They each have significant public health and safety costs that are born by us all. Reducing their consumption is in our collective best interests. Should Marijuana be legalized? My vote was "no" but I'm sympathetic to the argument that it was occurring rampantly so should be brought into the open, regulated and yes, taxed.
My support for legalization (and general skepticism for the drug war) is somewhat libertarian, but it's more pragmatic. I just don't think it's very effective for the cost, and yes, the pursuit of the drug war has led to some bad jurisprudence on the criminal procedure side of things.
Should money from one revenue source be used for another source? Generally, I'd say no. The ultimate example is the raping of the Social Security trust fund by our Federal politicians. Let's focus on Washington's marijuana legalization and tax revenue usage though because I'm moderately informed on that. The legalizatio law itself dictated that a % (from memory) of all tax revenue be dedicated towards marijuana usage research, prevention and health services. University of Washington received a $5M grant in yr 1 to study usage for example. Given the volume of tax revenue, certainly you can understand there is an upper limit on how much you can/should spend on research/prevention.
As you might imagine, if the tax is generating more money than is necessary, I would cut the tax. I understand the argument that if you cut the tax, you weaken the deterrent effect of it. However, with a black market in place, I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of any deterrent from the tax. If you're wealthy and want weed, you'll pay the tax. If you're broke, you'll buy it illegally like you always have.
Keep in mind, this puts a spotlight on the size of the black market before legalization. It was immense. Legaluzation didn't remove the black market but I'm very skeptical of any claim the black market has increased based on the public revenue numbers.
I'm sure it hasn't increased if significant numbers of pot smokers are buying legally.
So, should this revenue be used for other uses? If you can accept the principle that tax policy can be used to shape public policy and there is an upper limit to what should be spent on Drug prevention then wht do you do with the extra revenue? Washington States reserve fund hit $3B this last FY. We are a state flush with cash.
Again, I would cut the tax.
I'm not convinced it's sleazy politics, especially when the government entity is running surpluses. My views may be influenced by the bias of how the revenue should be used.
It's not sleazy because of the deficit or surplus angle. It's sleazy for ethical and good government reasons. Teacher pay raises are a pretty worthy cause. However, Texas has some of the highest rental car and hotel occupancy taxes in the country. The reason why is that the Legislature permits local governments to use that money to build sports arenas for billionaires who don't need the help. If the Dallas Cowboys, Dallas Mavericks, or Texas Rangers want a new stadium, they can build it themselves.
Furthermore, think about those taxes. Who rents cars and hotel rooms? Mostly people from out of town who don't get to vote for the officials levying the tax. Do we like taxation without representation? I don't, and I especially don't like it just to throw easy money at the politically well-connected.
