Economy Fix or Fail??

[chuckman]

Hello all,
My name is Charles, i've been a member for nearly 6 years now, and this is my first actual Thread Post. This is only relevant because the topic that im going to discuss now is as important as the fact that it actually made me want to take time out of my day to post this and hope that you people out there actually care. So marijuana is a plant, that for the last 50 years, has been looked upon as a drug. Worse yet, its negative propaganda, such as the movie "Reefer Madness" and the Goverments constant denial of its already proven medical traits, has caused the United States public to view it as such. This has caused the plant to become a major contributer to the Mexican Cartel, as well as other major drug organizations to flourish.(as well as other factors, not worth mentioning) Which brings me to my point, Whether or not the plant is legal or sold illegally through "drug dealing", its a 30 billion dollar-a-year industry. With our economy in its rut, our problems with synthetic, drug abuse, as well as the "War on Drug", we could use the extra money, as well time not spent on "marijuana cruesading". In essence, with the information givin, should the plant, not be legalized, but taxed and regulated like alchohol, so that the economy can return to normal? Should it also be regulated to allow us to face the other problems previously mentioned? I cannot answer those questions, but i would love to see what the ffr community as a whole thinks of that matter. Feel free to comment or message my page with more intimate questions or comments ...Live Life Free, and Without Negative Inibition

[korny]

How can you argue with this without being ignorant?

[chuckman]

Thnx for the Help
Nothing more to say, nothing less lol

[devonin]

In essence, with the information givin, should the plant, not be legalized, but taxed and regulated like alchohol, so that the economy can return to normal?

The reason you can tax and regulate alcohol easily is that the average consumer is unable to make alcohol in any quality or variety themselves. It requires specialised equipment, lots of time and resources. You -can- have a still in your basement but it's going to make a) crap and b) only one kind of crap.

There's enough demand for alcohol of a quality that can't be easily manufactured by the consumer, so there's an industrial niche in the manufacture and sale of alcohol where it can be taxed and regulated.

Marijuana can be quite easily grown and processed by the individual consumer. It takes very little comparative time or effort to go from plant to joint, and the degree to which it is very widely available already in relatively high quality shows that there's no particular need for an industry to come up around it. There doesn't need to be large-scale marijuana plant farming concerns, there doesn't need to be whole stores dedicated to the sale of various kinds of marijuana.

Each person that wants to use it can just make their own, so the ability to tax and regulate it is not remotely so lucrative as you seem to want to suggest.

At BEST, legalizing marijuana means that they don't spend the money currently being spent to enforce its illegality. (The 'war on drugs' deals with more drugs than just marijuana, so that money would be slightly reduced at most, not eliminated. Additionally, the government would -lose- the income from fines and charges related to marijuana growth, possession and sale)

[korny]

Perhaps not quite as lucrative as formerly suggested, but do you mean to say that all of the positive benefits associated with it's legalization do not outweigh whatever profits the government would accumulate from it's being taxed? Maybe it wouldn't be 30 billion dollars, but certainly a multibillion dollar industry that would undoubtedly be beneficial to our economies current state.

On another note, do you mean to say that you agree with the governments means of income due to the fines paid by those charged with possession, growth, and sale? Sure, it's the law, and there's nothing we can do about it, but it doesn't make it right in any way. Extensive research has proven so many more positive benefits than negative, (if there are any true degenerative effects at all) from marijuana usage and it's industrial qualities. Not only that, but the legal system in itself costs a lot of money to process when you have things like court appointed attorneys to account for. I know that I've never paid my court appointed attorney so who paid for their services? While incarcerated 95% of the fellow inmates had court appointed attorneys, a majority there because of some sort of marijuana related charge, so how much do you think the government is actually receiving from marijuana related charges?

To grow marijuana properly also cost thousands and thousands of dollars. You need proper lighting and all the essentials to make the buds grow right. This takes a lot of time and strenuous effort. Sure, anyone can just get their weed from the person who grows it, but to get it on the level that the government is able to grow it is a whole different subject. I know I would only buy weed from the government. I smoke medicinal. I know the difference, and it is undeniably greater.

[Devilsrejectedsoul]

I really don't think it should be if we become dependant on just one product just to bring back the economy back to a stable rate; if we did what if the product has a bad growing season, our economy would be back down in the dump again. I for one am not for it what so ever. I've tried it, didn't heal a thing just gave regret.

[korny]

Originally Posted by Devilsrejectedsoul

I really don't think it should be if we become dependant on just one product just to bring back the economy back to a stable rate; if we did what if the product has a bad growing season, our economy would be back down in the dump again. I for one am not for it what so ever. I've tried it, didn't heal a thing just gave regret.

Please tell me where anyone stated that we would become dependent solely on the taxing of marijuana to boosting our economy back into the place it needs to be? All anyone said is that it would help, which is a no brainer.

Bad growing season? Marijuana is generally grown indoors. You really can't have a "bad" growing season. You're biased view against it is because of your "regrettable" experience, whatever that even means.

[GuidoHunter]

Marijuana should not be legalized, or kept criminalized, for economic reasons.

