MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3043323793 · doi:10.3138/cpp.2019-062

The Tax Consequences of Legal Cannabis

2020· article· en· W3043323793 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ian Irvine, Miles K. Light

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Public Policy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExciseEconomicsTax revenueAd valorem taxValue-added taxIndirect taxTax reformLegalizationPublic economicsRevenueMonetary economicsMicroeconomicsBusinessFinanceMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore the tax revenue consequences of legalizing recreational cannabis in Canada. We build, calibrate, and simulate a two-level nested demand model in which legal and illegal cannabis are differentiated products and that incorporates econometric estimates of critical parameters. First, we find that sales tax and excise tax revenues accruing from legalization may be fully offset by declines in revenues from alcohol and tobacco. Second, and in contrast to excise and sales tax revenue, new revenue will accrue from personal income and corporate profits taxes. Using some available information on the wage structure of cannabis-producing corporations and imposing a Pareto distribution on incomes within the industry, we obtain an estimate of personal income tax revenues. To compute corporate profits tax revenue, we use priors on labour and capital shares and simulate the results of assumptions of debt leverage. We also estimate the private dollar value of legalization to individuals using a utility function approach. Per user, our results suggest a value roughly equal to $500 per annum. The results of this study may carry over to high-sin-tax economies contemplating legalization.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Public PolicySame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207