This week's book giveaway is in the OCAJP forum. We're giving away four copies of OCA Java SE 8 Programmer I Study Guide 1Z0-808 and have Jeanne Boyarsky & Scott Selikoff on-line! See this thread for details.
Makes sense. The tax money for the criminal prosecution is in the end subsidising the drug mafia. Just recently i saw a coverage about the situation in Mexico. The drug mafia wouldn't have so much power if there wasn't so much to earn in the US.
The politicians always have a long list of activities they want to label as "sin" so they have only two choices: (1) outlaw it and then spend money enforcing it or (2) legalize it and tax it.
I have a very hard time understanding why (2) is not the choice of 99% of them, 99% of the time. But they usually pick (1).
Its interesting to watch the decline of smoking (tobacco) over the years. Smoking is not technically outlawed, but its expensive as they tax the heck out of it, and they have made smoking indoors unacceptable.
I expect that alcohol consumption would follow the same path if we outlawed advertisement and taxed it to the sky. But then who would pay to advertise on NFL, MLB, and NASCAR events?
If it passes, it's going to be interesting to see whether it does actually make any difference. And if so what difference.
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Pat Farrell wrote:I expect that alcohol consumption would follow the same path if we outlawed advertisement and taxed it to the sky. But then who would pay to advertise on NFL, MLB, and NASCAR events?
I think the limit is leveled out by fact that everybody could quite easily produce alcoholic beverages at home. One can see this bigotry in Scandinavia. Alcohol is taxed to the sky and its distribution is regulated by the state. If somebody is seen regularly drinking a beer in a bar (for ~$10 each) he's considered an alcohol addict by society. But on the other hand you can buy distillery equipment everywhere legally and on parties they booze the hard selfmade stuff until everybody lies under the table.
I think every society needs its highs and will get it, legal or not. The government can only decide if they want to criminalise their own people or not. They might be able to stir it to the less harmful substances by taxation a bit but with every action beyond that they just create a black market.
Coming from the Netherlands it's certainly interesting to see their experiment with taxing this drug. I don't think the experiment has gone on long enough to draw conclusions, but at least the government is gaining tax revenue that they can then put back into researching topics about drugs and drug safety. An interesting debate that I'm sure will never come to an final conclusion