Either legalize it to give the people the freedom to control their own lives or keep it criminalized because its legalization would present too great a safety risk for intoxicated drivers and the such.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[korny]

Coming from the conservative native Texan.

http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer...oes-marijuana-

Marijuana does not effect everyone the same. I perform tasks as if I were on an amphetamine while under the influence of marijuana, the feeling of synapses firing and such. It's all about state of mind and it varies from person to person. Perhaps not everyone can drive well while high. Not everyone drives worse or differently while high. I for one do not. I'm generally high more than I'm not and I've never even had a ticket before, let alone gotten into a wreck, and I smoke cannabis very heavily. I mean in all honesty, how many stories have you heard where someone wrecked their car because they were under the influence of marijuana, and marijuana only? I've smoked for 9 years and I have not. I'm not being biased. I'm just relating to you my personal experiences with marijuana over the years none of which have been negative due solely because of marijuana usage.

In closing. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...ng/dot78_1.htm

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by korny

Coming from the conservative native Texan.

And that means?

Marijuana does not effect everyone the same. I perform tasks as if I were on an amphetamine while under the influence of marijuana, the feeling of synapses firing and such. It's all about state of mind and it varies from person to person.

Perhaps not everyone can drive well while high. Not everyone drives worse or differently while high. I for one do not. I'm generally high more than I'm not and I've never even had a ticket before, let alone gotten into a wreck, and I smoke cannabis very heavily.

Oh? Well, by all means, let's go tell this to the lawmakers and we'll get those laws repealed immediately!

People claim to drive better when they're drunk, too. The fact remains, however, that they're intoxicated nevertheless and are experiencing the world in an altered state, one that is in no way conducive to better, or possibly even adequate, driving.

For example: "I perform tasks as if I were on an amphetamine while under the influence of marijuana"

Sounds great to me! Here are your keys, bud!

I mean in all honesty, how many stories have you heard where someone wrecked their car because they were under the influence of marijuana, and marijuana only? I've smoked for 9 years and I have not.

How many stories haven't you heard? More importantly, though, how many more would you hear were marijuana to be legalized? I don't know, nor do you. It is, however, a valid avenue of inquiry and not a question I'd like to test lightly.

I'm not being biased.

Sure you are; no need to put on airs.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Erothyme]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

People claim to drive better when they're drunk, too.

There is a simple explanation for this: alcohol is a drug which feeds idiocy.

ps did you completely ignore his second link? I bet you did!

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

The fact remains, however, that they're intoxicated nevertheless and are experiencing the world in an altered state, one that is in no way conducive to better, or possibly even adequate, driving.

Alcohol's intoxication, an inhibition of your rational processes, is absolutely not comparable to the effects of cannabis; it is completely different from both a pharmacological and psychological perspective. The only people who I have ever seen driving high have, in fact, driven better. I even know a dude who meets qualifications to work as a professional driver who drives high regularly. He's ridiculously impressive, but I understand I can't prove that. I haven't tried it, probably won't, but the bottom line is it's nothing at all like driving drunk. In all likelihood, the worst you will do is drive a little slower than usual. I do, however, have experience with performing other tasks with the help of cannabis. I can say confidently after hundreds of trials that I am a better musician, a better athlete, a better orator, a better writer, a better everything after a couple of puffs.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

For example: "I perform tasks as if I were on an amphetamine while under the influence of marijuana"

Sounds great to me! Here are your keys, bud!

Millions of people are on prescription amphetamines and drive fine.

In fact, amphetamines improve your performance at essentially everything. That's more or less what they do, so your message here is backwards.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

More importantly, though, how many more would you hear were marijuana to be legalized? I don't know, nor do you. It is, however, a valid avenue of inquiry and not a question I'd like to test lightly.

The idea that more people would drive high if cannabis was legal is an argument which could only be made honestly by someone who is oblivious to cannabis culture.

[Erothyme]

Originally Posted by devonin

Marijuana can be quite easily grown and processed by the individual consumer.

Not good cannabis, and that is what people want.

Originally Posted by devonin

At BEST, legalizing marijuana means that they don't spend the money currently being spent to enforce its illegality. (The 'war on drugs' deals with more drugs than just marijuana, so that money would be slightly reduced at most, not eliminated. Additionally, the government would -lose- the income from fines and charges related to marijuana growth, possession and sale)

Sounds like someone has completely failed to consider the implications of the ban on hemp farming being lifted.
Also sounds like someone doesn't realize how much it would sell if it was available at the corner store.
And the War on Drugs thing is an easy one to fix: legalize it all. Addicts are sick. Sick people don't get better in prison.
As for the government losing money due to not being allowed to kick people around over a plant anymore, boohoo?

If the option to grow stopped people from buying it, no one would go to cannabis cafes in Amsterdam. Oh look, they get ridiculous amounts of business! Imagine that.

