I’ve formed a new North Carolina nonprofit, the Center for Sensible Revenue. Some allies like the name better than Center for New Revenue. Heck, I started out with the label New Taxes, so I’m moving toward the mainstream. Still keeping http://www.newrevenue.org.
Representative Diane Russell’s marijuana legalization bill in Maine would impose a $50 per ounce tax — and unlike so many others, includes indexing for inflation. Continue reading “Maine bill gets indexing right”
Wherever marijuana is legal, it will be taxed. Federal Code section 280E is broad, but it has the salutary effect of denying tax deductions for advertising. (Whatever your view of legalization, public policy ought to discourage advertising for marijuana as it does for lotteries, alcohol, and tobacco.) Colorado income tax law tracks federal law, so Colorado ganjapreneurs can’t deduct advertising expenses on their state returns, either. So far. A bill in the Colorado House would change that. Continue reading “Encouraging marijuana advertising: Colorado House Bill 13-1042”
There are two kinds of commercial marijuana: raw, and processed. Processed is more powerful. We can tax the raw stuff like beer, and the processed stuff like liquor.
That is, the base of a marijuana tax would be weight for raw — smokable product; and potency for brownies, tinctures, and everything else – potency by THC content, maybe with a CBD factor – and maybe further refinements as we learn more.
A pure percentage tax like ALL MARIJUANA TAXES SO FAR makes me nervous. The reason is that NO OTHER “SIN” TAX works off pure percentage of price so far as I know. Continue reading “Tax marijuana: raw by weight, processed by potency?”
Executive Summary: We override treaties all the time.
Some folks point to old U.S. commitments to ban marijuana in a series of multilateral treaties as a show-stopper for marijuana legalization. In 1961, the United States agreed to ban it in the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, https://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1961_en.pdf, so those folks say we shouldn’t change our rules. They list, as an option, this: “If UN antidrug treaties are construed as prohibiting federal legalization, they should be amended to eliminate provisions that produce such a reading.” That’s from Steven B. Duke, “The Future of Marijuana in the United States,” http://law.uoregon.edu/org/olr/volumes/91/2/documents/Duke.pdf.
Amending a treaty with scores of signatories is impractical to the point of impossibility. Are we stuck?
No. We can, we repeatedly and deliberately do, and we should change our internal laws in the face of conflicting treaty obligations that have become or have been proven nonsensical. (We override the treaty by statute; some prefer the terms “breach” or “violate,” but “override” is the tax term.) Continue reading “Treaties, Tax, and Marijuana”
This just came out: http://law.uoregon.edu/org/olr/volumes/91/2/documents/Caulkins.pdf. It looks thoughtful and thorough. UPDATE: Better link: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/13603/Caulkins.pdf;sequence=1
The most fertile ground for sensible legalization is in the handful of states that don’t have medical marijuana, voter initiative, or private liquor stores.
1. No legal medical marijuana. Ongoing, permanent special rules for medical use make no sense under full legalization. But medical use is a box canyon, as they say out West – you can get in, but you can’t get out. Even now, Continue reading “Eight States, three criteria: The best chance to control marijuana”