal is that there is no field sobriety test that can be done to establish whether someone was under the influence of weed *at the time they were driving*. Further, what do you do about underage smokers? The day they devise a field sobriety test for weed that will hold up in court is the day it becomes legal.

# 23 Postman said, on November 14th, 2009 at 10:40 am

#22

that is incorrect. They measure a rratio between thc and the canabonoids and can determine if you were high at time of testing.

# 24 soundwash said, on November 14th, 2009 at 11:26 am

#20:

That doesn’t include the increased healthcare costs.

Actually, MJ has some serious health benefits..that i imagine are a major reasons why Pharma will squash it every chance they get..

(never mind being allowed to grow hemp would cheaply solve a HUGE multitude of finished goods problems and make this country hugely independent and prosperous again)

In the 60-70’s many studies were done with MJ in Argentina and one the most prominent one i remember was that it not only was found to inhibit brain tumors, but it shrank and eventually eliminated pre-existing ones outright.

They found it was the THC (the chemical that produces the “high”) that was responsible.

They tried for years from what i recall to synthesize THC with the “high” removed, but it failed.

Only THC with it’s euphoric effects intact nullified the brain tumours.

Also, if you rummage through declassified MKULTRA files, you constantly find studies that showed people who smoked MJ were highly resistant to, if not impossible,
to “brainwash”

-or use any other type of “behaviour modification therapy” of the times successfully.

There were many other “protections” MJ gave the body, [health wise] as well. I’ll scrounge through my old hard drives and see if i can find the all the data or at least BM’ks

I have been translating foreign language studies and websites for a long time.

It is only then will you come to realize the *complete* load of revised crap we have been taught in just about every subject here in the U.S.

My god, have you ever quizzed teenagers about what/how they are being taught today in school?

Mindless revised drivel-to be kind.

Call it a conspiracy if you wish, but unless you take the time, and i mean a lot of time (remember, i do not watch TV per se) you will find boat loads of “real” science and medical studies that have almost zero (relative to U.S) corporate, political and religious manipulation.

-of which many result in the exact opposite findings of our “prized peer review system”

All of which of course, is grossly suppressed here in the states.

I have been doing / observing this online since about 1983.

This country (and practically all the rest at some point) was set on course of absolute failure-which is now at fruition, by design, -a very long time ago.

what’s the phrase? –”Divide and Conquer”

It is pure fact.

-s

-Who knows, maybe after “the great purge of 2011-12″ we can start fresh as a species again..maybe.

Hopefully, those egomaniacle fanatics up in the Svalbard islands is it? -you know, the ones building the Uber Seed Vault…have stored many varieties of Hemp and MJ in the vault as well.

These two plant will go a long way in making life livable [and healthier] once the control freaks and NWO maniacs are “flushed from the planet”

-but i digress.

(crap, the coffee burned..*sigh*)

# 25 ECA said, on November 14th, 2009 at 11:57 am

The problem with Legality, will be that the price will drop.
WHICH will make ILLEGAL pot harder to sell, unless they DO something to make it WORTH buying.

the growing of MJ, has its pitfalls as well.
As MJ isnt a dominant plant in the hemp family. And cross pollination with OTHER Hemp turns it Inert.
It is called WEED, for a reason, and what would stop ANYONE from growing their own?

I find it interesting that the USA wont listen to ANY, information gathered by other nations and studies on the USA of MJ. They do NEW studies every 20-30 years, and STILL debate over it.

99.999% of the problem with MJ comes with CONTROL over the product. ITS NOT easy to control WHERE it grows, HOW its grown or anything else about MJ.
With HEMP we know what could be done with it, and HOW it would affect the market, in MANY ways. And also it would KILL a couple corps.
IF MJ is allowed in the USA, HEMP will also be allowed. THAT wont happen.
There are only a FEW real markets in the USA.
Wood/paper
SOAP
chemicals/drugs

HEMP, and products from HEMP would make MAJOR changes in all 3 of these markets, and a few others OUTSIDE the USA.
I would also say that it would impact farming VERY MUCH. A crop of hemp can be raised every 3 months and 3-4 crops per year, and ALL of it having a USE and being sold.
Wall board products
Clothing
Drugs
Plastics
Oils-Food soluble soaps replacements for SOY/canola/peanut.
Fuels
Alcohols
it will NOT be allowed. its a total SHIFT of who gets the money.

