The Economics of Marijuana Reform

By Young Money

Intuitive Surgical Hits $393!

The Hoffman Brothers called ISRG at $152 and it ran to $393 for a 158% gain! See what the Hoffman Bros recommend you buy NEXT.

This is a guest post by Cara Bruce at Young Money.

Cannabis PlantAlmost everyone has heard of the ongoing debate in California about whether or not to legalize and tax marijuana. People for legalization stress the added tax revenue marijuana could bring, as well as the money saved by not arresting and imprisoning nonviolent marijuana offenders. They realize that pot is already easy to obtain and that a significant percent of the population is already smoking it. In fact, the 2008 National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that over 102 million Americans, or 41 percent, have smoked pot during their lifetimes.

Opponents claim that the harm caused by legalizing marijuana, a mind altering substance, will far outweigh any possible tax revenue. They cite more children using it; more people driving under the influence causing more accidents, injuries and death; and less worker productivity. They also claim California would still have a thriving black market.

The public opinion regarding pot has changed drastically since the days of Reefer Madness. Our last three Presidents: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama have all admitted to smoking weed (whether or not they’ve inhaled is another story). It has been almost fifteen years since California decriminalized medical marijuana and President Obama has made it clear to Federal Prosecutors that he doesn’t want them wasting their time with medical marijuana arrests.  California has recently polled 56 percent in favor for legalization, and it looks like the 2010 ballot will see some sort of marijuana reform.

Difference between decriminalizing and legalization

To understand the debate, it’s important to understand the difference between decriminalizing something and legalizing something. When something is decriminalized engaging in it is no longer considered a crime. Instead, it is usually considered an infraction. For example, in California if you get caught with a small amount of pot you might get a ticket, usually around $100. So, in short, decriminalization means the removal of laws.

Legalization means the regulation of something (such as marijuana or prostitution). The government would set laws regarding where, when and how these activities could take place. They could also put a system of criminal regulation in place.

The cost of potheads in prison

The War on Drugs Clock states that 800,262 people have been arrested for marijuana so far this year. An American is now arrested for violating cannabis laws every 38 seconds with 89 percent of all marijuana arrests for simple possession. Progressive author Jim Hightower in the November issue of “The Hightower Lowdown,” argues “By even the most conservative estimate, the outlay from us taxpayers now tops $10 billion a year in direct spending just to catch, prosecute, and incarcerate marijuana users and sellers, not counting such indirect costs as militarizing our border with Mexico in a hopeless effort to stop marijuana imports.”

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, taxpayers pay an additional $1 billion annually to house the estimated 50,000 state and federal inmates serving time for marijuana and related offenses.

Harvard University economist Dr. Jeffrey Miron had his paper, “The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition,” endorsed by over 500 economists, including Nobel Prize-winner Milton Friedman. In this paper, Miron concludes that instituting legal regulations will save the government $7.7 billion just by not having to enforce current prohibition laws ($2.4 billion at the federal level and $5.3 billion at the state and local levels). He goes on to state that tax revenue could range from $2.4 billion per year if marijuana were taxed like ordinary consumer goods to $6.2 billion if it were more heavily taxed like alcohol or tobacco.

There are even law enforcement officials for the decriminalization of marijuana. The 13,000 member organization Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) includes cops, judges, prosecutors and prison wardens who want to legalize all drugs. These are men and women who have been on the front lines of the drug war and know that it’s not working.

However, the FBI’s “Crime in the United States” report concludes that:

  • In 2008, 1,702,537 arrests were made for drug law violations
    o That is one drug arrest every 18 seconds
    o That is 12.2 percent of the total number of all arrests
  • 82.3 percent of all drug arrests in 2008 were for possession only
  • 44.3 percent of drug arrests were for possession of marijuana

The case of California

According to Time magazine, “Pot is, after all, California’s biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion a year in sales, dwarfing the state’s second largest agricultural commodity — milk and cream — which brings in $7.3 billion a year, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state’s tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion a year in much needed revenue, offsetting some of the billions of dollars in service cuts and spending reductions outlined in the recently approved state budget.”

