Posted on 04/20/2007 5:56:08 AM PDT by tang0r
Jeffery A. Miron finds that by decriminalizing cannabis, the federal government would generate $2.4 billion in federal tax revenue annually, and that an additional $7.7 billion would be saved as the cost of incarceration, policing, and processing offenders. Now, that's too much money to for the human brain to fully conceptualize, given the air quality around April 20th, so your friends at the Prometheus Institute have provided this handy quantitive index in order show exactly how much the U.S. can earn each year from cannabis decriminalization. The math: $2.4 billion per year + $7.7 billion per year = $10.1 billion gained in total per year. You're welcome.
The $10.1 billion dollars could, for those who are interested, do any of the following:
• Subsidize a school voucher system for half of the U.S., for good reason • Build three nuclear reactors, because Greenpeace will be high and won't notice • Extend health insurance to one million uninsured Americans, and doesn't that make everyone happy? • Purchase eight Stealth Bombers, or 2 Minitz class aircraft carriers, because we can
(Excerpt) Read more at prometheusinstitute.net ...
“young Man”
thanks for the compliment, however I am a very young Grandfather. I still might not be older than you but not by much, and I do have a vast expierence with MJ. from both sides of the fence.
Now back to the argument, MJ should be legal.
next
no
Nobody ‘forced’ me to do anything. I am my own man and made my own decisions, based on what little or as much information I wanted to attain or attained and not believed. Besides, most of my highs were free. Most of my friends had older brothers that ‘shared’ a lot of the dealers stash, so profit was not an issue.
I had the motive. It was to get so stoned that all I could do was stair at a wall ———— for 4 hours. Ah! The great effects of tunnel vision. I use to love when the peripheral vision started to get dark, like I was looking through a peep hole. Or the loss of muscle control, as when trying to raise the arm but it just wouldn’t move ‘cause it was soooo heavy. Or turning to walk through the door but running in to the jam instead.
Lazy? I never became lazy. In fact, I was very active. I had all honors courses, college level Trig as a junior in High School. Carried a 3.75 gpa, and graduated 23 out of 340 in my class. Played football, baseball, and Jazz, Concert, and Marching Band. Had a metal band on the side, playing all the local night clubs around the area. Produced and distributed our first CD in 1991. Lazy? Not me.
Life was going great ——— except for that desire to stare at the wall for four hours a night.
I’m sorry. I did the same thing - dropped out of school twenty-some years ago & have always regretted it. I too, put the pleasures of getting high, stoned, and drunk - above the responsibilities of finishing college.
But guess what? I just started back in college! Picking up where I left off & determined to finish it this time. Sure, I’m the oldest one in class & that includes some of my teachers - but I’m doing great & I don’t mind staying home & studying for hours anymore. It’s going to take me 2 years because I’m working too - but what will I be doing in 2 years if I don’t do it?
I didn’t mean to jump you. We probably have some things in common - my teachers always told me I was an “underachiever” - that I always had the potential to do much greater than I did. I graduated with honors in high school, but I never took a book home - hurried & did my homework in homeroom the morning it was due. I always did just enough to make A’s & B’s to keep my parents off my back. But I could have done anything I put my mind to - unfortunately, at the time I put my mind to getting high.
Still, I think responsible adults ought to be able to choose what they want to do, as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else.
Sorry, I’m not quite understanding your point here. Are you stating that the pot market is only teenagers and lower income folks, or are you stating that teenagers and lower income folks would resort to growing since they wouldn’t either legally be able to but it legally, or couldn’t afford to.
You have it about right. But I think that it’s not so much that lower income adults can’t afford taxed pot, just that many if not most wouldn’t pay a large retail premium for small amounts when a plant or two is so easy for them or their friends to grow.
I don’t know what assumptions were made in that $2.4 billion revenue estimate, but when possession is legal, legal sales are going to have an inverse relationship to the rate it’s taxed. Proponents of legalization generally minimize or ignore that relationship. If they think new pot smokers would make up for that sales loss, then there’s all kinds of social cost that need to be estimated.
