Thoughts on The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition (Miron and Waldock, 2010)
On November 2nd, California voters will decide whether to end marijuana prohibition in their state. If Proposition 19 passes, California will find itself in uncharted waters. The federal government might claim that state-level legalization violates the federal Controlled Substances Act and therefore try to prevent implementation. Or, the measure might pass without federal pushback and become a boon to the state's finances. On the other hand, according to opponents, the measure might increase unwanted consequences from marijuana use, including greater consumption of "harder" drugs.
Hanging over the turmoil in California is the larger question of what this means for the rest of country. Perhaps within the next couple of decades, the nation may finally change its stance on drug prohibition, and for more than just marijuana.
A paper I co-authored with Jeffrey A. Miron, just released by the Cato Institute, examines the budgetary impact of legalization for all drugs, across all states and at the federal level. It is important to be explicit about what policy change is being considered because estimates can vary depending on the scale of the study. The most natural case to consider, because it avoids complicated issues of constitutional authority and trans-border smuggling, is the one where both the federal government and most or all state government legalize simultaneously.
One of our points is that legalization will both save money on law enforcement and generate tax revenue. Law enforcement costs encompass police, judicial trials, and correction facilities. These enforcement savings are significant, but harder to achieve than increased revenue because they require layoffs of police, prosecutors, prison guards, and so on. Even without any reduction in expenditure, of course, legalization would still free resources for more important criminal justice activities.
For California, we estimate that the legalization of marijuana will lead to $960 million in savings on enforcement and $352 million in additional tax revenue. To put things into perspective, California faces a $19.9 billion budget deficit for 2010-2011.
If marijuana is legalized across the nation, we predict $8.7 billion in law enforcement savings and $8.7 billion in tax revenue. If all drugs are legalized, the savings figure becomes $46.7 billion and the revenue $41.3 billion. A budgetary benefit of $88 billion per year is not chump change, especially given the current state of the economy.
Estimates of these budgetary benefits are naturally subject to considerable uncertainty; data from black markets are not especially reliable. But our estimates provide a broad-brush understanding of the financial side of the legalization debate. These estimates also show that marijuana legalization is a relatively modest piece of the overall impact.
Our second key point is that the debate over drug legalization should be about more than monetary impacts. Voters need to find a figure on this topic that they deem acceptable, whether it comes from our paper or from papers with a different scope, and then move on. The issue of drug prohibition is part of a much bigger picture, one which depends upon our fundamental views on the extent to which the government should have a say over individual choices.
Californians thus have not only the opportunity to mitigate their financial distress but also to show the U. S. what things will be like when people are free to make their own decisions about drug use. If Proposition 19 is successful, all eyes will be on California to determine whether less government oversight might, in fact, be better.
This initiative, which will (in essence) improve the effectiveness of law enforcement to stop/solve more serious crimes, alleviate pressure on the penal system (over crowding for starters), and increase tax revenue over time is definitely a taste of what the state of California needs!
Jesus said to treat other people the way we would want to be treated. I know I wouldn’t want my kid to go to jail with the sexual predators, or my aging parents to have their house confiscated and sold by the police, if they used a little marijuana.
Let’s change the world. Let’s get registered and vote.
Citizens and college students can register at the state links shown below.
In other states, Google your state name and the phrase, voter registration. Print off the form and mail it in (or drive it down to City Hall).
And put it on your calendar for Nov 2. VOTE!
Five minutes. Register to vote. Change the world. Right now.
Pass it on (Tweet, Facebook, … ?)
Voter registration:
California (deadline: October 18)
w w w . sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm .
(fill it out and mail it in).
California request a ballot by mail:
w w w . sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_m.htm .
College students: You can usually register as a citizen of either your hometown or your college residence town. Share the voter registration info through your student newspaper, twitter, etc.
Everybody: Most states allow early voting and/or vote-by-mail, so once you get registered, go ahead and request a ballot (at the voter info site for your state). Save a trip to the polls and get it done the easy way.
That is a horrible strategy. Substance abuse and personal choice are emotionally charged issues, money will not be the deciding factor for the overwhelming majority of registered voters. They'll be thinking about their kids and their grand kids, even kids they don't know, not the state budget.
If you want to sell this thing it has to a multi pronged attack led by public safety concerns.
