If marijuana were to be taxed at the rate of say lettuce with accounting handled by the same enforcement mechanisms, then the argument could be made that it was merely being subject to the same imperfect system we use to fund all public projects. But instead, we get the corruption I referred to - the creation of an entirely new administrative and enforcement apparatus which becomes its own justification. The dynamic still ultimately involves the power of the state telling individuals how they can and cannot aeffect their selves, with the only change being that the state is now profiting from selling indulgences.

I expect that if the proposition put to vote was simply to removing any existing laws around marijuana growing, sale, and possession, there's no way in hell it would have passed.

We all think of CA as this true-blue state, a bastion of progressive thought. But once you get out of the SF bay area and LA, you see a lot of red.

MJ isn't lettuce. It's a drug, just as tobacco and alcohol are drugs (yes, I know they have different effects and safety factors; that's irrelevant). It would seem unsurprising that it would be regulated in similar ways.

If your position is that tobacco, alcohol, etc. shouldn't be regulated at all, then ok, that's a fair position to have, but it's an entirely unrealistic one to expect the populace of any state in the US to get behind.

I don't think the legalize movement as a whole was working from a position that any input from the state into someone's life is immoral. That's a perfectly fine position to have but it's not like they were being hypocritical as a movement.

Similar to other "sin" taxes. Lettuce is not taxed at all in California but the fork to eat it is at over 10% in some locations. Using taxes to control behavior is seen as wrong by some, but they are not likely to be in political office.

Well said! Differential taxation based on some social or moral argument, to me, is a violation of liberty. The government ought not be in the business of using taxes to dictate what people should or shouldn’t do. Government shouldn’t be dictating winners and losers — that should be up to the individual. Every product ought to be taxed identically.

In order to make this argument coherent, you'd need to oppose as well a whole lot of additional commercial regulation, such as the kind forbidding the sale of food unfit for human consumption, fake medicine, cars that explode in fender benders, &c. If the people through their government can elect to forbid the sale of products altogether, surely it's less a breach of liberty for them to elect instead to add a surcharge to account for the externalities of those goods.

I think the problem is rather that with the need for taxation you also have to introduce mechanisms to check if taxation actually happens properly and with that comes a whole rat tail of bureaucracy and regulation complicating the process for everybody.

In theory, exemptions can be made, like only taxing people who grow for commercial use while not taxing people who grow for their private use. But such a system is prone to abuse and thus needs lots of control and enforcement.