In twenty US states, those who possess cannabis or other illegal drugs are legally required to purchase and affix state-issued stamps onto his or her contraband. The total cost of the tax is generally determined by the quantity of contraband possessed. Unlike typical criminal statutes prohibiting the possession and sale of controlled substances, drug tax stamp laws primarily assess financial penalties on the defendant for noncompliance. On occasion, criminal sanctions may also be imposed.

Although nearly half of all US states have marijuana tax stamp laws on the books, few citizens observe them. Most individuals are unaware that such laws exist in their state; others fear that complying with it will incriminate their behavior. Because of this widespread noncompliance, drug tax stamps - unlike so-called "sin taxes" on alcohol or tobacco - do not collect state tax revenue at the customer's "point of purchase." Rather, the legislative intent of drug tax laws is to impose an additional penalty - tax evasion - upon drug offenders after they are arrested and criminally charged with a drug violation.

In some states such as Georgia, failure to comply with the state tax law may result in a nominal misdemeanor penalty. However, in other states such as Minnesota, failure to comply with the state's drug tax law may result in a defendant facing an additional fine of up to $14,000 and seven years in jail.

Tax withstood constitutional challenge in 1991 on the grounds of self-incrimination in Briney v. State Department of Revenue, 594 So. 2d 120.

Tax withstood constitutional challenge in 1994 on the grounds of double jeopardy in Milner v. State, 658 So. 2d 500.

For more information, visit: http://www.ct.gov/drs/lib/drs/publications/pubsip/ip99(20.1).pdf

Tax found to violate protection against self-incrimination in State of Idaho v. Smith, 120 Idaho 77. Purchase of stamp must now remain confidential.

Tax found to violate double jeopardy protections in Fassinger v. State, 656 N.E.2d 1163. As a result, tax stamp violations must be processed separately from criminal proceedings.

The lack of due process and the Department of Revenue’s levying of the tax for constructive possession alone were challenged unsuccessfully in Hurst v. Department of Revenue, 720 N.E.2d 370 (Ind. Tax. 1999) and Hall v. Department of Revenue, 720 N.E.2d 1287 (Ind. Tax 1999).

For more information, call the Department of Revenue’s Criminal Investigations Division at (317)232-3360

Withstood constitutional challenge on the grounds of double jeopardy in Kansas v. Gulledge, 257 Kan. 915

For detailed information about the tax, visit: http://www.ksrevenue.org/faqs-abcdrugtax.htm

Withstood constitutional challenge on the grounds of double jeopardy in Kentucky v. Bird, 979 SW 2d 515

Found unconstitutional as double jeopardy in Commissioner of Revenue v. Robert Mullings, 428 Mass. 406; later amended to comply.

Withstood a constitutional attack on the grounds of self-incrimination in Sisson v. Triplett, 428 NW 2d 565.

For more information, visit http://www.state.mn.us/ebranch/mdor/reports/hndbk98.pdf

Withstood constitutional attack on the grounds of self-incrimination in State v. Garza, 242 Neb. 573.

Withstood constitutional attack on the grounds of double jeopardy in State v. Detweiler, 249 Neb. 485.

Found unconstitutional as double jeopardy in Desimone v. Nevada, 966 P.2d 405; later amended to comply.

Found unconstitutional as double jeopardy in Lynn v. West, 134 F.3d 582; later amended.
For more information, visit: http://www.dor.state.nc.us/taxes/usub/substance.html

Withstood constitutional attack on the grounds of double jeopardy in McMullin v. South Carolina Dept. of Revenue, 321 SC 475.

For more information, visit: http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/contr_sub/index.html

Withstood constitutional attack on the grounds of self-incrimination in State v. Davis, 787 P.2d 517

Found unconstitutional as a violation of double jeopardy in Brunner v. Collection Division of Utah State Tax Commission, 945 P.2d 687; later amended.