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

[President Tyrion]

Question: I see no reference to driving under the influence of these drugs. Are DUI laws currently malleable enough to include these new substances? I suggest we create a subcategorization of drugs (oh gawd, a schedule system), and make sure that certain psychoactive drugs without the potential for abuse (like shrooms), are legal but prevent you from being able to drive or operate heavy machinery. Since bans already exist, we could just state that driving under the influence of any drug in that subsection is illegal, be it alcohol, marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, etc.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[President Tyrion]

I would support a flat 30% excise rate, lest we have to define what a "tab" is in legalese.

[President Tyrion]

Question: I see no reference to driving under the influence of these drugs. Are DUI laws currently malleable enough to include these new substances? I suggest we create a subcategorization of drugs (oh gawd, a schedule system), and make sure that certain psychoactive drugs without the potential for abuse (like shrooms), are legal but prevent you from being able to drive or operate heavy machinery. Since bans already exist, we could just state that driving under the influence of any drug in that subsection is illegal, be it alcohol, marijuana, psilocybin mushrooms, etc.

I'd like to see my concerns addressed. I do not think we can move forward with any sort of legalization effort without responding to the DUI issue.

Also, perhaps we could be a little tighter on the taxation issue.

[President Tyrion]

Keep the heavy tax. I do think the DUI issue needs to be addressed as well. I have no idea how though. I am no expert on these drugs.

I should probably clarify. By tighter, I meant we should probably find some consistent tax/serving and work from there.

[President Tyrion]

I'll sponsor the amendment for dallasfan.

[President Tyrion]

Objection to the motion for a final vote. I'm going to add some DUI stuff.

[President Tyrion]

I'm going to assume this is the current text:
Section 1 Clause 1 and Section 3 Clause 1 weren't right in the Yankee version, because we're decriminalizing hard drugs and legalizing soft drugs, not just decriminalizing soft drugs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[President Tyrion]

This is all one amendment. I split it up to show where they would go. The penalties are in line with FL 33-12 which defined the penalties for DUIs, but we can discuss whether or not we want to make the penalties harsher or more lenient. A more thorough legislature might go through every drug and determine what acceptable levels would be, but, in the absence of such knowledge in both the real world and in Atlasia, we can punt the issue a bit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[President Tyrion]

Aye