[chuckman]

to devonin, i can say that was a very swift reply but i may say not very well thought out...By only using the "brewing" of beer as the example for why its harder to tax alchohol than marijuana, u in essence weakend your arguement....what about the 100 year process of wine curing huh? or the 1 year "aging" it takes to make good Jack Daniels Whiskey? To synthesize hardcore liquor the average person would have to take many classes of training, and would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the equipment to make the said alchohol...yes you could do it your basement and make A. crap and b. one type of crap....the same goes for taxed and regulated marijuana...if you devonin would take as much time to do research on the actually growing process of high end medical marijuana you'd know that the average person couldnt easilly pull off the said "opperation". Therefore the economy would profit off this because there would be a demand for people that know the actual growing process, how the plant works, what type of UV light to use, what venting system is required....so I can confidently say that we should still decriminalize it , tax it ,regulated it and keep the alchohol and cigs for people like devonin...so am i really butt slammed???

[devonin]

Originally Posted by chuckman

to devonin, i can say that was a very swift reply but i may say not very well thought out...By only using the "brewing" of beer as the example for why its harder to tax alchohol than marijuana, u in essence weakend your arguement....

I didn't say -anything- about the "brewing" of beer. In fact, I didn't say anything about beer at all. I think I see which response was poorly thought out.

what about the 100 year process of wine curing huh? or the 1 year "aging" it takes to make good Jack Daniels Whiskey? To synthesize hardcore liquor the average person would have to take many classes of training, and would have to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the equipment to make the said alchohol...yes you could do it your basement and make A. crap and b. one type of crap....

So your -objection- to my saying "It is harder to manufacture alcohol by yourself than to manufacture marijuana by yourself" is to say "But what about all these cases where it is harder to manufacture alcohol by yourself?"

In essence what you're saying is "But but! What about <The exact same thing I already said>" So yes...that. Thank you for restating as a counter to my claim, exactly what I claimed.

the same goes for taxed and regulated marijuana...if you devonin would take as much time to do research on the actually growing process of high end medical marijuana you'd know that the average person couldnt easilly pull off the said "opperation".

The US Department of Health and Human Services already holds a patent for medical-use marijuana, it was issued in 2003. Given the existing status of medical marijuana in the US medical field, a discussion about legalizing or at least decriminalizing of marijuana (In an original post that said -nothing- about medical marijuana, nothing about the putative medical benefits of it, or anything whatsoever to do with medical-grade marijuana) seemed to me to be about decriminalizing it for casual personal use, and I responded accordingly. I apologise for not reading your mind.

Therefore the economy would profit off this because there would be a demand for people that know the actual growing process, how the plant works, what type of UV light to use, what venting system is required....

Just because something has an expensive or time consuming process doesn't automatically mean the national economy would benefit. Do you have any concept of the time, effort and -money- that would be involved in -setting up- such a system of regulated and taxed sales of marijuana? Even if the ATF handled all the legal issues surrounding it, that's a whole pile of additional training for every employee of the agency, the hiring of additional staff nationwide, to carry out the various inspections etc for quality, legality and so on. A lisencing system for people to grow, a lisencing system for people to sell, it's not like a government regulated industry can just spring up at no cost to anybody.

Additionally, half the reason the "industry" is so "profitable" is that the illegality carries risks which express themselves in a price markup of the merchendise. If farmers could just grow a 500 acre marijuana crop, and ship it off to the processing plant, the actual finished product would be -dramatically- cheaper to manufacture and thus sell, meaning less money being spent on it, and thus less taken in from taxes, and overall just less profitiability in the product anyway.

so I can confidently say that we should still decriminalize it , tax it ,regulated it

Awfully confident, do you have a background in economics? Let's get Q and Carbo in here to provide some economic analysis before we say things like "confidently say"

and keep the alchohol and cigs for people like devonin.

What does that even mean? Was that supposed to be insulting or something?

Originally Posted by korny

Perhaps not quite as lucrative as formerly suggested, but do you mean to say that all of the positive benefits associated with it's legalization do not outweigh whatever profits the government would accumulate from it's being taxed? Maybe it wouldn't be 30 billion dollars, but certainly a multibillion dollar industry that would undoubtedly be beneficial to our economies current state.

Well, take the amount of money the marijuana industry makes in a year, subtract the extra charged for the product along every step of the line because it is illegal, subtract the amount taken in by the government every year in fines and charges and siezed assets, subtract the amount that would have to be spent to -institute- the system in the first place, subtract the amount that would have to be spent to manage the system.

do you mean to say that you agree with the governments means of income due to the fines paid by those charged with possession, growth, and sale? Sure, it's the law, and there's nothing we can do about it, but it doesn't make it right in any way.

Do I mean that I agree with the legal system extracting fines and punishment for people engaging in illegal activity? Absolutely I do. Just because you personally think it shoudln't be illegal doesn't mean it isn't. It's still against the law and you make the free choice to break the law so you can deal with the consequences. Do I think it -should- be illegal? Probably not, but ignoring a law is pretty much never the right way to try and go about changing it.

To grow marijuana properly also cost thousands and thousands of dollars. You need proper lighting and all the essentials to make the buds grow right. This takes a lot of time and strenuous effort. Sure, anyone can just get their weed from the person who grows it, but to get it on the level that the government is able to grow it is a whole different subject. I know I would only buy weed from the government. I smoke medicinal. I know the difference, and it is undeniably greater.