Last February, with the state facing a projected $42 billion deficit, state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, introduced the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390) a bill seeking to legalize, regulate and tax marijuana. The bill would prohibit purchase by anyone under the age of 21 (right now it is easier for high school kids to buy pot than alcohol).  According to the October, 2009 report by the California State Board of Equalization, using the hypothetical $50 per ounce tax rate, about $990 million could be raised in taxes. They also estimated $392 million in sales tax (state and local levels) bringing the total tax revenue to an estimated $1.4 billion from taxing marijuana.

Right now $200 million in medical-marijuana sales are subject to sales tax. Medical marijuana has been legal in California since 1996. Marijuana is a very profitable drug. One plant can produce anywhere from one quarter pound up to two pounds. You can sell a pound of pot to a medical dispensary for up to $2000; while the street value of a pound of really good pot can net approximately $6000.

In addition to raising tax money decriminalizing pot would free up police to focus on other crimes and save the taxpayers $1 billion annually by not having to pay for nonviolent offenders in prison. At the end of 2007, 809 people were in California prisons for marijuana-related offenses. Not including inmates in county jails, California spent an estimated $39 million in 2007 to keep marijuana offenders locked up. That’s $49,000 a year, per inmate.

Downside to the dons of dank

The Emerald Triangle is composed of the Northern California counties of Mendocino, Humboldt, and Trinity. These counties produce the most marijuana in California, actually, in the entire United States. Right now, in Mendocino County, marijuana accounts for close to 2/3 of the local economy and has filled the gap from the troubled lumber and fishing industries. If all of the pot in Mendocino was eradicated, the county would become destitute.

So what will happen if marijuana is legalized and big, industrial, commercial growers begin to produce a lot more pot for less money? In the California State Board of Equalization’s 2009 report they said, “Standard microeconomic analysis indicates that the price of marijuana would decline because its legalization would lead to an increase in the supply of the drug, which in turn would push down its price. We have assumed that the price of marijuana would decline by 50 percent upon legalization.”

The Emerald Triangle might suffer. Or, they may be able to profit off their high-grade boutique pot status and become to pot what Napa is to wine. They could benefit from tourism and new businesses, such as coffee shops and merchandise. According to the Wine Institute, in 2006, the full economic impact of California’s wine industry in California was $51.8 billion (it was $125.3 billion in the U.S.).  Retail value of California wine was $16.5 billion; the wine industry created 309,000 full-time jobs and paid $10.1 billion in wages in California; and profited $2 billion in tourism expenditures.

The National Organization of the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) believes that just the spin-off industries of a legal marijuana market could “generate $8 to $13 billion in total economic activity, with 36,000 to 58,000 jobs, and $1.2 to $1.7 billion in legal wages, which would generate additional income and business taxes for the state.”

Proponents stress tax revenue. But will people pay their pot taxes?

California legalization initiative AB 390 proposes a tax of $50 an ounce. It also includes a licensing fee for growers of $5000 a year with a $2500 annual renewal. But what happens if people don’t pay? These people are already operating illegally. There are large operations running under the authorities’ radar. And, pot is relatively easy to grow—once its legal many people may simply decide to grow their own.

If the tax is too high, then some people probably won’t pay it—they will simply continue to buy it the same way they do now—underground. And, people who are currently breaking the law and growing pot may not be inclined to apply for licenses and pay taxes. In order to enforce the growers claiming and paying their taxes, the state may have to require the threat of a prison sentence. There is the possibility that when the law goes into effect people could still be sent to prison, this time for tax evasion.

As California goes…

Whether or not you think pot should be legalized and taxed, it looks like that is the way it’s heading. Anyone who has lived in California knows how easy it is to procure good pot. So why shouldn’t the state make money off of it? No one can deny that California needs help.

Thirteen states have decriminalized medical marijuana. If California sets an example as being the first state to legalize and tax it, maybe the remaining 37 states will take the first step and decriminalize medical marijuana.
What can you do? To start, you can visit the Marijuana Policy Project. The Take Action page has email alerts, letters you can send to your government representatives and much more. If you are a student you can visit Students for Sensible Drug Policy. You can also contact your state representatives and ask where they are in decriminalizing medical marijuana and find what you can do to help.

