Marijuana Legalization in the United States

Position of the Obama Administration

Marijuana use is the highest it has been in 8 years. In 2010, daily marijuana use increased significantly among all three grades surveyed (8th, 10th, and 12th graders) in the MTF study. Daily use for high school seniors increased from 5.2 percent to 6.1 percent of the respondents. One in 11 people who start marijuana use will become addicted—a rate that rises to one in six when use begins during adolescence. In 2009, marijuana was involved in 376,000 emergency department visits nationwide.

Making matters worse, confusing messages being conveyed by the entertainment industry, media, proponents of “medical” marijuana, and political campaigns to legalize all marijuana use perpetuate the false notion that marijuana use is harmless and aim to establish commercial access to the drug. This significantly diminishes efforts to keep our young people drug free and hampers the struggle of those recovering from addiction.

Marijuana and other illicit drugs are addictive and unsafe especially for use by young people. The science, though still evolving in terms of long-term consequences, is clear: marijuana use is harmful. Independent from the so called “gateway effect”—marijuana on its own is associated with addiction, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects.

Despite successful political campaigns to legalize “medical” marijuana in 15 states and the District of Columbia, the cannabis (marijuana) plant itself is not medicine. While there may be medical value in some of the individual components of the cannabis plant, the fact remains that smoking marijuana is an inefficient and harmful method for delivering the constituent elements that have or may have medicinal value. As always, the FDA process remains the only scientific and legally recognized procedure for bringing safe and effective medications to the American public. To date, the FDA has not found smoked marijuana to be either safe or effective medicine for any condition (see more on medical marijuana below).

The Administration steadfastly opposes drug legalization. Legalization runs counter to a public health approach to drug control because it would increase the availability of drugs, reduce their price, undermine prevention activities, hinder recovery support efforts, and pose a significant health and safety risk to all Americans, especially our youth.

Many “quick fixes” for America’s complex drug problem have been presented throughout our country’s history. In the past half-century, these proposals have included calls for allowing the legal sale and use of marijuana. However, the complex policy issues concerning drug use and the disease of addiction do not lend themselves to such simple solutions.

On November 2, 2010, Californians rejected one simplistic solution (Proposition 19) that would have legalized marijuana in their state. Parents, community and business leaders, and other concerned citizens realized marijuana legalization was a gamble they were not willing to take. Our Administration opposed Proposition 19 and was joined by a number of political figures, including candidates for governor and U.S. Senate. In the months leading up to the vote, the RAND Corporation released two independent studies that examined the theory that California would realize a net benefit from legalization and see reductions in the illicit proceeds and violence associated with drug trafficking.

The first RAND study appraised the claim that California would realize financial gains from marijuana legalization. Counter to proponents’ assertions, the study concluded that the pretax retail price of marijuana in California would decline by as much as 80 percent to levels not seen in 30 years due to less legal risk for suppliers, more automation, and economies of scale through farm field and greenhouse production. They concluded that the retail price would have been dependent upon the taxes (sales and excise), the structure of the regulatory scheme, and how taxes and regulations would be enforced. Moreover, the revenue from taxes would be dependent upon the compliance rate: by growing their own marijuana or purchasing it on the gray market, some consumers could avoid the taxes.

In addition, while proponents of Proposition 19 argue the high cost of enforcing existing marijuana laws (an amount they suggest is nearly $2 billion) renders legalization a compelling course of action, the RAND study estimates these costs to be dramatically lower ($300 million). Finally, the RAND report raises a powerful counter to the arguments made by proponents of Proposition 19, namely that legalizing marijuana would result in increased consumption of the drug.

Legalization supporters have also claimed that illicit profits to Mexican traffickers and violence in both Mexico and the United States would be reduced if drugs were sold on the open market. A second RAND study examined this argument and found that marijuana accounts for only about 15 to 26 percent of Mexican traffickers’ revenue (or about $1.5 to $2.0 billion) and therefore, legalization in California—which accounts for about one-seventh of U.S. marijuana consumption—would likely only reduce drug trafficking organizations’ profits by between 2 and 4 percent. The extent of such smuggling would depend upon the actions of Federal and state governments to prevent this illicit commerce.