Wait...you don't even just want the government to regulate it, you want the government to be responsible for the whole process? Okay, now it's even MORE expensive for them, they have to be paying for land, farmers, workers, owning the processing facilities, staffing those as well, now it's probably -losing- money in the long run.

It's all about state of mind and it varies from person to person. Perhaps not everyone can drive well while high. Not everyone drives worse or differently while high. I for one do not. I'm generally high more than I'm not and I've never even had a ticket before, let alone gotten into a wreck, and I smoke cannabis very heavily.

So you criticized one person for drawing a conclusion based on their personal experiences, and here you draw conclusions based on your personal experiences -while- admitting that everyone's personal experience vaires.

Originally Posted by Erothyme

I even know a dude who meets qualifications to work as a professional driver who drives high regularly. He's ridiculously impressive, but I understand I can't prove that.

Even if you could, you're already stating that he's starting from superior ability. I bet Alex Rodriguez drunk can hit a 90mph fastball a hell of a lot better than I can stone sober. The issue isn't people who are already highly competent because their performance could be degraded and still appear perfectly competent. The issue is the kind of people who get into car accidents while not drunk, not high, and not overtired because they are just bad drivers. You have no way to prove that such a person wouldn't be -more- prone to getting in accidents while high. The general logic behind the "high people drive -better-" theory is the mild state of heightened awareness/paranoia making you naturally more cautious. But overcautious driving causes plenty of accidents, not just overaggressive driving.

The idea that more people would drive high if cannabis was legal is an argument which could only be made honestly by someone who is oblivious to cannabis culture.

Why? Multiple people in this thread say they drive high all the time, or related stories of people they know who drive high all the time. Even if only 5% of people who use marijuana drive while high, if you quadruple the number of people using it, it stands to reason that you'll quadruple the number of people who drive while using it.

Sounds like someone has completely failed to consider the implications of the ban on hemp farming being lifted.

Well, we've still got plenty of hemp and lumber kicking around to make all the various non-drug products that can also be made from marijuana, so I don't think legalizing -another- such product is going to have a huge economic impact. Further, you're only just now bringing into the discussion the other uses of marijuana by referencing the hemp farming unban (Random picture near the OP notwithstanding) So far, everyone but you has been talking about decriminalization for the purpose of personal drug use. This is a seperate issue entirely. Once again, apologies for my lack of clarivoyance.

Also sounds like someone doesn't realize how much it would sell if it was available at the corner store.

Mass produced things are cheaper than individually produced things. Legal things are cheaper than illegal things. Why do these two statements translate into very expensive mass-produced legal products?

And the War on Drugs thing is an easy one to fix: legalize it all. Addicts are sick. Sick people don't get better in prison.

The war on drugs isn't a war against American drug-users, it is a war against foreign and american drug smugglers. Addicts are sick, yes. But they weren't addicts when they tried it the first time. They made a free choice to break the law and use something they knew was bad for them and addictive. So yes, now they are sick and sick people don't get better in prison, but they were law-breakers first.

As for the government losing money due to not being allowed to kick people around over a plant anymore, boohoo?

Well, when the main focus of the thread before you arrived was on how this would be profitable for the government, things that would change the amount of money the government was making seem pretty relevant to me. Boo hoo indeed.

[devonin]

Double post to use my mod voice:

Please bear in mind that this thread is in Critical Thinking. That means no "I agree" posts, that means no "one-liner shot taking" and we address the issues not the posters.

[korny]

The multi quote option is bugging me so bear with this post.

While contemplating what effects the wide availability of marijuana would have on lets say, your typical stoner, like myself, and the millions of other people who would now indulge because of it's now legality, and understanding that, "Hey! This stuff isn't what the media made it out to be after all!" , I've concluded that the figure of 30 billion dollars can now be raised substantially. Why? Scenario: "**** I ran out of weed last night. Oh wait, there's high grade marijuana at the 7-11 down the street. Awesome, now I don't have to drive to georges house and who knows what he's got but I know what 7-11 does, and I certainly don't have to worry about that." Ask any stoner, a large majority would most indefinitely increase their consumerism on the product purely due to it's now wide and easy availabiliy and now that there's wide avaibility of a product of this caliber? Damn, that's pretty much self-explanatory right there. And in all reality I would never get georges weed to begin with because like previously stated, medicinal cannabis is on a level that can't be easily imitated whatsoever. So In regards to the cost management of the whole process, I subtracted the figures and hey, we're still up something odd billion dollars. Must not be worth the time and effort still though right? So I dunno lets just raise that amount to 40 billion dollars, subtract 10 billion and hey we're right where we left off. This is all speculative of course, but I think it's very safe to assume that we'd be near what we left off if not much better off than before.

