In a sign that business interests may trump Washington DC's obsession with marijuana prosecutions, a former Microsoft executive, Jamen Shively, is putting together a company to create the first national pot brand.
And Wall Street is interested.
So too are most Americans.
So you think this might be news everywhere ... but not yet.
Jeffrey Miron, author of the excellent book, Drug War Crimes, now has documented the true costs of the drug war and how much we could save if were to legalize drugs. His analysis pertains to legalization of ALL drugs, as well as just marijuana.
Here is the summary:
State and federal governments in the United States face massive looming fiscal deficits. One policy change that can reduce deficits is ending the drug war. Legalization means reduced expenditure on enforcement and an increase in tax revenue from legalized sales.
This report estimates that legalizing drugs would save roughly $41.3 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. Of these savings, $25.7 billion would accrue to state and local governments, while $15.6 billion would accrue to the federal government.
Approximately $8.7 billion of the savings would result from legalization of marijuana and $32.6 billion from legalization of other drugs.
The report also estimates that drug legalization would yield tax revenue of $46.7 billion annually, assuming legal drugs were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Approximately $8.7 billion of this revenue would result from legalization of marijuana and $38.0 billion from legalization of other drugs.
But no worries, right? I mean, we have money to burn!
Conservative Republican, former Governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson.
Questions he would like answered by President Obama, who recently said we should debate legalization:
Why, with record federal deficits and states teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, are we spending billions on yet another failed Prohibition that is accomplishing nothing other than making criminals out of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens and fueling drug cartels that threaten our fundamental national security? Is it not time to try something different?
Despite lip-service, about the need for treatment, harm-reduction and other strategies to address drug use as a health issue, why do the federal government's actual policies and budget still treat the situation as almost entirely a law enforcement problem?
How do we reconcile the fact, that in a supposedly free society, it is legal for a responsible adult to purchase and consume alcohol, while purchasing and consuming marijuana is a crime? I, along with millions of other Americans, are still waiting for a credible answer to that one.
On the top rated questions in President Obama's recent YouTube question and answer session was submitted by a former law enforcement member, now associated with Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP).
You can see his question and Obama's answer here:
Obama says this is a legitimate issue for debate, but that he is against legalization. He then goes on to cite successes in the public health approach in substances that are legal and regulated (e.g., tobacco and alcohol), apparently not aware at all of the contradiction there.
Drug war reformers who hoped Obama would be the guy to finally bring about real change are in fact seeing significant change. But legalization will not occur under his watch.
Here is the beautiful thing about social media (things like Facebook, Youtube, etc.).
It gives us normal folks a chance to be heard, and even to ask questions of our leaders.
Here is a question on YouTube that President Obama will answer today:
You might not know enough about this to answer it yet, but how do you think you might answer this question now? Should we DISCUSS or CONSIDER legalization drugs as a serious alternative to prohibition?
A draft (your comments and suggestions are appreciated)
Drug Legalization Might Be the Answer
American drug control policy—the drug war— has been mired in failure for decades.
By any measure of policy evaluation, the drug war is a failure. First, it fails to meet its stated goals of reducing drug use and availability of drugs, sufficiently disrupting supplies so that prices increase and purity declines, and providing treatment to drug abusers.
In fact, drug use is not demonstrably lower under prohibition and is actually generally higher since the founding of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)—the primary federal agency of accountability in the drug war; this includes marijuana. Drugs are no less available and are in fact widely available (especially marijuana). Prices of drugs are not up and are in fact generally down (including marijuana). Purity of drugs is not down and in fact is generally up (including marijuana).
And the vast majority of people who need drug treatment do not get it. This is largely because spending on treatment has lagged far behind dollars spent on law enforcement, interdiction, and international spending.
Second, the costs of our nation’s drug control policy outweigh its meager benefits. There are of course the obvious financial costs; the official drug control budget is $15.5 billion, but this excludes tens of billions of dollars spent every year on efforts by police, courts, and correctional facilities supporting federal drug policy.
