SENATE BILL: Comprehensive Drug Reform Act of 2013 (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would assume you just remove the criminal penalties, no?

[TNF]

Proposing an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm fine with this as long as we tax the hell out of these drugs. We need our tax revenues!

[Maxwell]

I am fine with the changes.

[President Tyrion]

I'm fine with this as long as we tax the hell out of these drugs. We need our tax revenues!

Do we? We're running a rather significant surplus.

[TNF]

Can we get to a final vote on this, again?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm fine with this as long as we tax the hell out of these drugs. We need our tax revenues!

Do we? We're running a rather significant surplus.

Well, I assume our intention here is to make them legal, safe, and regulated. The tax would simply exist to discourage people from actually using these drugs, much like we tax alcohol and tobacco. I don't think any of us want to encourage the use of hard drugs.

Plus, if our surplus gets too big, we can give the money back in many different ways. Don't you worry, my friend, we will figure out some way to use this money..

[Sopranos Republican]

Sorry.

The final vote is now open!

[Senator Spiral]

Aye

[Maxwell]

Aye

[tmthforu94]

Aye, though I would encourage Nix's suggestions to be realtered.

[TNF]

Do I need to propose an amendment after this vote, or? Mr. PPT?

[President Tyrion]

Aye

[President Tyrion]

I'm fine with this as long as we tax the hell out of these drugs. We need our tax revenues!

Do we? We're running a rather significant surplus.

Well, I assume our intention here is to make them legal, safe, and regulated. The tax would simply exist to discourage people from actually using these drugs, much like we tax alcohol and tobacco. I don't think any of us want to encourage the use of hard drugs.

Plus, if our surplus gets too big, we can give the money back in many different ways. Don't you worry, my friend, we will figure out some way to use this money..

I don't disagree with any of that, for the record. I just want to be clear that this isn't a tax for revenue purposes; the revenue is a nice side effect of a necessary economic burden.

For the record, taxation on drugs, to me, is a very imperfect solution. It functions as a regressive tax, since drug consumption is more associated with lower incomes. I'd be ready to jump at a better solution, but I fear there isn't one.

[TNF]

Proposing this fix to the wording:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Matt, you can call 24 hours on this.

[Sopranos Republican]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators, you have 24 hours to object to the adoption of this amendment.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I'm fine with this as long as we tax the hell out of these drugs. We need our tax revenues!

Do we? We're running a rather significant surplus.

Well, I assume our intention here is to make them legal, safe, and regulated. The tax would simply exist to discourage people from actually using these drugs, much like we tax alcohol and tobacco. I don't think any of us want to encourage the use of hard drugs.

Plus, if our surplus gets too big, we can give the money back in many different ways. Don't you worry, my friend, we will figure out some way to use this money..

I don't disagree with any of that, for the record. I just want to be clear that this isn't a tax for revenue purposes; the revenue is a nice side effect of a necessary economic burden.

For the record, taxation on drugs, to me, is a very imperfect solution. It functions as a regressive tax, since drug consumption is more associated with lower incomes. I'd be ready to jump at a better solution, but I fear there isn't one.

Of course this is for revenue purposes. Cost saving too. Look, we legalize these drugs and the expense we go through to enforce their ban goes away AND we get to tax them on that. It's a whole new world and a whole new revenue stream!

A tax is really the only way to go. We do the same thing with alcohol and tobacco. If we're running a deficit then this is perfect, the tax revenue will surely flow in from the heroin and cocaine users getting their fix!

[President Tyrion]

I'm fine with this as long as we tax the hell out of these drugs. We need our tax revenues!

Do we? We're running a rather significant surplus.

Well, I assume our intention here is to make them legal, safe, and regulated. The tax would simply exist to discourage people from actually using these drugs, much like we tax alcohol and tobacco. I don't think any of us want to encourage the use of hard drugs.

Plus, if our surplus gets too big, we can give the money back in many different ways. Don't you worry, my friend, we will figure out some way to use this money..

I don't disagree with any of that, for the record. I just want to be clear that this isn't a tax for revenue purposes; the revenue is a nice side effect of a necessary economic burden.

For the record, taxation on drugs, to me, is a very imperfect solution. It functions as a regressive tax, since drug consumption is more associated with lower incomes. I'd be ready to jump at a better solution, but I fear there isn't one.

Of course this is for revenue purposes. Cost saving too. Look, we legalize these drugs and the expense we go through to enforce their ban goes away AND we get to tax them on that. It's a whole new world and a whole new revenue stream!

A tax is really the only way to go. We do the same thing with alcohol and tobacco. If we're running a deficit then this is perfect, the tax revenue will surely flow in from the heroin and cocaine users getting their fix!

I mean, I get that. I just worry that the burden falls primarily on the little guy.

[TNF]

Perhaps we could turn the tax on drugs into a progressive one? Buy more, pay more?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Perhaps we could turn the tax on drugs into a progressive one? Buy more, pay more?

How would that be accomplished given the sin taxes are generally sales taxes? I guess we could charge a certain percentage based on how much an individual buys, but they could get around it easily. I am open to making it progress if anyone else has any ideas.

[President Tyrion]

Perhaps we could turn the tax on drugs into a progressive one? Buy more, pay more?

How would that be accomplished given the sin taxes are generally sales taxes? I guess we could charge a certain percentage based on how much an individual buys, but they could get around it easily. I am open to making it progress if anyone else has any ideas.

The issue is that it creates a massive infrastructure cost at the point of sale, as you would have to determine the tax rate when the items are bought, as opposed to having the flat-rate markup built into the price of the item. I'm not sure having POS vendors bear the infrastructure costs is the right way to go.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Right, which is why I doubt a progressive tax is even feasible or realistic over a flat tax at markup. I understand it's a regressive tax, but unfortunately economics is not perfect. It's a better alterative to no tax at all, right?

A crazy day has come when I am the one advocating a tax and the Labor Senators are resisting it!

[President Tyrion]

Right, which is why I doubt a progressive tax is even feasible or realistic over a flat tax at markup. I understand it's a regressive tax, but unfortunately economics is not perfect. It's a better alterative to no tax at all, right?

A crazy day has come when I am the one advocating a tax and the Labor Senators are resisting it!

Haha, yes, and I stand with you. This is the least of all evils, but I'm glad we can at least recognize its shortcomings.

[TNF]

So what's your pleasure, guys? Are we going to alter the tax rate or leave it as is?