kissaneonline.com
Death and Taxes

This archive piece fits into our theme of forfeiture run amok. The Kansas state code requires its drug dealers to affix tax stamps to their illegal drugs or face tax penalties. Kyle Smith, spokesman for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation explains how this works.

"....bring the power of the tax code into the drug war and say you have to have these drug tax stamps and if you don't have them you owe taxes," Smith said. "To pay off taxes they can go after property that would be exempt during forfeiture. Forfeiture deals with property that is proceeds of drug or other criminal activity or is used to facilitate that activity, like the car used to deliver the dope. Taxes aren't bound by that. If you owe taxes, they don't care whether that car had anything to do with the activity that created the tax lien. They can go after that car."

He justifies breaching the limits of the forfeiture law and thus leaving the convicted person's family without a home, vehicle and presumably anything else of value they possess, by noting the alleged benefit to the state.

"They possess these drugs with the intent to sell them and they sell them illegally without any (state) revenue coming from it. So the idea of the drug tax stamp is to try and make up for that lost tax that isn't generated because they are illegally selling substances."

Of course, the narco-cops don't really care. Their departments are reaping the benefits and the taxpayer is the one footing the bill at the expense of other essential city services.

Three-quarters of the money goes to the local law enforcement agency while 25 percent goes to the state general fund.

The prohibition profiteers want it both ways -- to tax it and keep it illegal. They ignore the implication of the tax only being collected after an arrest so any funds realized are immediately spent on incarceration costs for the inmate and social services for the now bereft family. The profiteers know it is the collection of reasonable taxes on drugs in a legal and regulated market that would enrich the state coffers -- rather than just enhancing their narco department budgets. They are unlikely to tell you because:

"....the money goes to pay for extra things that the agency couldn't normally afford. "

"It's not supposed to go for things the agency is supposed to have anyway," he said. "They can't pay for their regular personnel with it. It has to go for something to fight crime in general or drug crimes. In the past it has been a really good tool in terms of providing additional assets for agencies to fight drug crimes with."

Like $40,000 SUVs for their undercover agents to use when they're pretending to be drug dealers (and that they probably get to take home). The obvious temptation to make dicey stops and illegal seizures is just too great to allow this conflict of interest to go on.

If our government wants to continue to use forfeiture as a law enforcement tool, then those who make the seizures cannot be the ones to get the money. As it stands now, it's little more than a legalized kickback scheme.