Consider these data. About 15% of all arrests and more than 30% of convictions in state courts are for drug offenses; more than 30% of sentences imposed by federal courts are for drug offenses; and drug offenders now make up 20% of all state prison inmates and an astounding 55% of federal prison inmates.
With no drug war, every bit of these resources allocated to criminal justice could be directed at more serious threats to our nation, things like violent crime and terrorism. This is simply a matter of priorities, so states might choose to improve education instead.
Other costs imposed by drug policy include what ONDCP calls “crimes associated with drug using lifestyle.” This is when drug using citizens come into contact with criminals operating in the black market, a fact of life under prohibition.
The drug war also empowers violent and even terrorist organizations; these groups are responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in Mexico just in the past few years.
Then there is racial bias, a shameful legacy of US drug control policy. Prisons are literally being built “on the backs of blacks.”
Finally, illness and deaths associated with drugs have consistently risen for the past three decades. Prohibition simply makes drug use less safe.
An alternative is legalization, whereby the criminal penalty for drug offenses is eliminated and drugs are legally available for adults. Under this approach, drugs can be regulated, assuring safer use.
There is no better drug to start with than marijuana, a relatively safe drug anyway.
Marijuana kills less than five people a year in the US according to the federal government, compared with about 80,000 for alcohol and 440,000 for tobacco. Further, the vast majority of people who use marijuana never have any serious health problems or move on to any other harder substance.
No one really knows what would happen under legalization. It would be an experiment. Yet, careful studies of the US and abroad make predictions reasonably certain.
Marijuana might become more available and used more, but strict regulation could greatly diminish this. And educational campaigns could discourage use by young people similar to tobacco.
And even if use went up, people would still be safer using marijuana than alcohol or tobacco.
We would simultaneously save billions of dollars and could even raise money though tax revenue, funds that are sorely needed, especially now.
I am a professor of Government and Justice Studies at Appalachian State University; I teach and do research on national drug control policy.
I read your article about marijuana legalization and feel like you are doing a disservice to your readers.
First, I agree that young people should not smoke pot. And thus it should be a concern that marijuana use among young people is increasing (although it is clear from the evidence that marijuana is a safer choice
than alcohol; alcohol leads to the most psychopharmacological violence of all drugs among young people and also is responsible for the greatest share of antisocial behavior on college campuses).
Yet, it does not therefore logically follow that marijuana should be illegal for adults. We can in fact express the clearest of dissatisfaction and disapproval for young people using drugs while simultaneously allowing responsible adults the right to do so. It's a proven fact that if you treat teenagers like adults and they actually
are more likely to act like it.
Any policy, including drug prohibition, should be assessed in two ways:
1) Does it meet its goals?
2) Do its benefits outweigh its costs?
Any policy that meets its goals and offers benefits that outweigh its costs is a successful policy.
Drug prohibition does neither. There are dozens of books from people of all ideological perspectives that now show this so clearly. Some of that evidence can be found in my article here: Robinson, Matthew B.
(2010). Toward a More Useful National Drug Control Strategy. /Justice
Policy Journal/, 7(1), 1-49.
See article <http://www.cjcj.org/files/toward_a.pdf> (PDF Format)
Thus, legalization is a real alternative worthy of serious consideration. Frankly, it should not be ruled out so easily with terms like "smoke and mirrors." In fact, it has serious, even scholarly proponents, like myself and many others, who base their decisions on real evidence (and not just that offered by the DEA, who obviously has a vested interest in the status quo).
Obviously, no one knows what would happen if drugs like marijuana were legalized; it is a safe bet that we would benefit greatly overall (even if use went up, overall costs would still be substantially down).
I'd be happy to talk with you about this, especially if you are willing to write a follow-up piece that makes the opposite argument to promote critical thinking in your readers.
Sincerely,
Dr. Matt Robinson
And guess what? She's invited me to write a response where I get to argue the other side.
And that's why you should write letters to papers.
The day has finally come where I can see a valid point by Pat Robertson.
Just another voice of sanity about prohibition of marijuana.
List me the reasons you think marijuana should remain illegal and I will happily respond with all the facts you need to know to show you while you're probably wrong.