Regarding the governments "fairness" to punishing those who distribute, possess, and use cannabis; I only meant to suggest that because of it's non-negative effects that they should have no "real" basis for doing so. Can you not at least agree that just plain marijuana usage regardless of illegalities, are not by any means "fair"? I ask you now purely out of curiosity since you've made it so clear that the law is the law and should always be abided by regardless of whether it's "reasonable" or not. Ignoring the law is one way to look at it, but if it's a question of morality, I'm not doing anything wrong. That is the way I look at it since it is the ONLY law that exists that I disagree with on a moral standpoint. So yes it's the law, I understand what you're saying completely, I'm now just curious as to whether you think it's fair or not regardless of whether or not that changes anything at all.

Please tell me where I said at all that I want the government to solely be responsible for the process? I only stated that because I know of the quality I'm getting, that I would only buy that marijuana.

If by criticizing someone based on their experiences you are referring to devilsreject, perhaps he should elaborate more on what he means by using marijuana to "heal" and that it only left him "regret" since I fail to see how marijuana alone could be responsible for his "unfortunate" experience whatsoever. I analyzed his response based off the fact the he seems to be using the use of weed, as a cop out when there are more than likely deeper underlying issues at hand than just an "I used weed it ruined my life" type of response. I think it was quite obvious that my stating everyones experience is different, was directed toward a persons ability to handle certain tasks and not the their mental wellbeing which in devils case, was already in some degree of peril, but this was all I could ascertain with such a vague post.

[devonin]

So In regards to the cost management of the whole process, I subtracted the figures and hey, we're still up something odd billion dollars. Must not be worth the time and effort still though right?

But all of these numbers are either random guesses with no actual study to back them up, or numbers that are just glossed over and never actually stated.

We can think that perhaps it would be profitable and perhaps not, but I don't think anybody on this forum has done the research, because I don't think that anybody has done the research in an appropriate manner.

Can you not at least agree that just plain marijuana usage regardless of illegalities, are not by any means "fair"?

This question makes no sense, can you please restate it so I can answer it?

I ask you now purely out of curiosity since you've made it so clear that the law is the law and should always be abided regardless of whether it's "reasonable" or not.

If you think a law is unreasonable, you go through legitimate legislative channels to try and get the law changed. But while it is the law, whether you think it is reasonable or not, you obey the law or you accept the consequences if you get caught.

That is the way I look at it since it is the ONLY law that exists that I disagree with on a moral standpoint.

There are people for whom the only law that exists that they disagree with on moral grounds is the one allowing women to have abortions. Does that mean, since they disagree with it on moral grounds, that it is automatically a bad law to allow women to have abortions?

Please tell me where I said at all that I want the government to solely be responsible for the process? I only stated that because I know of the quality I'm getting, that I would only buy that marijuana.

You said "but to get it on the level that the government is able to grow it is a whole different subject" So yes, that is where you said that you wanted the government to be responsible for the process. Even if you also want other people to be able to if they want to, you made your personal preference clear that government-grown marijuana was what you a) wanted to see happen and b) that other people would feel the same way.

I think it was quite obvious that my stating everyones experience is different, was directed toward a persons ability to handle certain tasks and not the their mental wellbeing

He said "My personal experience is X" and you said, basically 'Your conclusion is invalid, because you're biased based on a negative experience' and yet seem to not see how your own conclusion is just as biased based on your positive experiences. Just because you personally haven't had bad experiences doesn't mean a) nobody has bad experiences, b) you will never have a bad experience, or c) that enough people might be having bad experiences to make it wholly relevant to the discussion.

[korny]

Haha ok man have fun with this then.


The Economic Benefits Of Legalization

The answer to that question has been partly provided by economics professor Jeffrey Miron, whose recent report on the fiscal impact of marijuana prohibition was endorsed by 550 of the world's leading economists, including Nobel Prize-winner Milton Friedman.

Miron attempts to evaluate how much it costs US federal, state and local governments to enforce marijuana laws, how much revenue would be generated if marijuana was taxed like most products, and how much would be generated if it was taxed like alcohol or tobacco.

The economist's report is based on an envisioned level of legality far exceeding that of decriminalization, but the report is not based on a calculation of the economic benefits that marijuana had from the 1600's until the plant was outlawed in the early 1900's. During that multi-century period, marijuana was not subject to any prohibitive legal rules (although for a while, the King of England required colonist farmers to grow hemp) and was an extremely valuable industrial crop in the USA.

US Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew hemp, as did thousands of other farmers. Before cotton replaced hemp as the primary source for fiber and seed oil in the 1840's, cannabis was among the most important agricultural sectors of the American economy, and could also be grown in anyone's personal garden.

The Miron report postulates that marijuana production and sales in a legalized environment would operate somewhat like the Dutch cannabis market. Miron acknowledges this is not at all an exact comparison. But it's the closest analogy he can find, and so he glosses over key issues and questions in what is otherwise a courageous, valuable document that usefully challenges prohibition.

These center on exactly how a legal marijuana marketplace would function economically: a) what percentage of total marijuana transactions would continue in the black market and involve people who grow, purchase or barter cannabis rather than buying it in stores as they would buy other products; b) what percentage of transactions would involve marijuana burdened by "sin taxes," as are cigarettes and alcohol; c) what percentage of marijuana transactions would be subject to taxation and regulation at all; d) what are likely fiscal impacts of legalization? The report contains two different estimates of tax revenues marijuana could generate if it was legal. Both calculations assume a decrease in the price of cannabis due to removal of risks associated with growing during prohibition.

