Do you believe a 25% tax promotes the black market?

Only a marginal one.

My state imposes a retail markup (not a tax, merely a fixed mark up) on alcohol and cigarettes.. 50% for wine, 25% percent for beer. Yet the amount of bootlegging in the state is negligible.

Why?

People like being able to go to the store and buy a known, quality product, rather than a product of unknown value from a man who might just rob you. Black market sales, while safer than one time, will still be prosecuted, just as cigarettes without tax stamps are. Given the nature of an illegal business, illegal dealers will still find themselves in "dry spots" and will find that their clientele of bargain hunters will evaporate. As for the nature of dealers, most people, including William S Burroughs,Irvine Welsh and H.S. Thompson, all drug imbibers, will admit that they frequently have had to tolerate loathsome and vile individuals because they were their dealer. That they've at least had to blow hours "waiting for the man" to arrive with their drugs. The average consumer will gladly go tot the Kwikimart and by a pack of Acapulco Golds from Sanjay, rather than spend three hours waiting for some guy to show up and sell them a product as likely to be ditch weed as Northern lights.

So while I wouldn't be surprised if the same guy who currently sells me artisan tomatoes at the Farmer's market will also be selling marijuana, I would be surprised if he isn't willingly collecting and paying any tax which is levied upon it.

Your study claims that taxing apples, means people will buy oranges.

If it were some other substance, than I would say no. But with weed having an already established black market, I'd say that they were encouraging it.

I guess there would be a black market for anything if a 25% tax was created.

It could, depending on how much it costs without the tax. If the price for legal exceeds the price for illegal b a significant amount illegal can compete.

My vision for MJ legalization would eliminate the incentive to sell it. Just let people grow their own without hassles. Pot would be as cheap as tomatoes.

Yes, it is to keep the big growers operating, continuing the black market that existed before legalization. Government protecting the .01%ers who control the market!

It isn't the little guy who is running it!

Well let's do some simple economics here. If an ounce of weed costs $150 + tax, that's 187.50. If I get the ounce for $150 on the street, I keep $37.50 in my pocket. Which choice shall I make?

No. Compare manufacturing costs and you will get the picture.

EDIT: Exactly my point. A 25% tax on hard liquor manufacturing is oppressive. On pot not so.

I purely flow by utilising the man who wrote the structure: "The coverage of the yank authorities is to flow away their voters loose, neither restraining nor assisting them of their hobbies. " "I are expecting destiny happiness for individuals in the event that they are in a position to ward off the authorities from losing the labors of the human beings less than the pretense of looking after them." "No man has a organic true to dedicate aggression at the equal rights of yet another, and it fairly is all from which the regulations may want to restrain him" Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Vote Republican

It do promote black market to some extent, but many will still buy legal just because it will be legal, but any more and it will definatly lose legal customers

L

No... it would encourage people to grow their own... but that isn't a black market... that's a green market.

think big brother was tough when you had a bag of pot? see what he does when you're cutting into HIS money.