Taxing the Sales of Illegal Drugs

Contrary to occasional opinion, taxes are not designed for the purpose of annoying citizens by the government withdrawing hard-earned money from people's wallets-- they serve a legitimate purpose in funding public education, highway construction and maintenance, and the protection from police and fire departments. These taxes are implemented in the form of state and local sales taxes, the annual income taxes which most people are readily familiar with-- and, what many may not be as aware of, a number of states which tax the sale of illegal drugs.

"Drug stamp taxes aren't new. But Iowa is making a killing on them. They've added some new twists, and are raking in the dough... Iowa law taxes all illegal drugs - from marijuana to cocaine. The state issues stamps, which vary in cost and color according to the drug, to be affixed to the drug to show the tax has been paid. The stamps cost $5 a gram for marijuana, $750 per marijuana plant, $250 a gram for other drugs and $400 per 10 doses of drugs that come in tablet form, such as ecstasy. The minimum charge is $215. 23 other states have a drug stamp tax but have not figured out how to implement it, without running into a problem with the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. In Iowa, it's not an issue: the purchasers of the stamps remain anonymous." (1) While some of these other states have been striking down this tax as being "unconstitutional," Iowa remains a hold-out, using "anonymity" as the factor to override such claims.

Taxes are generally imposed on citizens for a legitimate purpose. Requiring drug dealers to pay taxes on their sales of illegal drugs gives cause to wonder what the message is in this, what the state is attempting to accomplish, and its repercussions. As taxes are necessary for various state needs, and boost the state's economy, is placing drug dealers in the same category as law-abiding citizens for this purpose really worth the consequences? In needing such "anonymity" to protect dealers from any proported violation of their constitutional rights, and the purchasing of these drug stamps being a guarantee that they will not be turned in to law enforcement officials, it would appear that the state gaining money contributes to these dealers being able to freely and safely continue their illegal activity. Does the state of Iowa truly believe that gaining such monetary compensation is a higher priority than actually attempting to eradicate the sales of illegal drugs? Considering the outrageously high crime rate in the state of Iowa, and the fact that a large percentage of it is in one way or another drug-related, it would make much more sense to place eliminating the sales of illegal drugs as a higher priority than the state's financial gain from it. If one takes this a bit further, one might be tempted to wonder if one of the main reasons the state of Iowa does not take its drug problem as seriously as it should is perhaps it sees generating revenue from this type of illegal activity as more important than creating a safer and less crime-ridden environment for its citizens. Perhaps the state of Iowa needs to reassess its priorities.

(1)