Cara Bruce is the author of six books. She’s published articles in the San Francisco Bay Guaridan, Playgirl, While You Were Sleeping and more. She’s currently co-editing a series of anthologies. For more information visit www.carabruce.com. A painted hindsight gloves a chocolate past the hungry plastic.

Readers who liked this also enjoyed these posts:

More on this topic (What's this?)
Bold move to save on taxes
The biggest tax loophole in the country
Your Tax Dollars at Work
Read more on Taxes at Wikinvest


Sharing Is Cool

Looking for Profits? Wall St. Cheat Sheet Premium subscribers have been crushing the markets with winning stock picks and a professional navigator in the hot gold and silver sectors. Let our team of professionals give you their best investing and trading ideas:

Click here now for your FREE trial to any of our acclaimed newsletters

Learn More

Readers who liked this also enjoyed these posts:

  • They need to just go ahead and legalize marijuana because they are already using it in hospitals for patients..So why delay the process?
  • The difference amid amateur consumption and medical employment of cannabis begs to be recognized. Although I think that a responsible adult should have the right to use marijuana recreationally, I do think, without doubt, permitting an ill person use of a plant with a long history of medical value should be accepted and legal. Cannabis has a enormous potential as a medicine and more awareness and tolerance is needed. In Summary, legalize it!
  • Chris
    No one can tell me what to do with my own body. If I want to snort used coffee grounds, I will. Guys like Joe like to think of themselves as having a moral high ground because they are looking out for the best interest of everyone. Further, he hides it under the guise of "protecting the children." I like how he throws out the phrase, "research suggests" and then makes claims about its health and societal effects without giving specifics references to reputable studies. What differentiates fact from opinion is repeatable scientific inquiry. Joe has shared his opinion, but offered no real facts.

    Well Joe, you want some research, here you go:

    According to clinical trial data published this past spring in the American Journal of Addictions, cannabis use -- including heavy, long-term use of the drug -- has, at most, only a negligible impact on cognition and memory. Researchers at Harvard Medical School performed magnetic resonance imaging on the brains of 22 long-term cannabis users (reporting a mean of 20,100 lifetime episodes of smoking) and 26 controls (subjects with no history of cannabis use). Imaging displayed "no significant differences" between heavy cannabis smokers compared to controls, the study found.

    Previous trials tell a similar tale. An October 2004 study published in the journal Psychological Medicine examining the potential long-term residual effects of cannabis on cognition in monozygotic male twins reported "an absence of marked long-term residual effects of marijuana use on cognitive abilities." A 2003 meta-analysis published in the Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society also "failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect of long-term, regular cannabis consumption on the neurocognitive functioning of users who were not acutely intoxicated," and a 2002 clinical trial published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal determined, "Marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence."

    Finally, a 2001 study published in the journal Archives of General Psychiatry found that long-term cannabis smokers who abstained from the drug for one week "showed virtually no significant differences from control subjects (those who had smoked marijuana less than 50 times in their lives) on a battery of 10 neuropsychological tests." Investigators further added, "Former heavy users, who had consumed little or no cannabis in the three months before testing, [also] showed no significant differences from control subjects on any of these tests on any of the testing days."

    (References: Lack of hippocampal volume change in long-term heavy cannabis users. American Journal of Addictions. 2005 | Neuropsychological consequences of regular marijuana use: a twin study. Psychological Medicine. 2004 | Non-acute (residual) neurocognitive effects of cannabis use: A meta-analytic study. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society. 2003 | Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2002 | Neuropsychological Performance in Long-term Cannabis Users. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2001)

    Furthermore, The World Health Organization published a study titled: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use. This study concluded that both short and long-term effects of cannabis were quite minor compared to alcohol, nicotine and opiates, all three of which are considered legal in the US.

