I don't want to live in a country where we allow the people in charge to create black markets only to prosper from them during and after "legalization".
If we continue to allow the "tax it to have it" narrative we will suffer the consequences of it. No amount of "school funding" or "road construction" justifies it.
Also, btw how do you have a government that maintains its sovereignty over its people without from time to time being paternalistic?
One of the major ones was banning spirits (whiskey in particular) as a means of salvaging the moral character of country. During that time the average American consumed 3x as much liquor as they do today. Domestic abuse was magnitudes higher. Orphanages were overcrowded.
The circumstances were not the same. But, politicians certainly learned how to leverage the outrage to create a scheme - that much is true.
> I don't want to live in a country where we allow the people in charge to create black markets only to prosper from them during and after "legalization".
But those markets existed openly before they were banned in the first place. The banning doesn't lead to increased profits for the people in charge. This complaint makes no sense to me.
Your first post wasn't clear whether you wanted the government out of the way, or whether you wanted the bans to stay as bans.
Either way, I think your middle paragraph is very strange. When asking whether something should be taxed, why does it matter whether it was previously banned? I don't see how "create black markets only to prosper from them" makes sense as a complaint here. The theoretical tax money would be very similar if they had never banned the drug in the first place.
1) Black markets create higher prices. (increased risk = increased return)
2) Prices go up potential tax receipts go up.
3) Banning free market activity allows for the elimination of current competitive producers. (reduced supply increases price if demand holds steady)
4) Banning free market activity allows for later legalization of winners through licensing. (kickbacks)
5) Regulation through legalization creates government jobs which increases political power.
Tax-it-to-have-it schemes benefit politicians and governments not people.
5 is real, but 5 would exist whether or not there was a ban.
> Tax-it-to-have-it schemes benefit politicians and governments not people.
But again that would be a problem even if there was never a ban at all? Should I just take your argument as being against tax schemes like this in general, whether or not there was a ban in the past?
The ones who can produce are still decided by the government.
If you want to pretend those things reverse so your argument seems sound you're welcome to do so. Doesn't make it true.
And part is a cost of regulation that would increase the price even without banning.
If you remove both of those effects, I'm not sure you have much left.
Meaning, if government suppresses demand and limits supply through laws they stand to benefit the most from taxation. Just like anyone would with the same power in the free market as a middle man.
Hence, the tax-it-to-have-it scheme has to move slowly or else the gray market that surfaces will do so specifically to undercut taxation and artificial government constraints. (Just like with pharmaceuticals and online markets)
Yes, but that situation can happen without ever banning something.
The problem is the way taxes and/or regulation can be set up, which I see as a separate issue.
Ah yes, much better to rely on the definitely not fucked by design black market instead.