THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL 30 | AUGUST 2026 Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. dramatically increased after the passage of SQ 780 in November 2016 and the effective date of the law in June 2017. THE TAX STAMP EXPLOSION: TWO HYPOTHESES What explains this proliferation of tax stamp charges? One possible hypothesis is that the increase in tax stamp charges was a response to an increased number of tax stamp offenses. However, this public safety hypothesis is not credible. First, any case that could be charged as the felony of tax stamp could instead be charged as simple possession (a misdemeanor), and most such cases could also be charged as PWID (a felony). Second, if filing tax stamp charges were a good way to protect public safety, then we would expect that law enforcement officials would have filed such charges prior to the passage of State Question 780. Moreover, as noted below, an audit study of tax stamp charges in one high-filing county indicates that few people convicted of a tax stamp charge serve any period of incarceration on that charge. Another possible explanation is the substitution hypothesis: perhaps prosecutors filed felony tax stamp charges in cases where they might have filed charges for the felony of simple possession prior to 2017, but were precluded from doing so by SQ 780. On this substitution hypothesis, filing tax stamp charges would provide a backdoor way of felonizing simple possession, one that allows prosecutors to exercise “compassionate leverage”10 by charging low-level drug offenders with felonies. If the substitution hypothesis is correct, then one would expect to see many cases in which the tax stamp charge was the most serious charge filed. The revenue generation hypothesis provides another possible explanation for the pattern of tax stamp charges. On this hypothesis, tax stamp charges are primarily mechanisms for generating revenue from legal- financial obligations associated with filing and conviction. If this hypothesis were true, then we would expect tax stamp charges to be filed in cases where more serious drug charges were filed – for example, PWID, trafficking in drugs, or manufacturing, each of which carries a higher penalty on a first offense than does tax stamp. Defendants charged with tax stamp violations would routinely be convicted of these charges in plea deals but rarely serve any distinctive sentence for the tax stamp charge. Rather, any sentence for tax stamp offense would be served concurrently to the more-serious drug charge and expire before the culmination of the sentence for that more-serious charge. Moreover, if the goal of filing tax stamp charges is to generate revenue, then we would expect that the legal-financial obligations associated with tax stamp charges would rarely be waived or reduced. Another possible explanation is the substitution hypothesis: perhaps prosecutors filed felony tax stamp charges in cases where they might have filed charges for the felony of simple possession prior to 2017, but were precluded from doing so by SQ 780.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==