[DanBC]

Organised crime would target the legal-drug supply chain. Counterfeit medication making its way into legitimate supplies is already a problem.

When you tax something you create a space for the illicit market. See the UK for one example where very many cigarettes are counterfeit. And criminal gangs don't just sell real but untaxed product; they produce counterfeit product which can be more dangerous than the actual product. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-16786358

(I am strongly in favour of decriminalising all drugs)

[zo1]

I don't think he meant an import tax, or a special sales tax on the drugs. But rather, the "now legal" drug would form part of the normal taxation framework (profit, income, whatever flavor your country has).

The problem with the fake cigarettes sort of scenario you cite is one that is caused by a special sales tax. The sales tax, as I'm sure you already know, artificially increases the value of the product. It also creates a larger "price" differential between regions/countries that encourages illicit smuggling and counterfeiting.

If you ask me, such a targeted tax is a cruel double-tax on the individuals we are "punishing" for doing something "we" find morally-offensive, and have post-justified as a health-concern. On the one hand, they pay more for the product, and on the other hand the state has now created a potentially harmful/lethal market of that product. Triple-taxed, even, if you consider that the higher cost reduces accessibility of this product to the poorer members of society, driving them to crime/desperation to get it, or resorting to the fake-alternatives created by the new black market.

(I am strongly in favor of legalizing all victimless crimes, and allowing individuals full control over their own bodies.)

#Edit, added extra sentence.

[Karellen]

> If you ask me, such a targeted tax is a cruel double-tax on the individuals we are "punishing" for doing something "we" find morally-offensive, and have post-justified as a health-concern.

Citation? There was no _public_ issue (moral or medical) at all with smoking and cigarettes until the late '80s/early '90s. As far as I'm aware, the public concerns since then have been entirely based on increasing acceptance of the medical problems, as the smoking industry's efforts to manufacture doubt and controversy over the link finally began to wane. At least enough for the lawyers to be confident enough that they could defend against anti-business charges with clear medical facts that would actually stand up as a defense.

I'm also not aware of any actual moral threats that have been attributed even in the most tenuous possible way to smoking - I've not heard it claimed that it will make you more promiscuous, or likely to neglect your kids, or cause you to fail to hold down a job, or in any way hasten the moral downfall of civilisation. Not ever.

As for "punishing", I think it's more of a nudge[0]. The government just wants to make it as attractive as possible for people to stay healthy, without actually banning anything.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory

[hga]

"On June 12, 1957, then-Surgeon General Leroy Burney 'declared it the official position of the U.S. Public Health Service that the evidence pointed to a causal relationship between smoking and lung cancer.'" (see following link), and that 1964 saw the publication of Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_and_Health:_Report_of_...).

I was born in 1960; let me assure you there were strong and effective campaigns against smoking based on health through the time I went to college in 1979 and stopped paying so much attention to this sort of thing. I cannot recall a single person denying that smoking was unhealthy (arguments for it were much more nuanced).

[zo1]

Sorry, the cigarettes were an example related to the OP's post. But I was more referring to drugs when talking about a "proposed" tax for them, rather than cigarettes/smoking.

[waterhouse]

I think there's already a problem with low-quality, impure product being sold on the street w.r.t. illegal drugs. If the drugs were legalized, people would at least have the alternative of buying them legally from a large drug store with a reputation to protect. I imagine the problem you describe would not get worse under legalization.

(Found one source on street drug purity: http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/faqs/faqpages/how-pure...)

[DanBC]

That's a great point: I would much rather buy 5% amphetamine 95% sugar from a licensed seller than whatever the hell I'm getting on the street. While contamination with rat poison is mostly a myth contamination can produce nasty results.

Anthrax in injecting heroin users: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18981196

Glass microbeads in cannabis: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/staffordshire/638...

[lostcolony]

It's more than that though. Not just licensing, but motive to self-regulate.

You don't buy "(Cartel X) branded (drug of choice)", so there is no reputation to protect by it; if one batch is bad, meh, no big deal.

Whereas if it's available at a drugstore...CVS and Walgreens compete, and have reputations to maintain. Any contamination not only would have federal implications, but also would have direct economic ones, such that they are incentivized to self-police. To ensure their entire supply line is coming from reputable sources, is randomly tested for contaminants, and anything that slips through leads to a recall. Otherwise, they face a loss of business to the competitor.