Some people are never happy.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm an Oregonian, so...

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There are two things we will never, ever do here: pump our own gas, and institute sales taxes.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

They are clearly not necessities, but that isn't what I was saying: I was saying that it is not clear where to draw the line on luxury items.

This is a good point.

Example:  SUVs.  For most people, these are luxuries.  Some people, though, have a legitimate use for a gas-guzzling behemoth.  How do you decide if the person needs the vehicle, or just has penis size issues?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

They are clearly not necessities, but that isn't what I was saying: I was saying that it is not clear where to draw the line on luxury items.

This is a good point.

Example:  SUVs.  For most people, these are luxuries.  Some people, though, have a legitimate use for a gas-guzzling behemoth.  How do you decide if the person needs the vehicle, or just has penis size issues?

Exactly. Or shoes. My $300 fashion statement could be your $300 absolutely necessary work boots. How to decide for people? Down that road lies Utopianism.

[AFK]

Tangentially related article:


http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-legalized-marijuana-might-be-bad-pot-smokers/

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Tangentially related article:


http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-reasons-legalized-marijuana-might-be-bad-pot-smokers/

I literally just finished reading that article. Don't understand the point of the comparison to cigarettes, though. It's not like keeping it illegal means people are going to be cool with you smoking around them, either.

[AFK]

I think the point was more that the reality is that (smoked) marijuana is going to be more analagous to cigarettes than alcohol, when it comes to how people who don't smoke marijuana perceive it, in part because it is still smelly smoke.  It isn't an argument for keeping it illegal, it's just to kind of remind pot smokers that just because it will be legal doesn't mean everyone is going to be cool with it being used just anywhere.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

At least if they're going to do that stuff there are some non-smoking options. Expecting other people to breathe in your second hand smoke is just fucking rude.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This is now a marijuana thread instead of a get-inch-take-mile thread.

I'm out.

[Salty]

This is now a marijuana thread instead of a get-inch-take-mile thread.

I'm out.

Well, it's sort of inevitable, isn't it? I mean, you made a thread about POT so we have to go back to Ye Olde Potte Thread because BECAUSE. You don't like it? Move to China. You thinktthey got any pot threads in China? Pffff, you'll be begging for your threads to be side railed by the same old, mealy, tired song and dance. Begging.

[Salty]

I, for one, am glad that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

But I'm just awful that way.

[Cramulus]

Categorically speaking, I'm not fond of sin tax because I don't consent to my behavior being explicitly controlled by price manipulation. You want to impose a sales tax, I'm 100% fine with that, but I don't like there being a governmental list of products which are legal but discouraged. (where discouraged means the government draws bonus money from your use of them)

I think public health issues should generally be addressed at the industrial level, not at the consumer level. With the current lobbyist environment, that's not gonna happen--why isn't there a consumer lobby again?



That being said, go ahead and tax the fuck out of mary jane, if only to show other states that it is a cash crop. The high tax rate probably won't last, but it will rebalance the discussion about the costs of legalization.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Categorically speaking, I'm not fond of sin tax because I don't consent to my behavior being explicitly controlled by price manipulation. You want to impose a sales tax, I'm 100% fine with that, but I don't like there being a governmental list of products which are legal but discouraged. (where discouraged means the government draws bonus money from your use of them)

Roads gotta get fixed somehow, Cram.  A general sales tax reams the very asses out of the poor.

[AFK]

Governments don't really impose "sin" taxes to discourage the use of certain products.  They impose them to collect more revenue.  The pressure to increase taxes on things like alcohol and tobacco products to reduce use comes from public health organizations.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Categorically speaking, I'm not fond of sin tax because I don't consent to my behavior being explicitly controlled by price manipulation. You want to impose a sales tax, I'm 100% fine with that, but I don't like there being a governmental list of products which are legal but discouraged. (where discouraged means the government draws bonus money from your use of them)

I think public health issues should generally be addressed at the industrial level, not at the consumer level. With the current lobbyist environment, that's not gonna happen--why isn't there a consumer lobby again?



That being said, go ahead and tax the fuck out of mary jane, if only to show other states that it is a cash crop. The high tax rate probably won't last, but it will rebalance the discussion about the costs of legalization.

I am totally not cool with sales taxes. At all. Like I said, I'm an Oregonian through and through on that issue. They penalize the poor, who are already paying a premium for their necessities.

I'm not fond of tackling the social cost issue at the consumer end with cigarettes, either. In my opinion it should be the tobacco companies who pay an extra tax for SELLING POISONOUS STUFF to the public. I am sure we can all see why that didn't happen. Doesn't mean it will never happen.