The price of legalizing pot is too high
ridenrain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:04 pm
$1:
The price of legalizing pot is too high
Deterrence is preferable to encouraging marijuana use, which would follow alcohol and tobacco in soaring costs to society.
By Kevin A. Sabet
June 7, 2009
Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger reignited a heated debate when he called for a civilized discussion on the merits of marijuana legalization. Indeed, the governor was responding to new public opinion polls showing greater interest in the policy idea -- and with the mounting problems associated with the drug trade in Mexico and here at home, it is hard to blame anyone for suggesting that we at least consider all potential policy solutions.
One major justification for legalization remains tempting: the money. Unfortunately, however, the financial costs of marijuana legalization would never outweigh its benefits. Yes, the marijuana market seems like an attractive target for taxation -- Abt Associates, a research firm, estimates that the industry is worth roughly $10 billion a year -- and California could certainly use a chunk of that cash to offset its budget woes in the current economic climate.
What is rarely discussed, however, is that the likely increase in marijuana prevalence resulting from legalization would probably increase the already high costs of marijuana use in society. Accidents would increase, healthcare costs would rise and productivity would suffer. Legal alcohol serves as a good example: The $8 billion in tax revenue generated from that widely used drug does little to offset the nearly $200 billion in social costs attributed to its use.
In fact, both of our two already legal drugs -- alcohol and tobacco -- offer chilling illustrations of how an open market fuels greater harms. They are cheap and easy to obtain. Commercialization glamorizes their use and furthers their social acceptance. High profits make aggressive marketing worthwhile for sellers. Addiction is simply the price of doing business.
Would marijuana use rise in a legal market for the drug? Admittedly, marijuana is not very difficult to obtain currently, but a legal market would make getting the drug that much easier. Tobacco and alcohol are used regularly by 30% and 65% of the population, respectively, while all illegal drugs combined are used by about 6% of Americans. In the Netherlands, where marijuana is de facto legalized, lifetime use "increased consistently and sharply" after this policy shift triggered commercialization, tripling among young adults, according to data analysis from the Rand Corp. We might expect a similar or worse result here in America's ad-driven culture.
An honest debate on marijuana policy also carefully considers the costs of our current approach. Arrest rates for marijuana are relatively high, reaching about 800,000 last year. Though these numbers are technically recorded under the category of "possession," the story that is seldom told is that hardly any of these possession arrests result in jail time (that is why former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani made headlines when he aggressively arrested public marijuana users and detained them for 12 to 24 hours in the 1990s).
One of the most astute minds in the field of drug policy, Carnegie Mellon's Jonathan Caulkins, formerly the co-director of Rand's drug policy research center, found that more than 85% of people in prison for all drug-law violations were clearly involved in drug distribution, and that the records of most of the remaining prisoners had at least some suggestion of distribution involvement (many prisoners plea down from more serious charges to possession in exchange for information about the drug trade). Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession, he found. He noted that this figure was consistent with other mainstream estimates but not with estimates from the Marijuana Policy Project (a legalization interest group), which, according to Caulkins, "naively ... assumes that all inmates convicted of possession were not involved in trafficking." Caulkins concluded that "an implication of the new figure is that marijuana decriminalization would have almost no impact on prison populations." This is not meant to imply that marijuana arrests do not have costs, but rather, that these concerns have been highly exaggerated.
Finally, legalizing marijuana would in no way ensure that the most vicious drug-related problems -- violence, economic-related crime, street gang activity -- would disappear. Most of those problems stem from the cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine markets. Marijuana's share of the black market is modest (the cocaine market is three times larger), and the money that is spent on the drug is spread over so many users and distributors that few are working with amounts that motivate or encourage high levels of crime.
Moving beyond the simplistic and unrealistic option of legalization, what can we do to reduce marijuana use and the costly harms it brings? Increasing the ferocity of enforcement isn't the answer, but increasing its potential for effectiveness through deterrent methods might be. Programs like Project HOPE in Hawaii, which perform regular, random drug testing on probationers and others and implement reliable, swift (but short) sanctions for positive screens, have shown remarkable success. Innovative solutions, grounded in sound research on prevention, treatment and enforcement, present the shortest route out of marijuana-related costs. But an open market for the stuff? That doesn't pass the giggle test.
Kevin A. Sabet worked at the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Clinton and Bush administrations. He is currently a consultant in private practice.
Deterrence is preferable to encouraging marijuana use, which would follow alcohol and tobacco in soaring costs to society.