Marijuana is reported to be the number two cash crop in some counties of California (Sonoma, Humboldt). Of course it is grown locally and then widely distributed.
We call the philosophy of government based on the objective of insuring that individuals only do what is in the best interest of society socialism.
I call the government trying to maintain a SAFE and orderly society good government.
Now, if you want to give up all your rights when you leave your home stoned, draw up the Constitutional Amendment and I’ll vote for it. I have ZERO tolerance for people who endanger/negatively impact the lives of everyone else because they want to get high.
Can you give me a single example of a liberal nanny-state law or program that wasn't "trying to maintain a safe and orderly society"? If that's your criteria for "good government" then by your reconing, the Chinese should have a much better government than we do. Classic fallacy of over-simplification.
Now, if you want to give up all your rights when you leave your home stoned, draw up the Constitutional Amendment and I’ll vote for it. I have ZERO tolerance for people who endanger/negatively impact the lives of everyone else because they want to get high.
You said earlier it didn't matter to you what other people do in their homes. Are we talking about what people do in privacy of their own homes, what they do in public, or just trying to have it both ways?
You’re right, I can’t have it both ways.
People sitting in their homes getting stoned on marijuana or getting smashed on alcohol or getting stoked on coke lose their good judgment, LEAVE THEIR HOMES, and begin interacting with society.
If these people were guaranteed to never leave the privacy of their home while stoned and smashed, I would be arguing. But they do.
It is the responsibility of government to protect responsible citizens from the irresponsible citizens. That is why theft, murder, arson, etc... are deemed violations of the law, and why DUI and Illegal Possession of Controlled Substances are also illegal.
You want the threshold for public safety and responsibility lifted to the point that you can use drugs and get high.
I want the threshold for public safety set where people who take drugs that alter/impair their reflexes and judgement for the fun of it, and get out and interact with society, are taken of the street and prosecuted.
People sitting in their homes getting stoned on marijuana or getting smashed on alcohol or getting stoked on coke lose their good judgment, LEAVE THEIR HOMES, and begin interacting with society.
If these people were guaranteed to never leave the privacy of their home while stoned and smashed, I would be arguing. But they do.
Okay. You say you can't have it both ways, and then play semantic games to do it any way. You want a guarantee that they won't leave their homes, knowing in advance that no such guarantee is possible. If you can't have that guarantee then you want it assumed that the will leave their homes. Now you get to control what they do in private as if it were done in public, on the assumption that eventually it will be public. Nice.
It is the responsibility of government to protect responsible citizens from the irresponsible citizens. That is why theft, murder, arson, etc... are deemed violations of the law, and why DUI and Illegal Possession of Controlled Substances are also illegal.
You want the threshold for public safety and responsibility lifted to the point that you can use drugs and get high.
I want the threshold for public safety set where people who take drugs that alter/impair their reflexes and judgement for the fun of it, and get out and interact with society, are taken of the street and prosecuted.
No, you don't. You want private behaviour regulated as if it were public, on the premise that it might become public. You want to erase the boundary between private property and the public square, by arguing that what is private could become public, and if it could then it must be assumed that it will.
The fact is that there are many states where simple possession of marijuana has been decriminalized and people caught with it do not end up with a criminal record, and even in states where it has not been decriminalized people are likely to be able to keep these convictions off of their records. In states where it has been decriminalized it is more like a traffic ticket. People pay their fine, which ends up being a civil penalty, and in most of these states these people will not have any criminal record from the conviction. In states where it has not technically been decriminalized, people can still in many cases work it out such that they will not have a conviction on their records. In my state, people can get up to a year in jail for simple possession. There are a couple of places in my state where the judges require a little bit of jail time. Most don’t though and will in many cases let people have deals that will keep the conviction off their records, especially if they have an attorney. In the county where I work as a criminal defense attorney, our misdemeanor judge never appoints a public defender in marijuana possession cases because he never puts people in jail for it. If they just plead without an attorney, they’ll end up with a conviction on their record, but they can petition to expunge it after a year. If they have an attorney and don’t have much of a record and didn’t do anything to tick the cops off too much we’ll be able to work out a deal where they pay several hundred dollars in fines but end up with a clean record. Often police will just dump pot out on the side of the road too. In bigger cities in my state if it’s only a couple of joints the prosecutors won’t even file on it.
