So when the State of Colorado passed a Constitutional Amendment allowing them to legalize the sale of weed, snack vendors and pot heads throughout the state rejoiced. Apparently some of those people selling the weed though, are none to happy about the 29% state and local tax that came with it.
Honestly when I first saw the story on Foxnews.com, before reading it, I chuckled. What, did they think there would be no tax? Then I read the story and it somewhat makes sense. They believe that filing the taxes that are specific to the weed industry, they would be opening themselves up to federal prosecution. On top of that to me 29% seems rather... drastic.
Now I could care less if they smoke weed or not. I could really care less if they legalize it or not. However, I couldn't sleep with myself if I didn't make that whole 10th Amendment argument. See the State of Colorado decided they wanted legal weed, and since no where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the Federal Government is responsible for drug enforcement, I tend to side with Colorado.
The argument made by Tom Gorman head of the Federal drug task force makes an interesting point. If the U.S. Government accepts taxes from an illegal enterprise and uses the money it is essentially money laundering and the government is violating its own laws(not that it doesn't every other day). He then goes on to say that Congress should decide it, not state by state.
Well there Mr. Gorman let me explain something to you. The Federal government was not designed to make such decisions. Since it was not specifically listed in the Constitution, the framers saw the states as individual labratories of democracy. Let them try things. If it works great, if not, they can fix it. It is alot easier to fix a screw up at a state level than ever getting anything fixed in D.C. even though 90% of what they do is FUBAR.