By Kevin A. Sabet
June 7, 2009
Last month, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger reignited a heated debate when he called for a civilized discussion on the merits of marijuana legalization. Indeed, the governor was responding to new public opinion polls showing greater interest in the policy idea -- and with the mounting problems associated with the drug trade in Mexico and here at home, it is hard to blame anyone for suggesting that we at least consider all potential policy solutions.
One major justification for legalization remains tempting: the money. Unfortunately, however, the financial costs of marijuana legalization would never outweigh its benefits. Yes, the marijuana market seems like an attractive target for taxation -- Abt Associates, a research firm, estimates that the industry is worth roughly $10 billion a year -- and California could certainly use a chunk of that cash to offset its budget woes in the current economic climate.
What is rarely discussed, however, is that the likely increase in marijuana prevalence resulting from legalization would probably increase the already high costs of marijuana use in society. Accidents would increase, healthcare costs would rise and productivity would suffer. Legal alcohol serves as a good example: The $8 billion in tax revenue generated from that widely used drug does little to offset the nearly $200 billion in social costs attributed to its use.
In fact, both of our two already legal drugs -- alcohol and tobacco -- offer chilling illustrations of how an open market fuels greater harms. They are cheap and easy to obtain. Commercialization glamorizes their use and furthers their social acceptance. High profits make aggressive marketing worthwhile for sellers. Addiction is simply the price of doing business.
Would marijuana use rise in a legal market for the drug? Admittedly, marijuana is not very difficult to obtain currently, but a legal market would make getting the drug that much easier. Tobacco and alcohol are used regularly by 30% and 65% of the population, respectively, while all illegal drugs combined are used by about 6% of Americans. In the Netherlands, where marijuana is de facto legalized, lifetime use "increased consistently and sharply" after this policy shift triggered commercialization, tripling among young adults, according to data analysis from the Rand Corp. We might expect a similar or worse result here in America's ad-driven culture.
An honest debate on marijuana policy also carefully considers the costs of our current approach. Arrest rates for marijuana are relatively high, reaching about 800,000 last year. Though these numbers are technically recorded under the category of "possession," the story that is seldom told is that hardly any of these possession arrests result in jail time (that is why former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani made headlines when he aggressively arrested public marijuana users and detained them for 12 to 24 hours in the 1990s).
One of the most astute minds in the field of drug policy, Carnegie Mellon's Jonathan Caulkins, formerly the co-director of Rand's drug policy research center, found that more than 85% of people in prison for all drug-law violations were clearly involved in drug distribution, and that the records of most of the remaining prisoners had at least some suggestion of distribution involvement (many prisoners plea down from more serious charges to possession in exchange for information about the drug trade). Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession, he found. He noted that this figure was consistent with other mainstream estimates but not with estimates from the Marijuana Policy Project (a legalization interest group), which, according to Caulkins, "naively ... assumes that all inmates convicted of possession were not involved in trafficking." Caulkins concluded that "an implication of the new figure is that marijuana decriminalization would have almost no impact on prison populations." This is not meant to imply that marijuana arrests do not have costs, but rather, that these concerns have been highly exaggerated.
Finally, legalizing marijuana would in no way ensure that the most vicious drug-related problems -- violence, economic-related crime, street gang activity -- would disappear. Most of those problems stem from the cocaine, heroin and methamphetamine markets. Marijuana's share of the black market is modest (the cocaine market is three times larger), and the money that is spent on the drug is spread over so many users and distributors that few are working with amounts that motivate or encourage high levels of crime.
Moving beyond the simplistic and unrealistic option of legalization, what can we do to reduce marijuana use and the costly harms it brings? Increasing the ferocity of enforcement isn't the answer, but increasing its potential for effectiveness through deterrent methods might be. Programs like Project HOPE in Hawaii, which perform regular, random drug testing on probationers and others and implement reliable, swift (but short) sanctions for positive screens, have shown remarkable success. Innovative solutions, grounded in sound research on prevention, treatment and enforcement, present the shortest route out of marijuana-related costs. But an open market for the stuff? That doesn't pass the giggle test.
Kevin A. Sabet worked at the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the Clinton and Bush administrations. He is currently a consultant in private practice.
Public_Domain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:08 pm
ridenrain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:17 pm
Did you read that section:
$1:
more than 85% of people in prison for all drug-law violations were clearly involved in drug distribution,
...Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession
...Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession
That shoots down the straw man myth that getting caught smoking immediately leads to jail. The cops don't care about the basic users and want the people making the money.
If people grew their own pot for their own use, the cops wouldn't care and organized crime would lose a market.
