Tennessee lawmakers seek to revive 'crack tax'

[TMMT]

Tennessee lawmakers seek to revive 'crack tax'

Tenn. lawmakers seek to revive 'crack tax' - WKRN, Nashville, Tennessee News, Weather, and Sports |

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - Tennessee lawmakers are trying to revive a state law taxing illegal drugs that was declared unconstitutional last year.

The measure sponsored by Democratic Rep. Charles Curtiss of Sparta and Republican Sen. Randy McNally of Oak Ridge would rewrite the law known as the "crack tax" to specifically target drug dealers.

Tennessee's drug tax took effect in 2005 and generated more than $10 million for the state. It required people to buy tax stamps for illegal drugs and liquor, just as wholesalers must buy for cigarettes.

People caught with illegal drugs or alcohol that didn't bear the special tax stamps faced losing their property.

The state Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional last year because it exceeded the state's taxing authority.

Read SB3134 at: Tennessee General Assembly Main Page

[TMMT]

Okay... while I'm all for locking up hardcore drug users and those who traffic in dope, this bothers me.

It bothers me because it gives you a good look into the logic process (or lack there of) of our elected officials.

And these are the same folks writing the guns laws... God help us all.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's about as silly as one can get. So, how do they enforce something as stupid as this? A criminal could care less about taxes.

What are they going to use to enforce this? Seizure and forfeiture laws? I'd take the criminal's side if that's the case.

But, then Obama's healthcare bill will tax tampons and condoms,

what else...

[macville]

Here's the key to this:

People caught with illegal drugs or alcohol that didn't bear the special tax stamps faced losing their property.

Basically, what they want to do is make it legal to take ALL property from drug dealers--which right now is very hard. Yes, at surface level it seems stupid, but it seems to make sense when you look at it. We get money from them when they are being honest (not getting much I would bet) or we get all their stuff when they get caught. Seems good to me!

Matthew

[Guest m&pc9]

I wonder what they would do if someone wanted to buy one.

[Chucktshoes]

I wonder what they would do if someone wanted to buy one.

Not sell it to them. I'd imagine that is how it works, That is the route in which pot was first criminalized. Had to buy a tax stamp which the .gov wouldn't sell.

[DaveTN]

I’m not sure I understand. They are going to seize the illegal property anyway, so I assume you are talking about the drug dealer’s private property?

It has never been a problem for most departments. If a guy sells drugs out of his house or makes his house payments with drug proceeds his house is gone, same with cars and anything else. Any vehicles used in the transportation of illegal drugs are gone; what’s the problem?

[macville]

I’m not sure I understand. They are going to seize the illegal property anyway, so I assume you are talking about the drug dealer’s private property?

It has never been a problem for most departments. If a guy sells drugs out of his house or makes his house payments with drug proceeds his house is gone, same with cars and anything else. Any vehicles used in the transportation of illegal drugs are gone; what’s the problem?

I think it's to make sure they can easily seize all property. What you said above basically only had to do with things that were used in the crime. What if the dealer had a cabin, or stocks, or what have you also that he bought with the drug money. I don't think they can seize that easily. This, I believe, would solve that. Of course, do we want the gov to be able to seize stuff that was bought with legally made money? I think it's fair to seize anything bought with drug money, but if they can't prove it was with illegal money, I don't think they should be able to take it. But that's just because they gov has shown me that they can't be trusted again and again and again (like maybe the current situation where some states are holding back on the income tax refunds they owe people....)

Matthew

[DaveTN]

I think it's to make sure they can easily seize all property. What you said above basically only had to do with things that were used in the crime. What if the dealer had a cabin, or stocks, or what have you also that he bought with the drug money. I don't think they can seize that easily. This, I believe, would solve that. Of course, do we want the gov to be able to seize stuff that was bought with legally made money? I think it's fair to seize anything bought with drug money, but if they can't prove it was with illegal money, I don't think they should be able to take it. But that's just because they gov has shown me that they can't be trusted again and again and again (like maybe the current situation where some states are holding back on the income tax refunds they owe people....)

Matthew

I believe that it should require a conviction in court. Once that happens unless they can prove the property came from something besides drug money; it’s gone, all of it.

Americans are losing jobs at an alarming rate which is causing the government to require more taxes from those that are left working. I’m supposed to worry about what they take from a criminal? I don’t think so… take all their stuff.

Every dollar they take from them is one less dollar they will need from me.

[macville]

I believe that it should require a conviction in court. Once that happens unless they can prove the property came from something besides drug money; it’s gone, all of it.

Americans are losing jobs at an alarming rate which is causing the government to require more taxes from those that are left working. I’m supposed to worry about what they take from a criminal? I don’t think so… take all their stuff.

Every dollar they take from them is one less dollar they will need from me.

I agree with you that it would be nice to basically have their entire life seized. However, do you trust the gov to always be honest when applying the law? What happens when they decide to expand the law to other criminals? What happens when decide to take property for something as simple as a speeding ticket? Considering many states/cities are giving out red light tickets without confirming the driver (I was a victim of that), I just don't trust them that much.

Matthew

[TMMT]

I’m not sure I understand. They are going to seize the illegal property anyway, so I assume you are talking about the drug dealer’s private property?

It has never been a problem for most departments. If a guy sells drugs out of his house or makes his house payments with drug proceeds his house is gone, same with cars and anything else. Any vehicles used in the transportation of illegal drugs are gone; what’s the problem?

Well you premise is in the ballpark but in detail its not quite that simple.

To seize a house it must be first paid for, must be in the name of the dealer or a bona fide conspirator and it must be free of tax liens. The house must be an instrument of the operation, storage, sale or purchased from profits directly tied to drug money. There are limits to the degrees of separation the courts will allow here.

Cars are under similar rules.

This is why Dopers love rental cars and rental properties. Unless the police can prove the rental car company or property owner knew of and took part in the crime and the property is not subject to any mortgage, finance or tax liens its not a seizable property.

[Chief07]

Ok. I never heard of this before. I thought it was a law making the kids pull their pants up.

I must be getting old.