Ultimately, RAND concluded that any projections with respect to reduced revenues leading to less violence are particularly uncertain. The researchers found that some mechanisms (i.e., disruptions in the illicit workforce due to declining revenues) suggest a large decline in revenues might provoke increased violence in the short-term but reduced violence after several years.

Controls and prohibitions help to keep prices higher, and higher prices help keep use rates relatively low. This is because drug use, especially among young people, is known to be sensitive to price.

Our current legal drugs—alcohol and tobacco—are examples of commercialized products with addiction potential and high usage rates fueled by easy availability. Although these products are taxed, neither produces a net economic benefit to society. The healthcare and criminal justice costs associated with alcohol and tobacco far surpass the tax revenue they generate, and little of the taxes collected on these substances is contributed to the offset of their substantial social and health costs.

Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2007 totaled around $9 billion,51 and states collected around $5.6 billion. Taken together, this is less than 10 percent of the more than $185 billion in alcohol-related social costs such as healthcare, lost productivity, and criminal justice system expenses. Nor does tobacco carry its economic weight when taxed: each year, tobacco use generates only about $23 billion in taxes but results in more than $183 billion per year in direct medical expenses as well as lost productivity.

Further, our current experience with legal, regulated prescription drugs shows that legalizing drugs only widens their availability and potential for abuse, no matter what controls are in place. In 2007, drug-induced deaths climbed to more than 38,000, according to CDC. This increase was driven primarily by drug overdose deaths from the non-medical use of legal pharmaceutical drugs, particularly narcotic pain relievers.

Advocates of legalization say the costs of prohibition, mainly through the criminal justice system, place a great burden on taxpayers and governments. While there are certainly costs to current prohibitions, legalizing drugs would not cut costs associated with the criminal justice system (see figure). Arrests for alcohol-related crimes, such as violations of liquor laws and driving under the influence, totaled nearly 2.7 million in 200857—far more than arrests for all illegal drug use. These alcohol-related arrests are costly. Legalizing marijuana would further saddle government with the dual burden of regulating a new legal market while continuing to pay for the negative effects associated with an underground market whose providers have little economic incentive to disappear.

At a time when our efforts should be focused on reversing a troubling increase in drug use, legalization would only make matters worse by lowering the drug’s price, increasing its use, and creating billions of dollars in new social costs.

Note: We explore ‘Medical’ Marijuana in greater detail in this entry here.

Related information include:

• marijuana legalization states
• marijuana legalization pros and cons
• marijuana legalization in California
• marijuana legalization in Canada
• why should marijuanas be legalized (why should we legalize marijuanas)

Marijuana Legalization in Colorado and Washington

In the November 2012 election, two states, Colorado and Washington, passed measures that legalize the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana by any person over the age of twenty-one. Prior to the law taking effect, the states are attempting to create rules for the distribution of marijuana. Once the law does go into effect, these two states are expected to take in “tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year, financial analysts say”, based on taxes and licensing regulations.

However, even without these regulations, it is already certain that college students in these states will not be able to benefit from the law many of them supported and helped pass. Even with the state laws in place, colleges and universities will continue to enforce their policies banning the use of drugs deemed illegal under federal law; in fact, many universities rely on federal funding they receive for complying with this policy. Dormitory contracts also tend to include provisions banning the use of illegal (under federal law) substances. Finally, college athletes will still have to comply with NCAA regulations. Among these regulations is the prohibition of the use of any substance deemed illegal under federal law.

Washington dealt with a similar issue in 1998 when the state approved the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. Although the use of the marijuana, even for medicinal purposes, was banned on campus, Washington State “waived its requirement that all freshmen had to live in dorms to accommodate them”. Although these two states have legalized the (limited) use of marijuana, college students must still ensure they are aware of their campus’ policies or potentially face punishment and the possibility of expulsion. The interaction of the state law with the obligations of the universities based on federal funding creates uncertainty and confusion in what can and cannot be done, and where and where it cannot be done.

