At yesterday's LPSF meeting, the vote to join the "Tax Cannabis 2010"
campaign (http://taxcannabis.org/) lost by one vote. The primary
justification for the opposition was that taxes are bad.
Well, I just watched on my DVR an episode of the Daily Show from last week
where the guest was Daniel Okrent, author of "Last Call," a book about
prohibition that argues that the federal income tax is a direct result of
alcohol prohibition. Fast-forward to 4:00 or 4:30 if you want to see just
the income tax reference:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-7-2010/daniel-okrent
So, it's thought-experiment time. To those who voted No yesterday on
joining the Tax Cannabis 2010 campaign: which is worse -- a "sin tax" on an
otherwise prohibited substance, or the income tax?
I'll reiterate my argument that I made yesterday. If your sole worry about
the Tax Cannabis initiative (Prop 19) is that the new taxes would "feed the
beast" of government, please consider at least the fact that police
departments would no longer be able to enrich themselves via civil asset
forfeiture against those whose only "crime" is marijuana possession. And,
if you are willing to make the stretch, consider the possibility that
prohibition leads to increases in or creation of new taxes, as argued by
Daniel Okrent. I'm planning to get the Kindle version of his book.
Rob
Dear Rob;
In a nutshell higher personal income taxes on the wealthy were a result of
alcohol prohibition and after repeal personal income taxes on the wealthy were
reduced. This is historical fact no need to kindle the book.
While we could support a yes on Prop. 19 the LPSF needs to be wary of group
alignments and their overall message and how they advertise the issue as this
would impact peoples image of the LPSF.
This is why I would prefer a vote on Prop. 19 yes or no and leave out entwining
us with any particular group. Then LPSF members can join any group of their own
volition.
Ron Getty
Hi Rob,
Yes, I heard that argument somewhere before, that the income tax was the result of prohibition. Interesting, although the 16th Amendment was ratified 1913, too early for prohibition?
Prop 19 might be what will encourage the LPSF to solidify its thinking regarding pot! As the discussion at the meeting showed, this may not be as simple as it may seem.
I will personally vote in favor of 19th, for one reason only: I am sick and tired of the War on Drugs, and will vote for anything that remotely promises to make a dent on it. If enough states pass such laws, I am hoping the Feds might start finding themselves behaving foolishly.
"The Beast" will be fed either way -- either through the huge search, seize, raid, programs; or through sales/sin taxes. Pick your poison.
Marcy
I would agree that LPSF joining a particular campaign might be tricky, especially given the contradictions discussed at our meeting.
After thinking about it, I now see what some at the meeting were saying regarding the official proposition vs. groups supporting the proposition.
Marcy
Ron,
The presumption on my part is that re-legalizing the cannabis plant
will be a net gain for freedom, even if it were to be taxed at the
rate of 200%, which it won't be. If the tax rates are too high, there
will be a thriving black market, and anyone who doesn't want to pay
the taxes will be free to get cannabis the way they do now. The main
difference being, sellers will have the choice of taking lower profits
in exchange for not having to run the risk having their lives ruined,
and typical users won't have to worry about being arrested at all.
I'm sure you're not suggesting that we should support maintaining a
situation where innocent people are being arrested just to deny
government the tax revenue. Otherwise to be consistent we would need
to support things like gun bans, in order to prevent government from
getting revenue by taxing guns.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild and Rob,
At the meeting I voted to abstain on this. However based on the cogent
arguments you both presented then, I'm reconsidering my position.
You make clear that although tax revenues would increase, others associated
would prohibition will decrease as a counterbalance.
As a side note, I would be shocked if 19 passes given the prison guard
union's interest in maintaining a thriving business for their members.
Warm regards, Michael
Ron,
Legalization without taxes, or with lower taxes, a la pre-1937, is
*more* likely to happen sooner if Prop. 19 passes, not less. As long
as voters won't even approve legalization when it means more tax
revenue, they are unlikely to say "let's just decriminalize it and let
people use cannabis without paying any taxes."
Rob is right, this is such a redux of Prop. 8. Making the perfect the
enemy of the good. And you're right that the politicians in Sacramento
will always be dreaming up new ways to tax regardless of whether Prop.