# 26 Micromike said, on November 14th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

This is a big issue in Mendocino County, California, where I live, and as these comments show, there is no consistent and factual information or opinion about marijuana in the US. All our Agricultural Commissioners have been forbidden to include marijuana in the annual Ag Reports so nobody has any idea how big the pot crop really is. ALL numbers being bandied about in current discussions are total fabrications in support of their author’s arguments and have no basis in fact. The truth is simply not known by anybody.

We do know all governments are desperate for money and don’t want the public to know how close to total collapse our whole society is. There is no doubt marijuana is a Large New Source of income and our greedy pig legislators want to get their hands on it.

Real numbers have never mattered in American politics before, why should that be different now.

# 27 brian t said, on November 14th, 2009 at 12:17 pm

I can see how some people would over-use and suffer social and medical problems as a result. But would that be so different tom or worse than what happens today with alcohol? You can over-dose on the Internet, or doughnuts, or exercise, yet when it comes to marijuana, you only hear about the extreme cases.

(This from someone who doesn’t smoke anything, and doesn’t intend to, but who doesn’t care what people do as long as they don’t get any of it on him.)

# 28 01001010 01101001 01101101 01010010 said, on November 14th, 2009 at 1:00 pm

Once again, a disingenuous use of statistics to bolster ones objective.

How much of that $14 trillion is attributed to marijuana?

Where’s that BS meter when you need it….

# 29 ECA said, on November 14th, 2009 at 2:06 pm

I doubt it will be 14 billion..
Maybe 1/4 of that value.
3.5 billion.

But think of WHAT it will take away.
For those that use Substitutes like alcohol and Tobacco..MJ is not as harsh.
And IF the Gov. places it under its SOLE control, insted of as Tobacco and alcohol are sold. the money goes STRAIGHT to the gov.

# 30 Special Ed said, on November 14th, 2009 at 3:40 pm

Marijuana only leads to Fritos and Oreos.

# 31 Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection said, on November 14th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

The biggest threat from legalization of marijuana would be to kill the baggie industry.

# 32 RBG said, on November 14th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

Love the money thing. How much $$ to be made if we legalize other stuff too, like prostitution, beastiality, extortion… It’s like the Catholic indulgences. Pays your money & wipe out the sin. But that’s ok as long as the money goes to support good causes. And how much does it cost our system anyway to keep extortion at bay?

RBG

# 33 tcc3 said, on November 14th, 2009 at 4:08 pm

RBG – only two of those three things you mentioned are actually wrong. The third is actually more harmful to women when its illegal, and workers dont have any rights and are at the mercy of unscrupulous pimps. Good reductio ad absurdum by the way.

This is not about legalizing terrible things for money. This is about asking why something that does little harm is illegal in the first place. If it shouldn’t be illegal, and we can take a valueless expenditure (MJ drug enforcement and incarceration) and turn it into a source of revenue, then thats win win in my book.

# 34 Thomas said, on November 14th, 2009 at 9:00 pm

#23
From what I understand, that test would not hold up in court because you can have a high level of cannabinoid for many hours after you have smoked pot and after you have come down from your high which would negate the ability to determine if you were high at the time you were driving.

# 35 Cursor_ said, on November 15th, 2009 at 2:32 am

Oh yes of course let it be legal and taxed.

Where do we get the money to pay for the dead and injured when a larger percentage of these morons hit the streets, planes and trains of the nation?

Isn’t enough we have so much death from alcohol that we have to add yet another legal depressant to kill motor skills and risk other peoples’ lives?

All drug addicts are the same. They cannot conceive that their addiction can influence anyone other than themselves. All of them are either liars or deluded.

Recreational use of dugs kills and injures people.

Cursor_

# 36 fred said, on November 15th, 2009 at 2:55 am

In the light of the present discussion, it is interesting to note what happened recently in the UK.

