TOKIN' TAX

New York City Health Commissioner Thomas R. Frieden recently published
an article in the New England Journal of Medicine advocating a
penny-per-ounce tax on sodas and sports drinks that contain sugar.
Frieden argues such a tax would be instrumental in increasing public
health and curbing America's obesity epidemic, as well as raise $1.2
billion a year in state revenue. Given the state of the economy and
the recent rash of proposed goods-tax increases, I'd say the latter is
likely a stronger motivational force than Frieden has admitted.

Another recent tax proposal - that on beer in Oregon - would
purportedly go to promote public health through alcohol and substance
abuse rehabilitation programs. And the federal cigarette tax increase
earlier this year is supposed to pay for expansion of the State
Children's Health Insurance Program.

Such reasons are undoubtedly genuine, and admirable at that. But I'm
not convinced that a "sugar" tax (that's essentially what Frieden's
proposal is) or a 1,000-percent tax increase on beer in a state so
firmly attached to its breweries would gain the same ground or even be
on the table if states weren't facing such significant deficits and so
desperately in need of revenue.

Furthermore, I'm at a loss to understand why the government doesn't
see the logical alternative to such "grasping at straws"-type taxing
that is staring it straight in the face: legalizing and taxing marijuana.

As the argument goes, cigarettes and alcohol kill millions each year,
while the vast majority of marijuana-related health problems are a
result of drug-trade violence that wouldn't even be an issue were the
"drug" legal. Even sugary beverages contribute to far more deaths than
marijuana (in 2005, the CDC estimated about 112,000 obesity-related
deaths each year in the United States).

We've all heard the list of arguments in support of legalizing the
plant, but from an economic standpoint, it has never made more sense
for the United States to decriminalize the production, sale and use of
marijuana by adults.

In February, California State Assembly member Tom Ammiano introduced
legislation to regulate cultivation and sale of marijuana in his
state, and then tax it. California's economy is among the hardest hit
in the nation, with unemployment close to 12 percent, and the San
Francisco lawmaker argues legalizing marijuana could bring huge
revenue hikes to the state. According to a March 3 article on
Salon.com, marijuana's annual sales of $14 billion make it
California's biggest cash crop by far (vegetables, No. 2, only bring
in $5.7 billion and grapes create a mere $2.6 billion).

Back in 2008, an initiative proposed in Oregon would have allowed
state-controlled liquor stores to legally sell marijuana with a tax,
90 percent of which would have gone to Oregon's General Fund and
likely lowered Oregon citizens' state tax burden. At the federal
level, American citizens would also save the tax money that currently
goes to fight an absurdly ineffective drug war against marijuana.

The proposed Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act would
treat pot like alcohol - it would only be available to citizens over
the age of 21, and illegal to drive under its influence. And by
imposing a tax on the plant, the state's tax collectors, according to
the same article, would rake in close to $1.3 billion in new revenues
a year. The production and supply of pot would no longer be under the
control of illegal drug cartels, and jobs - green ones, at that -
would be created.

All of this is not even to mention the law enforcement money that
would be saved, at the state and federal level. Illegal sales would
decline, the flow of people into prison would subside and the
government would no longer be dedicating extensive funds to nonviolent
drug offenses.

The American people seem more than ready to treat marijuana as just
another legal, controlled substance, so why isn't the administration?
When the government ignores the immense benefits of such actions in
the face of dire economic downturn, it must be asked, why? If you ask
me, the issue comes down to plain and simple hypocrisy.

According to California judge Jim Gray, an advocate of drug policy
reform, 75 percent of all Americans who use any illicit drugs use only
marijuana, and if that 75 percent were no longer illegal drug users,
there would be no justification for the colossal amount of funding and
bureaucracy that goes into fighting the drug war. Nearly every federal
agency receives extra funding to fight the war, Gray says, including
those such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of
Agriculture, and has become unwilling to do without that funding,
which will continue to flow as long as the government continues to
wage an unwinnable drug war.

As the country's economic situation continues to grow grimmer, I can
only hope the government will recognize that desperate times call for
progressive measures. Maybe it will take a complete economic collapse
for our government to realize the error of its ways, but I certainly
hope not.