Not only are people often able to keep these convictions off of their record, but the likelihood of getting caught is minuscule in the first place. It is true that there may be 700,000 or so marijuana arrests in a year, but in most all of these cases people were doing something else stupid besides just smoking marijuana. They’ll be riding around in cars with the stereo up way to loud smoking a joint. Or they won’t pay a traffic ticket or something and will be found with it when they are arrested on a warrant. It’s usually something stupid like that. If they are otherwise law abiding citizens who stay away from people who are trouble, don’t do dumb things to call attention to themselves, odds are they’ll never be arrested. Think about it. How many “pot smokings” result in an arrest? It’s going to be one in several thousand. There are idiots who get caught over and over again, but the overwhelming majority of pot smokers never get caught.
And the thing is that people know that the chance that they’ll get caught is very small compared to most other illegal activities. If you’re a thief, your probably going to wind up getting caught. People are going to be out looking for you. The police are going to know about it most every time you commit a theft and they’ll be under pressure to catch you. There are likely to be witnesses helping the police find you. That’s not going to be the case for most “pot smokings.” Odds are the pot smoker will never come under police radar as long as he minds his own business and doesn’t cause any trouble.
People know that the chance they’ll get caught smoking pot is tiny, and that if they do get caught the punishment will not be that severe and that they are likely to be able to keep a conviction off their records, and that being a misdemeanor conviction it isn’t really likely to hurt them in future anyway even if they can’t keep it off their records. Most people are not looking to be accountants at a major accounting firm. They’re regular Joes who will work regular Joe jobs. On their job applications they’ll be asked about felony convictions, and of course a first offense marijuana possession charge isn’t going to be a felony. It won’t even be a misdemeanor in many states.
The statistical evidence tends to back up the assertion that the laws don’t make much difference in the percentage of marijuana users. Studies on states that have decriminalized versus those that haven’t conclude that people are just about as likely to smoke pot in states where it hasn’t been decriminalized as they are in states where it has been decriminalized. Look at Mississippi for instance. That’s a state that where marijuana is decriminalized. You won’t get a criminal record there if you are caught with a small amount, but Mississippi is a state where the per capita percentage of marijuana users is consistently well below the national average according to government surveys. We can see the same thing looking at international statistics. There are many countries around the world where marijuana use is almost legal and where those caught with marijuana do not get criminal records, yet on a per capita basis people in these countries tend to be less likely to smoke marijuana than people here, often far less likely. When per capita marijuana use statistics are compared from the various nations around the world, the U.S. is usually at the top of the list or right around the top of the list of nations having the highest per capita marijuana use, despite the fact that our marijuana laws are among the harshest in the Western world. The laws don’t really matter that much.
There are no doubt some people out there who do not smoke marijuana simply because it is illegal. I think most have other reasons for not smoking it besides its legal status, but there have to be at least a few who don’t smoke today who would smoke it if it became legal tomorrow. You said you might. At first I think we’d probably see an increase in use from people like you. Then though you’d probably realize that you don’t like it anymore than you used to like it, or like it even less now that you are a grown man with different priorities than you had when you were young, and you probably wouldn’t continue to mess with it. And I bet if you are working at some major accounting firm or something like that your firm probably wouldn’t want its accountants to be pot smokers, and neither would a lot of your firm’s clients. I don’t think that a change in the legal status of marijuana is all of the sudden going to make it socially acceptable. Why is it that a smaller percentage of people in Holland even ever try marijuana than they do here even though in Holland they’ve allowed marijuana use, possession, and even retail sales for many decades? Part of this is because marijuana use is still not particularly socially acceptable there even if legal. That, and marijuana use obviously just does not appeal to most people as much as drinking does. It’s not a very social drug. There’s a post above mine where a guy talks about smoking it and staring at the wall for hours. I bet he wasn’t exactly the life of the party when he did that. I just don’t think it’s ever going to have the social acceptance alcohol enjoys and it’s never going to be something so many will enjoy doing enough to continue throughout the course of their lives. Most who smoke it do so for a while when they are young and then move on and leave it behind. I bet that will continue to happen when they finally do legalize it, just as it happens in Holland.