As Washington and Colorado are the first two states to deal with such issues, it is certain that even more issues and confusion will have to be dealt with and information will need to be communicated to the states’ citizens to ensure proper compliance and enforcement.

Author: Paul Venard (A)

Marijuana Decriminalized

Decriminalizing a drug like marijuana means that it no longer is a crime to possess marijuana for personal use, The advantages of decriminalizing marijuana are so numerous and powerful that it is difficult to understand the intense opposition.

The movement at the state level of the United States to decriminalize various uses of marijuana-especially for “ medical” purposes- has accelerated in recent years. It will not be long before marijuana use for many purposes will be decriminalized in the great majority of states, and I also expect rapid expansion in the number of states that legalize marijuana for all recreational uses. It is much better for states rather than the federal government to decide about the legality of drug use since that would allow some states to continue to treat marijuana use as a criminal offense if they so wish. However, as Posner points out, it becomes harder for some states to criminalize marijuana use when the great majority of states have decriminalized it.

Decriminalizing consumption and some production of marijuana would have large beneficial effects on Mexico. Traditionally, Mexico has produced the majority of marijuana consumed in the US. The distribution of marijuana from Mexico to the US is controlled by powerful drug cartels that have made enormous profits from their trafficking in drugs. The Mexican government’s battles with these cartels have caused tens of thousands of deaths, and wholesale corruption of Mexican police and government officials. The trend toward legalization of marijuana in America is lowering the profitability of Mexican cartels and weakening their hold over the Mexican population.

Many people are unhappy when they are addicted to drugs, be it alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, or marijuana. They would like to free themselves from their addictions, but that is not easy to do by the definition of what an addiction means. This is especially difficult for addictions to illegal substances. Clinics are reluctant to treat individuals who are addicted to substances that are illegal to consume, groups like AA are more difficult to form and thrive, and informal support group also face many obstacles.

Critics rightly claim that decriminalizing marijuana is likely to encourage experimentation with marijuana use, and probably will increase total consumption (although see our discussion of taxes in the following paragraph). However, what is more important, decriminalization will tend to reduce the rate of addiction to marijuana. The reason is that decriminalization will encourage the development of more clinics that treat this addiction, will help spread the growth of Marijuana Anonymous organizations that help addicts break their addictions, and will produce other efforts to combat severe addictions to marijuana. As a result, while marijuana use may go up, the number of addicts is likely to go down. This should allay the fears of many opponents of decriminalization that it would lead to a large expansion in the number of addicts.

Decriminalizing marijuana paves the way for taxing its use, in the same way that alcoholic consumption became rather heavily taxed after the end of Prohibition. The higher the tax rate, the higher the retail price of marijuana, and hence the lower would be its consumption. So replacing the present situation with significant taxes on the legal consumption of marijuana could end up lowering the demand for marijuana, despite the effects of decriminalization on experimentation with marijuana.

The present spending of substantial resources on trying to combat marijuana use would be replaced by considerable revenue from taxing its use. That potential revenue is a temptation of many strapped state governments to decriminalize marijuana. Of course, if the tax rate were too high, some of the marketing of marijuana would move underground to try to escape the tax. However, experience with other goods that are heavily taxed, including alcohol, shows that the advantages of legal sale and purchase of a substance like marijuana are so large that the tax rate could be rather high without a large fraction of the sales going underground.

A good use of the tax revenue would be on education and other efforts to point out the harm from becoming addicted to drugs. Some of the revenue could also be used to support drug clinics and other private groups that are trying to both treat addictions and to discourage individuals from becoming addicts. These are far better uses of government revenues than are the expenditures on police, courts, and prisons to apprehend and punish individuals who consume marijuana.

Author: Gary Becker, defunct