The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition

Harvard University ^ | June 2005 | Jeffrey A. Miron

[davesdude]

Executive Summary

Government prohibition of marijuana is the subject of ongoing debate.

One issue in this debate is the effect of marijuana prohibition on government budgets. Prohibition entails direct enforcement costs and prevents taxation of marijuana production and sale.

This report examines the budgetary implications of legalizing marijuana – taxing and regulating it like other goods – in all fifty states and at the federal level.

The report estimates that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $5.3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $2.4 billion would accrue to the federal government.

The report also estimates that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.

Whether marijuana legalization is a desirable policy depends on many factors other than the budgetary impacts discussed here. But these impacts should be included in a rational debate about marijuana policy.

http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html

[Gordongekko909]

I know what the article was about. I was responding to comment 2.

[bobjam]

Actually, Prohibition did a lot of good for our nation. The years following the Civil War and the depression of the 1870's (which had been called the "Great Depression" until the 1930's) saw an unprecedented spike in alcohol abuse on a national level. The problem permeated all social classes and ethnic groups. Liberals and Libertarians like to tell people that Prohibition was forced on the public by an out-of-touch right wing fundamentalist minority. In fact, Prohibition was welcomed by public: it was added to the Constitution (which required consents from 36 state legislatures at the time). The media likes to make much of speakeasies, moonshiners and gangsters, but for the most part our nation sobered up and dried out.

Did Prohibition create crime? Certainly not. Laws do not generate crime; criminals generate crime. When Prohibition ended, the criminals didn't go away; they moved on to other markets such as bribery, drugs and gambling. If we legalize drugs, the criminals will move onto other markets such as human trafficking and sex slaves.

[davesdude]

"If marijuana was legal, where would doped-up kids get the money for their habits? Probably via my car radio or my neighbors' garage full of tools. Hence, their tentative right to drugs is outweighed by the tenuous but still existent property rights."

Hum... where do you think doped up kids take their money actually? You think that no kids take drugs today or what?? They can get a gram of meth more easily than a pack of cigs or a single beer!

The truth is that if drugs were legalized it wouldn't end there...you could use more money from the revenue of sales to give a better education than what the DARE are doing...

[cowtowney]

I've heard Milton Friedman speak on this issue and I totally agree with him. This is just another govt. bureaucracy that needs to go.

[Gordongekko909]

Have you really give any thoughts to the matter?

Quite a bit more than some people around here, it seems.

If legalized, no more problem with sharing needles!

What do these two have to do with each other?

Some standards will be implemented and people won't have to hide in disaffected buildings to do their thing...

Standards? Implemented? Those sound like spending provisions to me. Legalizing dope is getting more and more expensive...

Plus, OD are oftenly attached to bad products (too potent or foreign chemicals laced to the product...) regulating those drugs would put a certain standard on the quality of the product...

More regulation? More expenses! And it's perfectly possible to OD on a "pure" product that is legal and regulated. Ever heard of alcohol poisoning?

[davesdude]

Hum so many erroneous statement that it will be impossible to cover them all!

okay let's start : "saw an unprecedented spike in alcohol abuse on a national level"

actually, alcohol use dropped around 1923-24 and spiked back in 1930...all stats on the net confirms!


"but for the most part our nation sobered up and dried out. "

actually, it's the total opposit!!! where did you take your figures??? the consumption of hard spirits spiked up and death related to alcohol too...

"criminals generate crime"

and where these criminals come from??? you statement makes no sens!

"If we legalize drugs, the criminals will move onto other markets such as human trafficking and sex slaves."

and that's why the great country of freedom that Holland is, "legalized" it...

[SampleMan]

I'm making parallels. You appear to be uncomfortable with that. In both of the cases I made, the point was that it is simply a matter of judgment on what is right and wrong. This is so different than regulating drugs?

Many pedophiles say that the kids don't care until some mean adult convinces them that they've been harmed. There are those who want to make the age of consent eight. So don't tell me that I can't correlate one vice with another, when the counter argument is the same.