Use could actually go down after they legalize it. At first I think its a safe bet that use will go up, but there would be nothing stopping it from going down later. Look at what’s happened with cigarettes. Tobacco is legal yet we’ve seen big decreases in the number of people who smoke and the number who try them in the first place. Why couldn’t the same thing happen with marijuana?
You write a good narrative, and it’s as persuasive toward legalization as anything I’m familiar with, but my experiences lead to a largely different opinion.
When I came into the Marines in the early 80s it was at the tail end of a social transformation, as they were amputating their underground drug culture through random urinalysis. At Headquarters Battalion 1st Mar Division, PFCs like myself coming online shared barracks with others awaiting processing on their way out (including former NCOs). And although that kind of introduction was disruptive, it was an eye-opener just a few years later to see what difference the elimination of that influence meant to professionalism and productivity. I think that with just a few less personalities passively transcending commitment to our mission and faith in its honor due to regular retreats into drug induced psychological deconstruction, our Battalion just flatly rebuilt itself into a highly motivated, cohesive and proud unit from kind of a mess. Granted, there were other influences: the end of Vietnam, coming of Reagan, more money etc…, but I think the results would have been very different without the virtual elimination of drugs. I presume the effect is mirrored across other virtually drug free industries though testing such as law enforcement, construction, merchant marines etc… But if it were legal, I doubt they’d be allowed to continue testing.
I’m not aware of the usage statistics in states where it’s been legalized. But even when possession can be removed from criminal records, with varying degrees of costs and confidence, I suspect the threat of having it on record is still a deterrent. I presume my background investigation would have turned up any arrest and threatened my security clearance, especially if I had lied about smoking it on my application.
I wouldn’t necessarily expect a usage jump in states that just reduce the penalty from criminal to civil. It looks like even minor possession is still a civil offence everywhere except in Alaska, maybe Oregon if my memory’s correct. I don’t know how much even that would affect usage in those states considering the mobility of employees and the degree that employers cross state borders.
There are so many social and cultural differences between the US and other nations that I think international comparisons are not meaningful. Holland as well and most of Europe are much more cosmopolitan, traditional, culturally homogeneous and collectivist than the US. Other regions have their own influences.
One thing in closing that I agree with you own however is that the social acceptability of marijuana is dominate. I think if it’s illegal, expensive but fashionable, it’s going to be in much more in demand than if it’s legal, cheap and disrespected.
I enjoyed talking with you.
Personally though, I think the Dutch are more pragmatic, more practical, when it comes to drug laws. I think their marijuana laws are smarter than ours, and I think that what has worked there could work here just as well and we could take it one step farther and actually regulate the wholesale marijuana markets as well. I take issue with the argument that comparisons of drug policy, use statistics, etc. between our country and those in Western Europe are not meaningful. I think what you are really saying when you make that argument is that you don’t think Americans can handle as much freedom as the Dutch or other Europeans and I think that is pure poppycock. It’s b.s. and won’t ever buy it. We can handle as much freedom as they can.
