The potential tax revenue of legalising drugs in the UK

[removeduser_487563287433]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A total of £5bn in revenue. This does not include:

An extra £1.8bn in tax
An extra £0.3bn in VAT
A saving of £1.7bn in societal costs
An extra £1bn in income tax from drug industry workers
An extra £0.5bn in inflation adjustment

And a cost of £0.3bn in additional societal costs.

The 5bn figure would fully plug the shortfall in university funding for 2012. It would be 4bn under Government income from alcohol, one of the more dangerous and addictive drugs. It would be 5bn under the Government's income from tobacco.

Now, I wouldn't advocate legalising heroin for pretty obvious reasons, but when looking at the bottom line and the success of societies such as the Netherlands, is there any rational reason for keeping drugs illegal?

[Enemy of the State]

THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

[intel]

Heroin, amphetamine and crack legalised? This is madness.

cute <3

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

I've always wanted to see this in Australia. Regardless of whether they're legal or not the people stupid enough to abuse them will abuse them. Might as well make a buck out of it for the public.

[Big War Bird]

If revenue is what we care about why all the effort put into stopping people from smoking? It seems if anything the government should be encouraging it.

You know what else would be a good idea? Exporting opium.

[Rolling Thunder]

If revenue is what we care about way all the effort put into stopping people from smoking? It seems if anything the government should be encouraging it.

You know what else would be a good idea? Exporting opium.

Yes, it would, alas, I fear Britain does not have the warm climate required for the large-scale growing of opium poppies, so that excellent idea will have to be discarded as an amusing attempt at some kind of strawman.

[Big War Bird]

Yes, it would, alas, I fear Britain does not have the warm climate required for the large-scale growing of opium poppies, so that excellent idea will have to be discarded as an amusing attempt at some kind of strawman.

IIRC, Britain has an army camped in the most prolific opium growing country in the world right now.

The UKs has an excellent opportunity to breakawy from the orbit of the US and become the world's first democratic narco state.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

Prohibition has failed, everywhere.

The drugs trade exists and cannot be controlled or prevented in a free society. Nowhere has succeeded in suppressing the trade. No matter how draconian. Surely a law which millions disobey each and every weekend brings that law into disrepute? and gifts huge sums of money to gangsters who fight over the profits.

I cannot see how removing the gangsters profits at a stroke and redeplying the resources wasted on the "war against drugs" can be anything other than a no-brainer.

[Big War Bird]

Prohibition has failed, everywhere.

The drugs trade exists and cannot be controlled or prevented in a free society. Nowhere has succeeded in suppressing the trade. No matter how draconian. Surely a law which millions disobey each and every weekend brings that law into disrepute? and gifts huge sums of money to gangsters who fight over the profits.

I cannot see how removing the gangsters profits at a stroke and redeplying the resources wasted on the "war against drugs" can be anything other than a no-brainer.

The high taxes on cigarettes has sparked a global cigarette smuggling operation just to avoid the taxes. So imagining that legalizing and taxing drugs will eliminate criminal trafficking is a bit of a folly.

[removeduser_487563287433]

If revenue is what we care about why all the effort put into stopping people from smoking? It seems if anything the government should be encouraging it.

You know what else would be a good idea? Exporting opium.

As a socialist you wouldn't understand, but some of us want small Government and Freedom.

[Desperado †]

As a socialist you wouldn't understand, but some of us want small Government and Freedom.

Nice job implying that all socialists want big governments.

[Rolling Thunder]

Nice job implying that all socialists want big governments.

Did you're sense of irony not pick up on the essence of Ferrets' statement?

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Nice job implying that all socialists want big governments.

by definition socialism mandates public ownership of the entire economy, which is the ultimate big government.

[Desperado †]

by definition socialism mandates public ownership of the entire economy, which is the ultimate big government.

You're not too good with definitions. It advocates ownership by the workers, which isn't at all necessarily big government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_control

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The answer is obviously no reason at all. Except if you consider propaganda and the need to keep the "War on Drugs" paper pushers well fed and well paid.

[Helm]

We would lose more money in the long term from crime, ill health, mass debts, and loss of work force productivity. Alcohol and tobacco probably do enough damage.

[Azog 150]

We would lose more money in the long term from crime, ill health, mass debts, and loss of work force productivity. Alcohol and tobacco probably do enough damage.

How? Absolutely no evidence to suggest that drug use would increase in any meaningful way (In fact, there is only evidence to suggest the opposite), and if anything the cost of crime would decrease. At the moment we are already paying for drug related crime, drug related ill health, 'loss of work productivity', rehab and putting drug addicts behind bars, on top of the costs of trying to crack down on drugs.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

We would lose more money in the long term from crime, ill health, mass debts, and loss of work force productivity. Alcohol and tobacco probably do enough damage.

Rubbish!

Some, perhaps most of the serious health problems of drug use are caused by illegality. No-one is going to pretend that weed is actually good for you, but most users remain productive members of society. Cocaine use is widespread in the professions. Many people remain occasional users. Heroin users, if they use clean needles and have a supply of quality drugs can remain productive members of society. They tend to remain less visible than the smack whores who remain the public image of heroin use.

10 - 20 years ago, hundreds of thousands of young people in the UK, including me, would go out every weekend, pop a couple of pills, maybe have some spliffs, and dance all night at a rave or in a club. On monday morning, we would all return to our 9-5 jobs. No harm done.

[removeduser_487563287433]

We would lose more money in the long term from crime, ill health, mass debts, and loss of work force productivity.

Source?

[Helm]

If a drug became legal companies would manufacture and advertise it as a prouct and more people would use it as a result. In the case of expensive addictive drugs you'll have a rise in crime in the lower classes, the people who don't have the money for regular fix. There may also be an rise in the use of currently legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco which would hve a negative impact as well, regardless of the tax revenue they bring in. What you ideally want to do is encourage people to quit smoking and drink responsibly rather than encourage mass hedonistic indulgence. Sometimes you have to ruin peoples fun for their own good.