So tell me again what your interest is in U.S. drug laws.

[GLDNGUN]

"The only thing prohibition has ever done is to create black markets operated by criminals and encourage the corruption of public officials. It has never, never prevented people from doing what they are going to do." To that, i challenge everyone to state the opposit!!!

Ever been to Area 51 in Nevada to see if there really are UFOs in the hangars and what our latest spy craft look like?

You haven't? How come? Do you think they might get more visitors if civilian entrance wasn't PROHIBITED?

[philman_36]

You'e not even worth bothering with. You're laughable.
Learn something besides what you learned in DARE class.

[davesdude]

"If legalized, no more problem with sharing needles!

What do these two have to do with each other? "

gees, just think about it!!! people won't have to share they needle!

"Standards? Implemented? Those sound like spending provisions to me. Legalizing dope is getting more and more expensive... "

please, again, think of the fact legalizing will give money back!

"And it's perfectly possible to OD on a "pure" product that is legal and regulated. Ever heard of alcohol poisoning?"

WTF?? are you being serious?? we all know that already!!! but what are the chances of OD with unpure product VS pure product?? come on man, give a bit of thought in what you say!!

[MileHi]

I'm sorry: are you arguing against getting government out of the health care business?

No, I'm arguing against boilerplate red herrings.

How does something being paid already make it not possible to figure out a predicted increase or decrease in those expenses?

I didn't say you couldn't calculate some change. I said the expense already exists to some extent WITH prohibition in place. Are you saying you will bear the current expenditure as long as government goons are busting some heads? That you won't bear the same expenditure without the head busting?

If the expenditure remains the same, do you favor standing down in the "war" on MJ?

[SampleMan]

OK, let's back up here. Why "can't" pot be prohibited? And would you say your argument also applies to bestiality and polygamy?

[philman_36]

And it's perfectly possible to OD on a "pure" product that is legal and regulated. Ever heard of alcohol poisoning?
Yeah, DA, ever heard of aspirin overdose? Is that all you got?

[PaxMacian]

The feds have a monopoly on Area 51, they don't on an herb that grows everywhere.

[davesdude]

Ever been to Area 51 in Nevada to see if there really are UFOs in the hangars and what our latest spy craft look like?

You haven't? How come? Do you think they might get more visitors if civilian entrance wasn't PROHIBITED?


haha! one is being original here! i have never been there because i live to the total opposite, but i wouldn't because it's written "if trespassing, you'll get shot"

but in some countries they shot you if they find you with drugs... but still a lot of people takes some...Why??? because there is something wrong in this specific prohibition...

now please stop to play with words and get in the real subject!

[Gone GF]

"If marijuana was legal, where would doped-up kids get the money for their habits? Probably via my car radio or my neighbors' garage full of tools. Hence, their tentative right to drugs is outweighed by the tenuous but still existant property rights."

So you think kids on drugs don't do that now?

[davesdude]

well did you read the last comment i posted you?? same applies...

[philman_36]

Trot out old, tired arguments and tell the same old lies.
Throw out the perceived injustices perpetrated against you.
Believe the same shibboleths that have been handed down for years.

And while you're at it bow down and kiss the feet, or the arse, of those whom you serve, and that isn't your fellow Citizens.

[GLDNGUN]

WTF?? are you being serious?? we all know that already!!! but what are the chances of OD with unpure product VS pure product?? come on man, give a bit of thought in what you say!!

You must be a pro-WOD double-agent, trying to make us think that people's brains get fried on drugs and tap out nonsense like that on their computer.

It's working.

[davesdude]

"Why "can't" pot be prohibited?"

because it's a plant! even coca leaves! it will grow no matter what you do! plus, eliminating completly one of nature's component will create a lack somewhere in the food chain...you're starting to destroy earth by prohibiting things normal in nature...That's the problem with us human, we consider ourselves as god...

it's really dangerous to mess up with mother nature, just try it...