I believe that eventually marijuana will be legalized in this country. If I was going to bet on it I’d bet that it will happen before the last Baby Boomer turns 65, within 23 years. You and I are probably about the same age (early to mid forties) because we were both in the military in the eighties. When they do surveys on whether or not marijuana should be legal, taxed, and regulated similar to alcohol it is generally those older than us who are the most likely to oppose it, the oldest Boomers and those who came before them who are far less likely than younger folks to have ever had any experience with marijuana. These older folks also happen to be those most likely to actually exercise their right to vote and they tend to be the ones really running the show in the three branches of government. These surveys are done fairly frequently and what has been happening is that the percentage for treating marijuana similar to alcohol keeps growing as time goes on. It’s around 40% and gaining now. As we see older members of government and older voters being replaced by younger folks, I think we’re going to see a big shift in the debate on these issues, with politicians far more likely to openly support moves toward legalization or at least easing marijuana laws. We’ll see more of that in other countries too and will likely see some other nations go all out and fully legalize marijuana first. My bet is that it is likely to happen in this country at some point when we are facing budget problems and looking for ways to cut costs and bring in additional revenue. Over loud objections from a large minority the feds will start opening the door for states to legalize marijuana and in no time it will be legal in almost every state. It may not work out just exactly like that and it may even take a little longer than 23 year, but some time in the next two or three decades my bet is that marijuana becomes legal and regulated similar to the way alcohol is regulated.
Have a good one.
I’ve been meaning to get back with you when I had time after throwing out a couple of concepts with little explanation and no support.
Sure, culturally we have more in common with Europeans than our differences. I’d argue that those minor differences include our levels of smoking, fried food consumption, and… marijuana use. I think that both nations are applying social and/or legal pressures on all of that, but our usage will probably always differ because of our cultural variances.
Part of my difference of opinion with you on the most effective strategy to limit marijuana use may have something to do with a cultural anthropology principle (that I can’t name) that claims that there’s an inverse relationship between the effectiveness of managing a behavior through social pressures, and the population’s size. So as families organize into tribes, chiefdoms, small nations and then diverse superpowers, social mores become less effective and give way to laws.
Holland is of course much smaller, more densely populated and is more dominated by a single older cultural. Its anarchist counterculture is arguably just that, a refuge from its more measured, tradition and “practical” society for the disassociated, for those confronting their more limited mobility after coming from the wrong families, taking the wrong tracts in school or having had some other falling out with the mainstream.
In the US’s larger more dispersed, multicultural society, the mainstream is less pronounced. And even if there were a vaguely identifiable mainstream here, how much would it discourage marijuana use? If any common denominator exists among our identities, it’s arguably the image some kind of heroic adventurer or visionary creating something new from foreign components. And in many of our subcultures, from environmentalists, to urban laborers, to suburban fraternities and across the entertainment industries that globally define us, marijuana use is virtually a right of passage. It’s culturally rooted in a place with few cultural roots. It’s not only more ingrained here, it’s agriculturally native. Therefore I don’t think it’s reasonable to compare our usage of it to that in Holland and draw conclusions about the likely effects of legalization.
Maybe it will eventually be legalized. If so, I’m more inclined to think it will happen piecemeal out of voter apathy rather than through a proactive strategy. And because I anticipate there will be limited change in our varied subcultures to mitigate its use, I think it’ll have degenerative rather than revenue enhancing effects.
Best regards…
Here’s an article I just read on the beer industry: New Study Shows Beer Industry Contributes Billions Annually to U.S. Economy
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/04-23-2007/0004571414&EDATE=
Again, my bet is that marijuana is legal in most states if not all by the time the last Baby Boomer hits retirement age, 65. That will happen by 2030. As we approach that time our government will be increasingly strapped for cash and will be desperately seeking ways to generate revenue to care for the swelling senior citizen population. Older folks in power in the three branches of government who run this country, as well as the older voters who outvote young people by wide margins, will slowly but surely be replaced by younger people far less afraid of marijuana. The whole debate will change, and I bet that some time between 2015 and 2030 we’ll see marijuana regulated and taxed similar to the way alcohol is now. That will scare a lot of people, but in the end I think most will look back and wonder why we didn’t do it a long time ago.
Marijuana grows like a weed, requiring no great skill to perfect like distilled spirits or beer. It’s too powerful to smoke in large quantities, appreciating subtle variations all day like cigarettes. How are we going to generate tax revenue from something that a near idiot can grow a year’s supply of in a small follower pot?
I still believe the alcohol industry is behind the war on drugs. Imagine the money they’d lose if pot were available for a buzz instead of liquor.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.