> I worry that it creates a positive feedback loop where the government generates tax revenue off it’s population’s addictions.

Do you loose a lot of sleep over the fact that the government is doing this today with, for example, alcohol? Alcohol is an insanely destructive drug. It decimates families, relationships, careers, lives, etc. No one at all seems to say the government need to "stop profiting off the taxes". It frankly never comes up. Sure we talk a lot about how to help those who reach the stages of addiction, but there's never guilt over the tax revenue.

I'm asking you to honestly think why this is any different.

I'm guessing they have the same issue with Alcohol. Why would a poorly implemented existing example assuage their concerns?

I do worry about it in the case of tobacco. I think the big push to ban nicotine vaping is driven by big tobacco, and politicians cashing in on the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement: it created really perverse incentives where states literally receive a portion of all tobacco sales, which can add up to a huge amount. Anything that reduces that is directly an attack on the state's budget.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agre...

you are assuming a lot about GP, how do you know they don't also oppose alcohol taxes?

personally, I accept grudgingly that tax dollars may be necessary to "sweeten the pot" of legalization for people who are otherwise opposed or apathetic towards it. ideally, the tax would go directly towards funding rehab for those who want it and be revenue neutral overall, but let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I think alcohol should be taxed the same as food. This is a product of a lot of experience with alcoholism among friends and family. IMO we should be considering the epidemic as a symptom, in addition to providing addiction treatment/support as needed.

>Do you loose a lot of sleep over the fact that the government is doing this today with, for example, alcohol?

Not OP, but yes.

>whataboutism

What drugs are you talking about? The article opens up talking about MDMA, which is generally non-addictive and taken infrequently. Some governments tax the sale of cannabis, which is probably a lot more psychologically addictive than MDMA. And of course they tax the sale of alcohol and tobacco, which are both a lot more physiologically and psychologically addictive than MDMA. What are your thoughts on those substances, and the government's role?

I'm in favor of just legalizing/decriminalizing it all. For drugs that are highly addictive, like heroin and meth, instead of the government selling them or taxing them, taxes from the less addictive substances could be used in part to fund treatment and recovery programs.

MDMA does have a lot more potential for physiological harm (including brain damage and death) than cannabis despite being much less addictive, so that may need to be in an in-between category that's focused more on prosecuting people selling impure products, and education (imagine FDA warnings and advice on every MDMA tablet), without most of the addiction recovery aspects.

Tobacco taxes have been found to discourage smoking among certain populations [1].

Perhaps that's not a fair comparison because the way legalization has been going, at least in the U.S. looks like a cross between tobacco and gambling. Taxing tobacco feels like the more correct metaphor, but I'm not sure why.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/

I observe that high tobbaco taxes have been a serious factor in discouraging or reducing smoking where I live, however, I'd like to point out a drawback. I'm not asserting that it would outweigh the benefits, but still.

What I'm seeing is that the high taxes, combined with a boundary to a neighbouring country with much lower taxes, is creating an extra financial incentive for crime that wasn't there. It suddenly created a situation where there's big money to be made in smuggling, and a strong pressure for corruption for various officials (customs, local police, administrative officials, municipalities, judges) funded by that money, and for violent crime (e.g. murdering honest officials that refuse to be bribed) funded by cigarette smuggling. In some sense it's comparable to the drug organized crime, because the market for 'gray' tobacco is comparable to drugs; while the customers pay much less, there are many more customers. And any black market has all kinds of negative side-effects on society simply by existing, as it adds incentives for bribery and corruption, and it funds people and organizations who naturally extend to other crimes - just like prohibition funded the rise of mob in USA.

So I'm worrying that the expected benefits of legalization are (in part) reliant on users moving from black market to legal means; however, in a legalized but heavily taxed environment many (most?) users would still prefer to keep their illegal dealers (because their product is affordable) and the expected decrease in crime and violence would not materialize because of that.

Black market has immense operation expenses. It won't be able to undercut a legal market, even very heavily taxed, but still free.

It's more profitable to just start a legal operation instead.

OTOH countries where a particular drug is illegal will feel a significant pressure if in a large neighboring country the same substance is legal. This.hopefully would provide both an example and an incentive to at least decriminalize the substance, too.

My observation about cigarettes is exactly a counterexample showing that, despite the criminal operation expenses, in practice the black market is able to undercut a heavily taxed legal market - not for everyone, probably not even for the majority of the market, but for a substantially large portion of population to have a meaningful consequences in corruption and organized crime.

It's getting better now, but mostly because cigarettes as such are being undercut by vaping that's cheaper.

IDK about that. In Sweden tobacco is heavily taxed, border control sometimes stops trucks loaded with smuggled cigarettes, with the resources they have it's assumed that many times more get through. I know some small shops sell tobacco for cheap under the table.

What I talked about: country A only has a black market, country B has a heavily taxed but legal market.

What you are talking about: country A has a legal and low tax market, while country B has a heavily taxed but legal market.

Apples and oranges fail to compare.

I see similar things, and suggest another quite bad externality: when people realize the law doesn't make sense or look out for their bests interests they quickly come to view it with contempt.

I agree, what you said has literally happened in my Place, Punjab India. Government gets a good chunk of money from 5ax on Alcohol, but at same time the religious beliefs prevent drinking. Politicians promise to curb alcohal sale, come to power, & do nothing because state depends on that tax. Funny reasons of tax like Education Cess on each bottle have been levied to justify alcohal sale.

I knew someone would say this. Full legalization for narcotics for drugs such as; heroin, methamphetamine and even "peaceful" psychedelics will spawn a whole host of problems our society isn't ready to deal with, including; psychiatric, welfare, substance abuse and worst case, the above 1984 situation you mentioned. It's why opiates were partly banned (besides the racist overtones) in the earlier part of the 20th century. If you want to see a historical example, look at China's opium crisis in the 19th century.

Full legalization is not the correct path, full decriminalization, subjective taxing, quality assessment and proper counseling and support is.

The right question to ask is "why am I being put in jail?" -- there is no way to satisfactorily answer such a question in the case of nonviolent drug possession / use.

We don't put people in jail because they drink (impairs the mind). We don't put people in jail because they ski (can kill people instantly). Putting someone in jail is the worst thing a state does to an individual, and an answer of "because we're not sure what will happen if we don't" isn't appropriate.

Read Legalize This: The Case for Decriminalizing Drugs (Practical Ethics Series) by Doug Husak

https://www.amazon.com/Legalize-This-Decriminalizing-Practic...

I fully agree. I was hoping the increasing popularity of nicotine vaporizers would show people just how much money taxes are siphoning off of their alcohol and tobacco purchases. It looks like it is working, especially with marijuana, as people are still incentivized to buy black or grey market goods due to high taxes.

Most of these taxes are called sin taxes, and are higher because of a value judgement the government is making... and should not be making.

Drugs are not gambling. Almost can be addictive.

Drug legalization is about harm reduction for those already addicted. It makes it possible for them to get help for actual problems. Also it makes it less attractive to younger people as it's no longer recognized as "rebelling". AND it cuts off the flow of money to organized crime!

Portugal. Look into the drug situation in Portugal.