    I have hundreds more studies if you really want to talk facts. Otherwise, keep you nose out of my business.
  • Thanks for the references!!
  • Andrew
    Joe seriously open your mind. I used to be a cronic daily pot smoker for 30 years. I got good grades through school and never got fired from a job. Yes I smoked pot daily not because I had to but because I wanted to. Seriously, the only thing it affected was my short term memory. OPEN your mind, who is the government to tell us what we can consume or not consume. Think about all the more harmful goods that are in YOUR house, check your medecine cabinet, and check your food closet. Just because someone says that something is bad for you, your willing to automatically believe them. Im sorry joe but if you dont question things you are inhumane.
  • Everything in moderation is good. They should legalize it.
  • real
    Are you guys for real, I smoke a little bit, but have friends that smoke more and I hate to say that they drive me crazy somtimes, they act like such stoners, meaning they act so mindless
    do and say things that make no sence, forgetfull, one friend of mine desided to give it up last year and five weeks later he was talking about killing him self. I live in the real world I see what goes on, the way things are right now if you are at least as smart as a brick, makes it almost imposible to get into trouble, and most of northern Cal is fueled by its sale, whole countys are run by it, I'm sorry but Cal cant aford to put that many people on wellfare, the growers spend and bring a lot of money into the state, like I said its fueling the state, if the state gets it hands on it that money it won't be going into the local communitys, it will go into some state run what ever and we won't see a dime, So what I'm saying is so many people abuse M now, if it Gov gets control and make it Ok the abuse well get worse, I promise you that, the way things are now works for the people not big Gov, and I think they know it, there smarter than that. Everything in moderation and keep Gov out.
  • Scott
    While we're putting people in prison for doing something that is sub-optimal for their health, I thought I'd help out the Law and Order folks and alert them to some HEINOUS CRIMINALS who are dangerously walking our streets. Clearly, we need to beef up enforcement and incarceration of the following:

    - Tobacco smokers. Yes, I know you folks have been picked on quite a bit lately. But brace yourselves. You're hooked on something that isn't great for you, and we're about to make things much worse for you, to - er - "help out the situation".

    - Occasional alcohol drinkers. Need I say more? If it was good enough for the country in 1930, well, why not now? Oh, that includes 99% of Congress. Behind bars - and not the kind with the glasses on it - with you.

    - People who eat foods with trans fats in them. This stuff clogs your arteries and increase risk of heart attack (which drives up everyone's health insurance costs). Need I say more? You're harming your body. In the slammer. You too, Congressmen. That wide midline of yours was a dead giveaway. You thought the officers would miss it, did you?

    - Non-exercisers. Exercise is probably the single best thing one can do for one's health. When you drop the ball on your workout program, you're harming your health. And that's a crime (apparently). Our wonderful prison system has excellent fitness facilities, and you'll have plenty of time to rehabilitate yourself as a citizen in there. In you go.

    - Compulsively negative thinkers. A great deal of research in recent decades has, to little public fanfare, documented the fact that negative thinking, or destructive cognitive habits - can exacerbate depression, anxiety and other dysfunctional mental states. These in turn can lead to poor health outcomes, due to the connection of the limbic system to various physiological processes. So these negative thinking criminals need our help. We will help them by putting them in prison. Prison solves every social problem known to man.

    Yes folks, if we work hard to clean up the streets we just might be able to get EVERYONE in prison, instead of just the paltry world-leading 1% of our population we currently have. Come on, law and order folks, what are you waiting for? Get cracking. There are hundreds of millions of Health Practice Law violators to prosecute in your Brave New World. Oh, throw yourselves in while you're at it. I'm sure you're doing something unhealthy.
  • Brilliant. There's someone who understands the underlying issues and the hypocrisies which accompany them ...
  • Besides the market crash, tolerance of Marijuana was also predicted:

    http://www.tradingstocks.net/html/socionomics.html

    According to this Socinomic theory, social mood changes in waves and historical evidence suggests it is predictable. Changes in social mood drives the stocks, economy, popular culture, wars and peace.

    http://www.tradingstocks.net/html/popular_cultu...
  • Scott Goodman
    Support Medical Cannabis Access

    Florida Voters: Download Florida petition at:
    http://www.pufmm.org/petition.php

