I think the arguments against consumption tax are generally well known. It is regressive in that the less you earn the higher a share of your income you will pay in consumption taxes.
Technically, it is a flat amount because it stays the same rate with higher taxable income. But I've already discussed how consumption taxes are used for income redistribution and social welfare programs. One example is Canada's GST/HST credit:
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...-tax-harmonized-sales-tax-gst-hst-credit.html
But you can still prevent the "regressive" effect by exempting things like clothing, food, medicine, education, such that the tax only applies on luxury and business activities.
If the argument is "increase the income tax" that argument doesn't work where:
1) You literally cannot replace a consumption tax with a tax on income because the consumption taxpayers are not income taxpayers (they may be tourists, commuters)
2) The government cannot impose such an income tax (a city may not be allowed to impose an income tax, a state may not impose an income tax).
3) Income is easily shifted to avoid tax (corporate income tax).
Is your argument that the marijuana legalization should have been coupled with an income tax increase to raise this $500 million, instead of the consumption tax?