Cannabis, gambling, and tobacco taxes

Question A: Increasing taxes on cannabis, gambling, and tobacco will reduce negative externalities stemming from their respective markets.

Question B: Increasing taxes on cannabis, gambling, and tobacco will disproportionately harm low-income households.

Question A: Increasing taxes on cannabis, gambling, and tobacco will reduce negative externalities stemming from their respective markets.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Strongly Agree	9	My only caveat is that excessively high taxes can shift the industry towards illegal organized crime who are able to escape the tax and that can cause worse externalities than a legal, regulated industry, but many states already have effective cigarette tax rates exceeding 100%, so 40% should be doable unless our criminal justice system is much less effective than in other states.
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Agree	4
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Strongly Agree	10
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Strongly Agree	10	It is vital to have higher taxes on cannabis, gambling, and tobacco to increase the chances the consumers of these products are recreational users, as they all intend to be initially. However, some become addicted and regret it. The higher taxes will reduce addiction problems later. Two ways to improve this policy: include alcohol. Why are higher state alcohol taxes not included when many health experts say alcohol is more addictive and harmful then cannabis? Second, why use gambling tax revenue to fund pro sports stadiums? For profit pro sports teams can fund their own stadiums. If a pro team wants public dollars then they should be a public team like Green Bay. Using some gambling revenue for youth sports seems o.k. if it is for high quality low-cost recreational leagues that expands youth sports access--not high cost youth "travel teams".
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Agree	9
Vinnie Gajjala	Tiffin Univeristy	Agree	8
Will Georgic	Ohio Wesleyan University	Agree	10	The only consideration that keeps me from "strongly agreeing" with this statement is if the taxes are high enough to push this type of consumption into unregulated markets. We will certainly see a reduction in legal cannabis consumption, legal gambling, and tobacco consumption relative to what would be observed without the tax increase. The only question is whether consumers will break the law to avoid these taxes.
Bob Gitter	Ohio Wesleyan University	Strongly Agree	9	Ohio cigarette taxes in Ashtabula County are much lower than in nearby PA and NY and the problems due to alcohol much greater.
Nancy Haskell	University of Dayton	Agree	9
Christian Imboden	Bowling Green State University	Agree	6	If statutory tax rates get too high, buyers may seek underground markets, which may come with worse externalities.
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Strongly Agree	8
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Disagree	9	Negative externality will not be reduced if neighboring states have significantly lower excise taxes. Ohio consumers will buy from out of state.
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Agree	2	The question is the amount. Yes, I think these taxes (sin taxes) can reduce negative externalities but it will not be a large amount. Certainly tobacco, but I would also predict cannabis and gambling, are likely to be inelastically demanded (customers will still buy at higher prices) so we will not get much reduction in consumption. Tobacco is addictive and individuals can always switch to the illegal market for cannabis and gambling to avoid the taxes if they are too high. Additionally, the tax revenue raised is not being to offset the negative externalities.
Kay Strong	Independent	Uncertain	9	These products have low price elasticity of demand. Raising their "price" will have a small effect on reducing demand but a large revenue return for government.
Albert Sumell	Youngstown State University	Agree	8
Andy Welki	John Carroll University	Agree	8
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Agree	5	Increasing the tax will reduce the behavior (and thereby reduce the negative externalities). How much of an effect the tax has depends on the how price sensitive consumers are when it comes to cannabis, gambling, and tobacco. It is important to keep in mind, though, that economic theory also says that a tax can be too high (if it is higher than the marginal negative externality) and result in less well-being in society.

Question B: Increasing taxes on cannabis, gambling, and tobacco will disproportionately harm low-income households.

Economist	Institution	Opinion	Confidence	Comment
Jonathan Andreas	Bluffton University	Disagree	5	In the short-run it will harm them, but not in the long-run. Lower income households pay more of the burden of the tax, but they also pay a much higher burden from the problems of excessive drugs and gambling. They also have the most elastic long-run demand, so they are also the most likely to benefit from the new incentive to moderate their use. Because they will be forced to cut back on the quantity of drugs and gambling, in the long run they will probably not pay more income towards drugs and gambling despite the higher price as the higher price will be offset by a reduction in the quantity they use and that will give a net benefit. But the financial burden is likely to be a net harm for addicts in the short run before they are forced into their new long-run equilibrium level of consumption.
David Brasington	University of Cincinnati	Agree	8
Ron Cheung	Oberlin College	Agree	8
Kevin Egan	University of Toledo	Strongly Disagree	10	It is unavoidable that all sales taxes are "regressive" as lower income households spend more of their income buying what they need and want. It is still efficient to tax more the harmful "want" items such as gambling, consuming cannabis, tobacco (and alcohol) and then the state could choose to use part of the new extra tax revenue to help lower income citizens with their needs, especially lower income households with children. I agree with the Governor emphasizing the need to assist child development as all children are future workers. The extra tax revenue can fund high quality pre-natal care, child care, pre-school, and beyond.
Kenneth Fah	Ohio Dominican University	Uncertain	5
Vinnie Gajjala	Tiffin Univeristy	Agree	9
Will Georgic	Ohio Wesleyan University	Disagree	10	"Harm" is not only defined by relative tax burden. By discouraging behaviors that have deleterious social and familial impacts, these tax increases could disproportionately BENEFIT low-income households. Again, I am slightly concerned about incentivizing consumption in unregulated markets or illegal tax avoidance, but in general, making gambling and tobacco use less attractive on the margin should be a net benefit for lower-income households.
Bob Gitter	Ohio Wesleyan University	Uncertain	5	Low-income households will pay more of the taxes but will gain from reduced alcohol and tobacco consumption.
Nancy Haskell	University of Dayton	Agree	6
Christian Imboden	Bowling Green State University	Agree	6	If by "harm" we mean put stress on household budgets, then yes, as we know smoking is more common in lower income households. But in response to higher taxes, users may reduce uptake of these products or not become addicted in the first place, so the dynamics are complicated.
Michael Jones	University of Cincinnati	Strongly Disagree	8	Increasing taxes on cannabis and tobacco will reduce the overall usage of these products among low-income households. Individuals who eliminate tobacco use see significantly better health outcomes and quality of life.
Charles Kroncke	Mount Saint Joseph University	Strongly Agree	9	Unfortunately, lower income households spend a larger proportion of their income on these items.
Curtis Reynolds	Kent State University	Agree	8	This is much clearer. Sin taxes (like these) tend to be regressive, meaning that lower income households pay are larger percent of their income in these taxes and higher income households spend a smaller percent of their income in these taxes. So it is a higher tax burden on low income families. If lower income families are more likely to consume these (I don't know for sure) then that would make this worse.
Kay Strong	Independent	Disagree	9	Use of these products are not disproportionately used but low income households especially cannabis and gambling.
Albert Sumell	Youngstown State University	Disagree	9	The impact of increased taxes on externalities and on low-income households depends to a large extent on how the tax revenue is used. If the funds to reduce addiction and harm associated cannabis, gambling, and tobacco then the taxes in can have a significant positive impact; if used as general funds, then the impact of the taxes would be ambiguous.
Andy Welki	John Carroll University	Agree	8
Kathryn Wilson	Kent State University	Agree	5