Here’s a new edition of my “you be the judge” series.
These are posts designed to explore some of the more challenging aspects of a pro-libertarian philosophy.
But the latter issue is the source of today’s quandary. Should marijuana be legal if it means more tax revenue that will be used by the political elite to expand the burden of government spending?
Here are the details from the Denver CBS station.
A draft bill floating around the Capitol late this week suggests that a new ballot question on pot taxes should repeal recreational pot in the state constitution if voters don’t approve 15 percent excise taxes on retail pot and a new 15 percent marijuana sales tax. Those would be in addition to regular state and local sales taxes. …Marijuana activists immediately blasted the proposal as a backhanded effort to repeal the pot vote, in which 55 percent of Coloradans chose to flout federal drug law and declare pot legal in small amounts for adults over 21.
If my math is correct, the politicians want a 30 percent special tax on marijuana, which is on top of the regular taxes that would be imposed.
That would be fine with me – if the proposal specified that the additional tax revenue was offset by a tax cut of equal size.
But as I explained in my “starve-the-beast” post, higher taxes usually finance bigger government.
Indeed, some politicians openly admit that they want the new revenue to expand the budget.
Open Letter to Obama and Congress From Internet Giants Calls For Reining In Government Surveillance | Nick Sorrentino
(An important interview) Saving the Net from the surveillance state (And Crony Media): Glenn Greenwald speaks up (Q&A) | Nick Sorrentino