Fiscal aspects of soft drugs legalization. Experience from the United States of America
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6069.76.05Keywords:
tax planning, marijuana, Gonzales v. Reich, drug industry, marijuana lawyersAbstract
Over the last few years there has been noticed a change in the approach of the federal administration of the United States of America to the issue of marijuana. There has been done a shift from war absorbing many victims to leaving a decision on legalizing marijuana actually up to the individual states. The Author describes that process, presents controversies caused by a breakthrough judgment in the case of Gonzales v. Reich, analyses a status of lawyers from the drug industry (called “marijuana lawyers”), indicates a tax planning process in the aspect of marijuana trade and shows the scale of gain received by the public structures due to imposing turnover taxes on using marijuana and income taxes on dealers and entities cooperating with them.
Downloads
References
Borden, David. 2013. “Drug Prohibition and Poverty”. The Brown Journal of World Affairs XX (Fall/Winter): 218−243.
Google Scholar
Carcieri, Martin D. 2004. “Gonzales v. Reich: An Opening For Rational Drug Law Reform”. Tennessee Journal of Law & Policy I (3): 307−386.
Google Scholar
Echegaray, Margarita Mercado. 2006. “Drug prohibition in America: Federal drug policy and its consequences”. Revista Juridica University of Puerto Rico 75 (4): 1215−1276.
Google Scholar
Evans, David G. 2013. “The Economic Impacts of Marijuana Legalization”. The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice 7(4): 2−40.
Google Scholar
Gierach, James E. 1993. “An economic attack on illicit drugs”. ABA Journal, May: 94−95.
Google Scholar
Hoffman, Morris B. 2000. “The Drug Court Scandal”. North Carolina Law Review 78: 1437−1534.
Google Scholar
Johnston, David, Neil A. Lewis. 2009. “Obama Administration to Stop Raids on Medical Marijuana Dispensers”. New York Times, March 18.
Google Scholar
Kamin, Sam, Eli Wald. 2013. “Marijuana Lawyers: Outlaws or Crusaders?”. Oregon Law Review 91: 869−932.
Google Scholar
Leff, Benjamin. 2014. “Tax Planning for Marijuana Dealers”. Iowa Law Review 99: 523−569.
Google Scholar
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2226416
Shasnky, Louis C. 2007. “Gonzales v. Reich: Political Safeguards up in smoke?”. De Paul Law Review 56: 759−798.
Google Scholar
Vitiello, Michael. 2009. “Legalizing marijuana: Californiaʼs pot of gold?”. Wisconsin Law Review 6: 1349−1389.
Google Scholar
Yanover, Yori. 2013. “Hezbollah Defending Cannabis Fields Against Rebel Takeover”. Jewish Press, July 21.
Google Scholar
Colorado Constitution.
Google Scholar
Compassionate Use Act, California Health & Safety Code, § 11362.5(d), West Supp. 2006.
Google Scholar
Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. §801 et. Seq.
Google Scholar
Washington Initiative Measure No. 502, July 8, 2011.
Google Scholar
Gonzales v. Reich, 545 U.S. 1. (2005).
Google Scholar
People v. Lauria, 251 Cal. App. 2d 471 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967).
Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. www.census.gov [dostęp 20.04.2015].
Google Scholar
EUROSTAT: ec.europa.eu/eurostat [dostęp 20.04.2015].
Google Scholar
Opinia State Bar of Arizona, Formal Op. 11.01(2011). azbar.org [dostęp 20.04.2015].
Google Scholar
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