19 passes or not. So refusing to back a measure that would stop them
from criminalizing and arresting large numbers of innocent people, on
the grounds that taxes might go up, seems to me the height of folly.
If you think the LPSF should not get behind Prop. 19, tell me why we
should not also decline to oppose any gun bans that may be proposed,
on the grounds that when gun sales are banned, government won't be
able to collect taxes on them?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
My fault for originally posting to the Activists list something that I
should have known would become a debate.
Instead, can we discuss this here?
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=297976855713&v=app_2373072738#!/topic.php?uid=297976855713&topic=14673
So as not to clog up our activists list with discussion. 
Rob
Ha! Now we have to figure how to discuss on LPSF Facebook! Good move, Rob.
Marcy
Ron,
Be that as it may, your recent posts sounded like you are arguing
against Prop. 19. Maybe that's not how you mean them to sound, but
there it is.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Ron,
Unless I'm mistaken, what we were considering on Saturday was not an
invitation to join "any and every cockamammie Vote Yes on 19 group or
association or organization", but an invitation to join the *official
Yes on Prop. 19 campaign* (see message received by Marcy below). The
site for which the sender has an email address, www.TaxCannabis.org
sure as hell looks like the official Yes on 19 website. So your
position remains somewhat unclear.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
> To: amarcyb@hotmail.com
> Subject: Libertarian Party of San Francisco: Invitation from Tax
Cannabis 2010
> Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:32:06 -0500
> From: alex@taxcannabis.org
>
> This is an enquiry e-mail via http://www.lpsf.org/ from:
> Alex <alex@taxcannabis.org>
>
> Hello Marcy, this is Alex the deputy field director for the Tax
Cannabis 2010 campaign. I am emailing you to invite you and members of
your party to our first volunteer orientation meeting in the Bay Area
for the campaign. The meeting is at 6:30 PM on Tuesday July 13 at 1776
Broadway in Oakland CA which is right outside the 19th st BART.
>
> I encourage you to pass this invitation on to your membership, as
it is a great way to get involved with the campaign.
>
> If you are also interested in working with our organization please
let me know. I have had a great time working with the LP party in
other parts of the state and hope we can work together as well towards
to common goal of cannabis legalization.
Dear Starchild;
How quickly could anyone create an "official" web site and face book site for
Yes on 19 using mirror web site info? About a New York sec!
Vote Yes on Prop. 19! Smoke a joint - Save California!!! Toke It - Tax It!
Free the Cannabis 2010!!! Cannabis Power!!! Cannabis to the Rescue!
(soon to be seen at a local movie theater along with Reefer Madness and
Marijuana - The Devil Weed and Road To Ruin )
Hey man wha' ya' smokin' - Median Strip Marijuana or wha'?
Can we get Cheech and Chong to endorse Prop. 19? That'll help now - won't it???
Ron Getty
Okie Dokie -
So you want a group you could endorse try this one - it's a Face Book site and
you will have go to Face Book to see it. LOL
http://snipurl.com/zatvm ( it's about protecting what you got )
Ron Getty
Ron,
You appear to be raising doubts about whether www.TaxCannabis.org is
the official website of the Yes on Prop. 19 campaign. What would it
take to convince you that it is the official site?
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. - What's the name of the group you're referring to below, and
what cause are they promoting?
Dear Starchild;
moot point as anyone who wanted to join can do so from the LPSF I would not do
so and would not recommend the LPSF to do so as long as the main point(s) were
about taxes..... Tax the Toke..... oh yeah.....
their main site states : Control and TAX Cannabis...give local governments the
right to TAX cannabis and generate billions in new revenue -
with the claim to fund what matters most in California: jobs, healthcare, public
safety, state parks, roads, transportation, and more
there is absolutely nothing to stop the legislature from spending the money on
whatever they see fit.....
Ron Getty
I've replied to this thread here:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=297976855713&v=app_2373072738#!/topic.php?uid=297976855713&topic=14673
I'm not going to continue the debate in the lpsf-activists group, as it's
off-topic for the group. Let's keep this list limited to meetings,
business, and volunteer info -- not philosophical debate.
Rob