Starting with an estimate of an $8 billion-per-year US pot expenditure, Miron says marijuana could generate $2.4 billion in taxes if cannabis is taxed at a normal tax rate, and could generate $6.2 billion yearly if taxed like booze or tobacco.

The report predicts major savings if cannabis is legalized. The drug war creates lots of costs for courts, police, jails and prisons. At the state and local level, legalization could save at least $5.3 billion yearly in taxpayer-funded drug war expenses. At the federal level, legalization could save at least $2.4 billion in drug war expenses.

By taking the amount of money governments would not have to spend arresting, judicially processing and incarcerating people, and adding it to the amount of tax revenue possibly generated by legal pot, Miron estimates as much as $14 billion per year in savings and new revenue could be generated if marijuana was made legal.

CAVEATS

There are subtle nuances and unfathomables to Miron's calculations, and he acknowledges some of them. For example, one reason the drug war exists is so governments can seize drug defendant's property and keep it, but Miron says the value of seized assets is a tiny fraction of what it costs to run the drug war.

Police promote asset forfeiture and court-ordered fines/restitution as a way of making criminals pay for their crimes, but in many cases, asset forfeiture and fines hurt defendants but don't significantly reimburse taxpayers for the cost of the drug war. The police keep what they seize and use it themselves; taxpayers pay more and more for the drug war each year. Also left unanswered is whether people would buy taxed marijuana if the purchase price were inflated significantly by a sin tax, as is the price of alcohol and tobacco.

Legalization would cause significant job losses that Miron fails to mention. One of my favorite attorneys says criminal defense lawyers refer to marijuana laws as "The Full Employment Act for the Criminal Defense Bar."

My lawyer friend notes that 800,000 people are arrested in the US for marijuana every year. Some are arrested for other crimes and just happen to have marijuana with them at the time of their arrest; judicial statisticians still count this as a pot bust. Miron estimates that 50% of all listed marijuana arrests are just for marijuana and nothing else; my lawyer friend stipulated that at least 400,000 marijuana-only arrests are made per year.

If you calculate profits for lawyers generated by these hundreds of thousands of pot busts, my friend says wryly, "you begin to see why most criminal defense lawyers don't want marijuana legalized – ever."

Here's how lawyers benefit tremendously from prohibition: Some cannabis arrests are ticketable offenses, and others are arrestable offenses: some felonies, some misdemeanors. A few defendants are represented by public defenders, but that system is so underfunded and understaffed that most defendants are forced to hire private lawyers, and pot lawyers rarely work for free, even in medpot cases where defendants are dying and destitute. My friend calls it "cash register justice."

Noting that marijuana philanthropist Marc Emery has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees for other people's cannabis criminal cases and Supreme Court challenges, the lawyer said that if those defendants had had to pay for their lawyers themselves, they would have never been able to get beyond the first appellate court, if that far. Justice is expensive, and lawyer's fees are the reason why.

Assuming a conservative estimate of 50% of those 400,000 pot-only arrestees hiring a lawyer for an average of at least $2500 per case, lawyers are making a minimum half a billion dollars a year off marijuana prohibition! And it must be remembered that many marijuana cases, especially felony cultivation and felony trafficking cases, generate lawyer fees in the tens of thousands of dollars – and that defendants also have to pay for private investigators, court reporters, transcripts, filing fees, and other costs of their defense.

I have known felony cultivation defendants who spent $40,000 trying to get acquittal, but in the end were advised to plea bargain to a felony and probation, and shut up. Marijuana defendants must also pay for other "services," including bail bondsman, urine testers, court-ordered fines and restitutions, incarceration fees, and drug counseling.

The drug testing industry, which focuses primarily on cannabis, is a $7 billion annual industry. The anti-drug counseling industry is also burgeoning, with counselors paid an average $42,000 per year, working in all sectors of American society from elementary schools to prisons to corporations.

Most drug counselors are in business because courts offer marijuana convicts a "choice" of punitive sentences: pay thousands of dollars for mandatory drug testing, probation, and counseling… or go to jail. If people can afford it, they usually choose the counseling route.

If marijuana were legal, another big loser would probably be the hydroponics industry. This industry, which includes manufacturers of high intensity lights, air exchangers, electrical grids, heatingcooling units, odor removers, irrigation tubing, timers and pumps, monitoring sensors, carbon dioxide gas, generators and tanks, rockwool, fertilizers, and other grow media, is estimated to be selling at least $2.5 billion worth of gear to American indoor pot growers per year. There might be an increase in large-scale commercial indoor production if pot is legalized, but it's doubtful that as much money overall would be spent on expensive indoor hydro gear if people could legally grow kind bud trees in the back yard.

And as Miron says, it's probable that prices for marijuana will drop if cannabis is legal, thus depriving some black market growers the currently huge mark-up that allows them to pay off mortgages, buy monster trucks, and otherwise live large by growing a plant that is worth more than its weight in gold.