None of that however mentions the problems of " a gateway drug" or the social and productivity problems.
Public_Domain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:22 pm
ridenrain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:29 pm
why no minimum sentences? Why shouldn't the crime for a grow op in Quebec or Ontario be the same for one in BC?
Public_Domain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:32 pm
Proculation @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:33 pm
I've tried pot and many of my friends smoke it. IMO, it's too "depressing". You sit down and do not do anything. At least, alcohol you can do a lot of things. But well... it's not the same for everyone. My ex-roommate had to smoke pot because he was always "high" (not in the drug term). So pot helped him. Without it he was not able to concentrate for his engineering degree.
Public_Domain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:38 pm
Donny_Brasco @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:38 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Did you read that section:
That shoots down the straw man myth that getting caught smoking immediately leads to jail. The cops don't care about the basic users and want the people making the money.
If people grew their own pot for their own use, the cops wouldn't care and organized crime would lose a market.
None of that however mentions the problems of " a gateway drug" or the social and productivity problems.
$1:
more than 85% of people in prison for all drug-law violations were clearly involved in drug distribution,
...Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession
...Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession
That shoots down the straw man myth that getting caught smoking immediately leads to jail. The cops don't care about the basic users and want the people making the money.
If people grew their own pot for their own use, the cops wouldn't care and organized crime would lose a market.
None of that however mentions the problems of " a gateway drug" or the social and productivity problems.
$1:
There is no conclusive evidence to support a theory that has been proposed for many years suggesting that marijuana use leads to other illegal drug use - the so-called gateway theory. While it is true that most users of other illegal drugs (e.g., cocaine, heroin) have used marijuana, the vast majority of young marijuana users do not use any other illegal substance.
Quote from the Canadian Public Health Accociation.
Proculation @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:42 pm
Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:
Proculation Proculation:
I've tried pot and many of my friends smoke it. IMO, it's too "depressing". You sit down and do not do anything. At least, alcohol you can do a lot of things. But well... it's not the same for everyone. My ex-roommate had to smoke pot because he was always "high" (not in the drug term). So pot helped him. Without it he was not able to concentrate for his engineering degree.
Funny, I find the opposite.
I can still carry a long and understandable political conversation while stoned. I can do work, I can function, I can judge. I can't even type when I'm drunk, nevermind talk about politics for more then 10 minutes.
Everyone reacts differently, I agree. Alcohol makes me retarded, lol. Pot just makes me think.
I understand you. That's why I said, nobody reacts the same. For me it's a very bad thing because i already have a fatigue problem. So it just made me more lazy and drowsy. For my ex-roommate, it was his medicine to his highs. Just to calm his brain.
Donny_Brasco @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:47 pm
I'm having a hard time tracking down a list of the health concerns that are going to outweigh the cost of not arresting the 775,000 people cought for possession in the states last year.
Anyone have a stat on lung cancers, diseases, or other health issues that this article claims will cost us billions?
ridenrain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:47 pm
Donny_Brasco Donny_Brasco:
$1:
There is no conclusive evidence to support a theory that has been proposed for many years suggesting that marijuana use leads to other illegal drug use - the so-called gateway theory. While it is true that most users of other illegal drugs (e.g., cocaine, heroin) have used marijuana, the vast majority of young marijuana users do not use any other illegal substance.
Quote from the Canadian Public Health Accociation.
I accept that it's open to opinion so that's why I put it in "".
As you might guess, I don't agree.
A regional stance on drug laws is a dangerous thing. When Montreal is doing all they can to crack down on organized crime, many will move to Vancouver and that fight for teritory is going to increase the violence the citzens of BC are facing.
Public_Domain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:56 pm
herbie @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:01 pm
$1:
.Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession
Don't see any Straw Man here. See a quote that half a percent of prisoners are there for simple possession. How many wouldn't be there if the LCB was doing the distribution?
ridenrain @ Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:10 pm
herbie herbie:
$1:
.Only about half a percent of the total prison population was there for marijuana possession
Don't see any Straw Man here. See a quote that half a percent of prisoners are there for simple possession. How many wouldn't be there if the LCB was doing the distribution?
It's indeed a straw man. Go read through the minimun sentences thread and tell me that the "progressive" side isn't painting the illusion that everyone who smokes pot will be in jail. Here's a US study on those horrible US jails and it shows that only a fraction of a percent went to jail because they simply smoked pot.
Face it.. it's not about the pot, it's about the organized crime that supplies it. If those lazy stoners got off their lazy asses and grew their own, this wouldn't be a problem.