Professor David Nutt was forced to resign from his role as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Research by Nutt and his colleagues, published in the medical journal the Lancet in 2007, rates drugs in order of their relative harm, where #1 is most harmful. Results included the following:
#5 alcohol
#9 tobacco
#11Cannabis

Was he fired because his facts were wrong? Oh no – he was fired because his remarks were contrary to declared government policy.

Credentials:
Professor David J Nutt MRCP MRCPsych FRCPsych FMedSci is professor of Neuropsychopharmacology.

The politician who fired him left school at 15 and was once a postman.

Go figure.

# 37 Dallas said, on November 15th, 2009 at 5:04 am

Great idea.

#32 you must be republican. You just can’t seem to separate the practical from the ridiculous.

The “if x happens the slippery slope” theory. The “if y happens the domino theory”. The is z marries the “people will marry horses” theory. The “socialist agenda” theory.

Why do you people live in a perpetual state of fear?

# 38 Mr Anderson said, on November 15th, 2009 at 6:36 am

They wont legalize it because organized crime wouldn’t like that.

# 39 soundwash said, on November 15th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

#35 Cursor_ said:

All drug addicts are the same. They cannot conceive that their addiction can influence anyone other than themselves. All of them are either liars or deluded.

-actually, they aren’t

While this could be misconstrued as proof..

During the 80’s when i was playing with Triple T Muni’s, i had discovered
an interesting fact:

In the Bear&Stearns building here in nyc (55 water street, iirc)

There were several people dressed to the nine’s in three piece suits
that went around to all the offices
(ie their customers)with an attache case full of all the favorite illegals
of the time, coke, smoke, heroin, freebase, ludes, Penwalt/bi-amphetamine (black beauties) and few other popular pharmaceuticals for sale
to those in desire..

The “display case” was beautifully organized and very professional.

This type of service existed in many
of the big name wall street buildings downtown.

what i am getting at is your “picture
perfect” drug addict that has been painted for you by big brother and it’s propaganda arm, far far removed from the true reality.

While drugs are “out of fashion” in the mainstream view these days, this practice still exists.

There are infinitely more “functional drug addicts” in the U.S. wearing business suits than there are of the typical “non-functional” drug addicts depicted on TV.

I know this as fact just by my observation over the past 25 years
as i have both, as many friends and clients in the “street” as i do in the office.

doing house/office call PC repairs gives one unique access and insight to the personal lives of both.

My bond broker was one of the
office class “addicts”. -while i knew this from the start, i did not know how fast and severe he “escalated” until after i had exited the bond market.

Yes, he eventually lost everything, however during the 7 years he was a “functional addict” he was extremely good at his job.

Your comment is valid to a degree, however, the amount of addicts in medium-high-level business matches or
exceeds your “classic addict” view.

If **all** the so called “addicts” were suddenly thrown in jail, this country would easily lose 40%-50% of
its workforce in a day.

People are positioned in the test lab
chain to assure this trend is never interrupted.

Only one thing is 100% for sure:

We are ALL deluded

Keep that in mind in the future..

-s

# 40 KneeJerk Optimist said, on November 15th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

He who binds himself to a joy
Does the winged life destroy
But he who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in eternity’s sunrise

- William Blake

# 41 Cayenne said, on November 16th, 2009 at 6:18 am

I like and want it legalized.

The argument is a complete fallacy.

Big Gov’t will out-spend any taxes that can potentially can be collected.
Leading to new streams of revenue – cocaine? prostution? Not that I’m against them but the argument that this will fix deficits is a crock.

# 42 jbellies said, on November 16th, 2009 at 12:20 pm

Won’t go anywhere until the zealots at the top the DEA are replaced by reasonable people. There’s no convincing a person who does not value reason.

# 43 natefrog said, on November 16th, 2009 at 1:53 pm

#35, Cursor_;

Recreational use of motor vehicles kills and injures people.

You’re an idiot.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Get 10% off rental cars!
Get 10% off Dollar rentals!
Discounts on domain names!