In 1970, an ounce of high grade seeded Colombian buds cost $20, and gasoline cost 50 cents a gallon. Today gas is $2.50 a gallon and bud is $400 an ounce. Does prohibition have anything to do with that? Go figure!

Would ten high quality cannabis seeds still sell for $200 if pot were legal? Would legal pot still sell for $400 per ounce? Probably not. Even if demand skyrockets and most people choose not to grow their own after legalization, it's likely the wholesale and retail prices of cannabis – if removed from the black market of risks and rippers – would go down.

Others who stand to lose lots of money when cannabis is legal are police, prison guards, prison builders, drug dog companies, and governmental drug warriors like the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the White House, the DEA, and others who make their living oppressing drug culture and people.

Drug warriors claim if marijuana is legal, society will suffer financially due to alleged health problems, car accidents, insanity, babies, lost employee efficiency, and lost work hours. But there's never been a reliable study that proves expensive societal marijuana damage, or that marijuana use reduces the efficiency of the work force. Indeed, workplace drug testing has proven that most marijuana users are exemplary employees who never attracted negative attention from their employers until their employers randomly tested them for drugs. That urine tests are required is proof that no flaw was detectable in a cannabis using person's performance, otherwise they would have been fired for incompetence.

Bigger Picture

Miron focused his calculations and estimates on marijuana as an intoxicant being grown, bought and sold by individuals and businesses, but he forgot to calculate the potential revenues of eventual cannabis coffeeshops, cannatourism, natural medpot products, industrial hemp products, and canna-entertainment industries.

As Vancouver's Da Kine cannabis shop revealed, if you sell quality cannabis, pot edibles, and hashish, thousands of people will show up and give you lots of money. It's likely that marijuana "bars" and music clubs would be a serious rival to the alcohol bar industry within a few years of legalization. If the value of the Dutch cannabis shop industry is any indication, American pot entertainment could generate $7 billion a year in revenues beyond the profits Miron has estimated for the regular retail market.

Marijuana-related entertainment is just now beginning to take off, pioneered by Marc Emery's revolutionary reality television shows on his very own television network Pot-TV.net, in which he features real people casually breaking the law, and enjoying the freedom and liberation cannabis legalization can permit. Just think of the money waiting to be made from authentic pot-related television and movies in a legal marijuana America! And what about industrial hemp? If the marijuana plant is legalized, hemp can again be grown in the US, where it would compete with cotton, nylon, animal fats, forest products, petrochemicals, petroleum, food oils, and other profitable products, which will generate many billions of dollars in commerce.

As Jack Herer proves in his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes, the value of a free market hemp industry would be tremendous, because hemp can replace so many other commercial products and processes and do so with far less ecological damage.

Numbers Talk

Traditional economists don't take into account ethics, value systems, Mother Earth, or human spirit factors. They are professional automatons; it's part of their creed to only care about numbers and economic theory. That's why economists are eagerly responsible for International Monetary Fund and World Bank economic policies that destroy the environment, civil society, and human rights.

Miron admits his evaluation of marijuana legality focuses only on economics. It doesn't take into account how much prohibition costs in terms of freedom, fascism, loss of civil liberties, harm to families, and creation of a police state.

Still, Miron has done the marijuana community a sweet favor by showing in cold, hard, ruthless economic language that pot prohibition is as needlessly expensive as it is morally repugnant. "The fact that marijuana prohibition has these budgetary impacts does not by itself mean prohibition is bad policy," he says in his report, which was sent to the White House and Congress.

"Existing evidence, however, suggests prohibition has minimal benef its and may itself cause substantial harm. We therefore urge the country to commence an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition. We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods. At a minimum, this debate will force advocates of current [drug war] policy to show that prohibition has benef its sufficient to justify the cost to taxpayers, foregone tax revenues, and numerous ancillary consequences that result from marijuana prohibition."

by Ray Boyd

My question made perfect sense maybe you should read it again but I'll word it differently since it gave you some sort of problem. Ummm, marijuana usage has proven harmless. It's illegal but shouldn't because of this factor. Agree or disagree? That better?

When I say moral, I mean that there is morally nothing wrong with marijuana. Abortion is a matter of ethics. Whether you agree that the fetus is a child and should or should not be "Killed" has absolutely nothing to do with something that has no negativities known to man. Seriously what do you not get about that or do you honestly think that marijuana usage is bad well, for no apparent proven reason? Tell me where marijuana is a matter of ethics and I'll be able to understand this post more.

I'm speaking for myself and a majority of potheads that they would rather have the best quality. Something the government would be able to provide easily. There are those that would grow their own low quality in their back yard sure, but you can't possibly understand what easily LEGAL accessible weed means to your average stoner unless you are one yourself I guess? I dunno how to get this point across to you I really don't. But nowhere in my post do i specifically state that I want the government to only be responsible. You're taking words out of my mouth and twisting them around. I want people to be able to grow their own if they want to, I guess I had to say that since it wasn't as implied as I thought it was. I want all potheads to flourish in the culture however they want. There I said it. I just know how a majority are going to go about it.

