As a Libertarian I agree with your analysis of the economic benefit legalization promises, but, as a Libertarian I oppose most taxation... especially taxation without representation... that's against the law... remember?
And in no way should the criminals responsible for the continuation of the illegal drug war benefit from its end!

It's important to put the drug war in full context... a war fueled by ultra nutty religious types... who in the past have shown the will & zealous desire to kill (by the hundreds of thousands), incarcerate (700k+ annually), and steal (so much they don't keep track) from those that disagree with them.

Combatting the failed religious philosophy of Christianity is going to be a bigger and more dangerous problem for the drug war reformer, because, nothing is more dangerous then religious zealots that know their days are numbered.

Remember, Christians don't think in rational, humanistic, terms... they are operating solely on faith... the sick & insane faith that their superheroes (god & jesus #13) will save their collective souls... and if they've packed properly grant them access to Heaven?

We should STOP looking to our enemies, gov't & religion... those that created the problem, to solve the problem.

Gov't & Religion continues to be the greatest threat to honest men,

Billy B. Blunt
Tacoma, WA

While it's obviously true that lying Nazi scum have stolen our government, it's also true that politicians can't resist a cash cow, a golden goose, or, in this case, money growing on trees, er, cannabis bushes. And while we won't get nearly full benefits by letting government use our tax money, legalizing the marijuana markets is certainly a step towards a sane drug policy - and a big step towards liberty at a time most government action is openly hostile to our liberties.

The cited web site doesn't say how, or how much (i.e., the tax rate) sales would be taxed. That's a problem and I can't sign a petition or support this idea until it is better fleshed out.

I think there is some "fuzzy headed" math logic involved with the notion of "taxing and regulating" cannabis sales which centers on the idea that the surplus value or profit from cannabis production and sales which now goes to supposed "criminals" can simply be shifted to the public fisc for roads, bridges and schools, and everyone wins.

But the reality is not so simple, because a within a year after "legalization" there should be a retail price crash, perhaps of as much as 50 - 75% as the per gram price of cannabis rapidly deflates to that of legal agricultural products like tobacco, strawberries and arugula. So the idea that people will still pay $400/oz. with $200 going to federal and state taxes is a chimera. It won't work that way.

It won't even work like packaged cigarettes whose price has gone up over the past several decades to support sin taxes. I'd argue that perhaps you can soak long addicted ciggie smokers in that "boil the frog" manner, who will grumble and pay $1 more for their fave brand, but from an even start, the black market will continue to beat a legal packaged goods market if the price of the goods is layered with "sin taxes". Even cigarettes seem to have "topped out" the tax potential as bootlegging, counterfeiting and restriction (people quitting altogether because of normal "demand"/price curve effect) have combined to make it unlikely that the sharp tax price increases for ciggies of the past will continue.

I'd argue that the proper tax rate, for reasons of logic, consistency and practicality should be the normal personal property sales tax rates of municipalities that have such a tax (which is not usually applied to pharmetecuticals or food in most places). that's usually in the 5 - 8.25% range. Multiplied against billions of dollars of cannabis sales, that would indeed produce big numbers and satisfy the desires of those who want to practically "tax and regulate" as a means of legalizing and mainstreaming cannabis use.

But I'd refrain from making extravagent claims that would encourage legislators to enact some special tax with a high rate which would not provide a practical alternative to the black market. Keep in mind that the original "tax stamp" legislation of 1937 and similar state "stamp acts" had an artifically high rate to serve as a de facto form of prohibition (i.e., no one would spend say $1000 to get a tax stamp to put on their quarter ounce baggie of pot to make it supposedly legal and insulate them from piling on of a civil tax liability on top of criminal charges, as such "tax stamp" laws are sometimes used).

The previous poster is Right ON. I'll simply grow enough for my own use; therefore I will pay no production tax nor sales tax. This is indeed a chimera. The Feds recognized from the beginning they had no right to restrict the private use of any drugs; they just kept at it until the public accepted their BS. Only the Constitutional prevention of any prohibition, existing or future, will change this egregios affront to personal liberty.

Regardless of whether or not a tax on legalized marijuana would plateau and then drop below a projected $1 billion, the Calif. state and local budgets would realize an incredible savings from costs they now incur to enforce & punish marijuana growth, sales & usage. It would be nice to see the numbers calculated for all Calif. jurisdictions for expenses of law enforcement, the judicial systems and the prison systems. And added onto that should be the economic costs of the disruption to families and employers of those who get caught up in the criminalization system. Eliminating these expenses forgoes the need for that amount in taxes.

How about just doing it because it's the right thing to do? You know, freedom and all.