top | item 7283211

(no title)

sudomal | 12 years ago

I suspect that legalisation of weed is going to be a blip in history and they'll heavily tax it to phase it out. It just doesn't make sense to encourage people to breathe in smoke.

discuss

order

chimeracoder|12 years ago

While I disagree that legalization will be "just a blip", it's interesting to note that the original law that prohibited marijuana in the US was actually a cleverly worded tax law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937

Basically, marijuana was legal, but you were required to purchase a tax stamp (that was never issued) in order to prove that you had paid taxes on it.

There were many reasons for this, but one factor was that, at the time, the prevailing thought was that Congress did not have the authority to ban the possession of a substance outright within the states. (Even the 18th Amendment was actually carefully worded in a way such that it didn't technically prohibit all possession and sale of alcohol, the way people oftentimes think).

This (tax law) is also the same technique that the Obama administration has used to crack down on legal medical marijuana dispensaries, while still paying lip service to his promise not to[1].

(In the latter case, the tax laws are written in such a way that medical marijuana dispensaries are unable to deduct for normal business expenses that other businesses would be).

Al Capone was also convicted of tax evasion[2], as was Reuben Sturman[3]. Tax law can be used as a "politically correct" excuse to criminalize behavior that otherwise would be politically impossible to criminalize.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/harborside-health-c...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuben_Sturman

btilly|12 years ago

That is because Congress has enumerated powers, and the Commerce Clause was then accepted in the intended meaning of only controlling commerce with other countries, between the states, and with Indian tribes. Sales inside of a state are obviously out of the purview of that clause.

Today, of course, the Commerce Clause is interpreted insanely broadly to cover everything from civil rights to environmental protection. Worthy causes, to be sure, but not within the intended purview of, [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

jmccree|12 years ago

Interestingly enough also the way (pre-ban) machine guns and grenades are managed by the feds. Legal, but expensive and time consuimg tax stamp required. Obamacare fines were also considered to be a tax. Taxation is limitless.

vinkelhake|12 years ago

There's a big difference between something being legal and "encouraged".

throwaway1982|12 years ago

You can still vaporize and eat edibles.

hershel|12 years ago

Marijuana is a drug that encourages people to be less political active(the "laziness" effect) . I would think governments would like such a thing in politically unstable times.

nerfhammer|12 years ago

I don't think governments have big evil long-term schemes like this

boyaka|12 years ago

Maybe when you are high. I assume there are people that use it that aren't high ALL the time...

dinkumthinkum|12 years ago

Right, so the protests of the 60s prove your theory right? It's not like Nixon started the war on drugs for the exact opposite reason, right?

iamjustin|12 years ago

Honestly, fuck you. You're the idiot that thinks that it's better to jail people for weed than allow people to make their own decisions. Fuck you, Sudomal.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean anyone is encouraging it. Lots of things are legal that could possibly be dangerous. Guess in your opinion someone had better get that legislation ready to protect the ignorant masses, right?

lfuller|12 years ago

I don't think Hacker News is any place for this level of discourse. Voice your arguments, but there is no need for personal attacks.