Biased is definitely not the word. I'm a realist. In reality, negative experiences are not known to be caused by marijuana alone. The only negativity is panic attacks or extreme paranoia that people experience while thinking about the fact that it is illegal, when it shouldn't be. Like I said, his post was too vague to truly understand what he was getting at. In conclusion to this statement, I still fail to see how any negative experience can come to be unless you are able to provide me with a scenario in which one can happen.

[devonin]

That's an interesting read. See this is the thing about posting to CT: When you have something like actual evidence to support your claims, try -leading- with that instead of waiting until someone points out that you've done nothing to support your claims.

It's a reasonably compelling argument in terms of some numbers, though when you consider that

Miron acknowledges this is not at all an exact comparison

and

it's the closest analogy he can find, and so he glosses over key issues and questions

I'm not sure how seriously to take his findings. And the author of this article is -clearly- heavily biased when he uses language like

fascism, loss of civil liberties, harm to families, and creation of a police state.

Bear in mind that I've never said I'm opposed to the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. I've just said that the logic of "But it will fix the economy and make the government billions of dollars" has never had remotely enough actual evidence to support it, and after reading this article, it still doesn't. It sounds like a shoehorned best-fit theory based on numbers from another nation and culture entirely written by someone looking for a way to justify the stance economically instead of socially.

I'm all for social opposition to the law, but trying to make it about economics reeks of "trying to justify it to the Man" especially since a quick look into the background of Jeffrey Miron suggests that he's primarily known for "Being a libertarian" and "Fighting for drug decriminalization" so one would hardly expect him to be caring about all the "key issues and questions" that article admits he glosses over.

My question made perfect sense

Please parse this sentence for me: "Can you not at least agree that just plain marijuana usage regardless of illegalities, are not by any means "fair"?"

Even if I correct the grammar to "is not by any means fair" then what you're saying is "Can you agree that using marijuana isn't fair?" which makes no sense.

marijuana usage has proven harmless. It's illegal but shouldn't because of this factor. Agree or disagree? That better?

Yes, that's much better since it actually asks a cogent question. I'd say that instead of 'marijuana has proven harmless' I'd say 'marijuana has been seen in general to have far fewer negative effects than have been previously supposed' Anything that alters your mental state at all can't be said to be "harmless" even if -most- of the consequences of that altered state are not necessarily negative in all cases.

Aside from a subjective change in perception, the most common short-term physical and neurological effects include increased heart rate, lowered blood pressure, and impairment of psychomotor coordination, concentration, and short-term episodic and working memory.[16] Long-term effects are less clear.(Riedel G, Davies SN (2005). "Cannabinoid function in learning, memory and plasticity". Handb Exp Pharmacol (168): 445–77. PMID 16596784)

I don't think I can classify that as "Completely harmless"

When I say moral, I mean that there is morally nothing wrong with marijuana. Abortion is a matter of ethics.

Ethics: A set of moral principles.

Your morals are your intrinsic beliefs about what is good or bad, your ethics are your applications of your morals in a given circumstance.

If you think abortion is morally wrong, you will be ethically opposed to it. If you think smoking pot is morally right, you will be ethically supportive of it.

Tell me where marijuana is a matter of ethics and I'll be able to understand this post more.

See above.

Biased is definitely not the word.

And yet

I want all potheads to flourish in the culture however they want.

I'm speaking for myself and a majority of potheads

Sounds at least a little biased to me.

panic attacks or extreme paranoia that people experience while thinking about the fact that it is illegal

Wait...seriously? You seriously think that people are only paranoid or suffer panic attacks while on pot because they're thinking about the fact that it's illegal? Pretty sure they think about that before they buy it, when they're buying it, while they've got it hidden, when they use it and after they use it. And yet they only have the extreme paranoia or panic attacks -while- using it? Convenient.

I still fail to see how any negative experience can come to be unless you are able to provide me with a scenario in which one can happen.

Aside from a subjective change in perception, the most common short-term physical and neurological effects include increased heart rate, lowered blood pressure, and impairment of psychomotor coordination, concentration, and short-term episodic and working memory.[16] Long-term effects are less clear.(Riedel G, Davies SN (2005). "Cannabinoid function in learning, memory and plasticity". Handb Exp Pharmacol (168): 445–77. PMID 16596784)

Scenario provided.

[chuckman]

Devonin, i was restating your statement, to show you that you can paralell them two. By saying that you didn't think your statement out,was to show that you to are coming off biased. You also are making states in an ultimating type tone, when you yourself agree that there isn't any research based information. Why do you think that is? Because people like youself, that figure they have every answer or rebuttal for everything. They dont take time to understand the hard work that goes into growing a plant that has a suitable "thc" count to get you high...and even if you, the consumer doenst use the plant to smoke, like korny's graph, we can use it for a slew of other things that dont fall under the smoking catagory. Therefore other parts of the industry would profit off this...devonin you are the only person completely biased toward this idea...rather than argue a point that was never supposed to be a debate in the first place, why dont you take the time to actually read up on this plant , and its advantages to the gov't, medical field,textile factories, patients, and the average american consumer...your a very intelligent man/woman...take my advice if you value information over your pride as a well known flash flash debate...