So then the question becomes, "How is Marijuana NOT a threat to communities?"
Here's the scenario I would use as a litmus test for how well this plan will go over:
Question: If pot is decriminalized then can individuals grow it, and if they can, then how do we stop under age users from either growing it themselves or stealing it from the neighbors yard?
That's not an easy question, but when you figure that out then you'll be well on your way to satisfying the middle class and seniors.
Later on you'll have to figure out how to stop the Feds from reversing the law, but that's a question for the future.
1) How will driving under the influence of marijuana (drugged driving) be regulated?
2) How will companies regulate whether employees use marijuana?
3) How will the state get all the supposed tax revenue when Prop 19 doesn't address this issue?
I just received the voter guide and these are just three of the questions I had while reading it.
2) In the workforce, it's treated just like alcohol. Don't come to work drunk, OR stoned.
3) Local jurisdictions are free to choose to impose licensing fees or implement differing tax schemes or rates.
Also I found the section where it deals with marijuana in the workplace. It requires employers to only act against a stoned employee only if he/she exhibits actual impairment. So technically this law allows employees to show up stoned.
I also thought one of the major selling points of this law was that it would alleviate the state budget deficit. If there is no state taxing scheme how will it do that?
Marijuana is not deadly, or even toxic. It does not cause you to use other drugs, drive dangerously or get aggressive.
Other than getting arrested and the huge harms arrest causes, marijuana use causes very few problems.
It's time to stop arresting non-criminals for non-crimes with no victims!
Supporting an illegal, unconstitutional, criminal INJUSTICE system is a poor reason to continue marijuana prohibition!
Marijuana prohibition outlaws domestic production of thousands of hemp products which are far better for the environment than products used today like trees for paper and cotton for fabric and about 50,000 other products, including cleaner fuel. When you use hemp for fuel, growing the plant takes out as much pollution as burning it produces (hemp takes in carbon dioxide and produces oxygen as it grows), so after the first growing/burning cycle there is no further loading of pollution into the environment. The diesel engine was invented to run on hempseed oil.
Marijuana is no more dangerous than tomatoes, so the restrictions should be about the same. If you are growing tomatoes and someone comes on your property to steal them, they are the criminal, NOT YOU!
Read: “WHY IS MARIJUANA ILLEGAL, Pete Guither” and “MARIJUANA AND HEMP THE UNTOLD STORY, Thomas J. Bouril”, click the links to those articles on the webpage below:
Internet Explorer web browser: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/home
All Other Browsers: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/index.html
NORML, MPP and DPA all unanimously recognize the dangers of driving high and none of them condone it.
As for outdoor, they would need permits as well. They should not be visible from the street, and the area should be secure against intrusion. Just common sense stuff to stop bad things from happening and creating an environment where people start to question if passing this law was the right thing to do.
Ok, no more ranting, off to watch a movie :-)
The more we educate (FACTUALLY) on the effects of drugs, the better prepared people are to make the decision to use them or not.
We need to legalize and reguate all illicit drugs. We can use existing facilities as rehab, distribution and education facilities. This is a health care issue, not a criminal issue.
We will need to educate law enforcment and ensure them that this will not mean less funding, because it does not have to mean less funding. It just means we can use money to prioritize violent crime over profitable arrests. Prison guards are worried too, but they shouldn't be, until we have arrested all of the violent offenders in the county. Yes there will be some job losses, some prison closings (at huge savings to the state), but we have no problem offshoring other industries and killing off jobs, so why are they special?
Overall, the high taxes placed on cigarettes was not the factor that decreased smoking in this county by 25%, it was the EDUCATION on the harmful effects. (I am still a smoker)
Legalize, regulate, educate. Tax it just enough to pay for services needed, but not so much as bring prices so high that the black market comes back into play. Let us use our brains for once.
http://www.mikekessler.com/downloadable%20pdfs/highinthehighcountry.pdf
I wonder if it will cost CA any federal funding?
However, it's extremely unlikely the feds will simply ignore commercial cultivation and distribution on a large scale in violation of federal law, so while CA might save in local law enforcement costs, it's pretty speculative that there will be a viable legal pot industry to collect sales taxes from.
there is one city that even outlawed outdoor growing.