    In California: vote YES on Legalizing Marijuana at:
    www.yes390.org

    Support Leap.cc - Police Against Prohibition

    Support MPP.org - MJ Lobby in Wash, DC
  • joe stein
    TYC: No on all counts. 1. I don't want politics corrupting science, especially medical science. There are enough snake oil salespeople without adding pandering and / or revenue hungry politicans. Yet that is exactly what is happening. 2. Marijuanna is not a chardonnay. The horrible and devastating impact of the marijuana lead drug surge into the cities after the 1960 uprisings speaks for itself. 3. The arguments for making it availible today are no different from the dealer's arguments of the 1960's & 70s. "People are going to do it anyway, man. If I don't sell it to them someone else will, man." Then there's "Smooth man, golden." Usually followed by "first one's free, next one costs a dime." 4. Finally, we know less about the effect of recreational use on human behavior and social srtucture than we do about its use as a medicine. Our children deserve better than that. 5. A final thought. How bad and how jaded of a society have we become if people can't experience life (in fact they hide from it) without marijuana and what kind of people will by marijuana from a murderous, savage drug cartel regardless of its social cost. An addict? A narcissist ?
  • TYC
    Hey joe stein,

    I believed that you posted something on a lot of cannabis related forums to keep your job. Similar to John English the (Lost) Examiner who pens letters against cannabis. But I believe the truth is that you are either a grower, buyer, or distributor. I know legalization is inching closer by the day but you will have to become legitimate in order to survive. I sympathize with your position but the days of bootleg cannabis are slowing coming to a close. You need to diversify your product line and hook up with a legitimate dispensary in order to survive but I believe that you will find a match if you get in on the ground floor prior to legalization. Good luck!
  • Lee
    Joe is right. For too long we have been soft on pot users and now look at the shape of the country. Swat teams throwing stun grenades in a homes, shooting the family dog, ransacking the house, dragging off the kids to ??? with Gov. child services, taking mom and dad off in handcuffs and draining every last penny through legal costs has not helped one bit. There are now more pot users then ever. That is how strong and evil pot is. The only way to send the message that we mean business is through on the spot public executions. Teenagers seeing their pot using friends handcuffed and hauled off to jail is obviously not enough to open their eyes. Seeing a few of their pot head friends getting their heads blown off at close range will hopefully convince them that pot is bad.
  • LOL. I love satire.
  • the issue is not how much it costs to put potheads in prison, but rather, what kind of a society does such things!
  • joe stein
    Sorry - but I forgot. (8) California is the perfect example of political pandering corrupting science as prescriptions are a cover for any use. The AMA has recently called for study but,like the LA Times and Washington Post, readily admits the outcomes are uncertain. Moreover, the AMA is against smoking it. "The AMA supports the concept of drug approval by scientific and regulatory review to establish safety and efficacy, combined with appropriate standards for identity, strength, quality, purity, packaging, and labeling, rather than by ballot initiative or state legislative action.... the patchwork of state-based systems that have been established for “medical marijuana” is woefully inadequate in establishing even rudimentary safeguards that normally would be applied to the appropriate clinical use of psychoactive substances. The future of cannabinoid-based medicine lies in the rapidly evolving field of botanical drug substance development, as well as the design of molecules that target various aspects of the endocannabinoid system."

    Finally, given the rush nature of this response, please forgive the typos.
  • Elle
    Yup, the powers that be want patentable compounds instead of an herb you can grow in your backyard, or get from someone who does. Turns out, we have endocannabinoid receptors throughout our bodies so there are in fact lots of medical uses, and the latest research shows it might do more than offer symptomatic relief, see http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Clinical_Appli....

    Also, it's safer than alcohol, see http://www.chelseagreen.com/bookstore/item/mari...
  • joe stein
    1. Marijuana is the most abused drug among kids. And, you can bet the drug dealer won't ask for an ID card.

    2. If it's not addictive why are so many willing to risk jail and return to jail for repeat offenses. Moreover, current research, such as it is indicates marijuana causes significant mental health problems adults but for kids latter in life. Simply put evidence suggests it creates a public health problem. This should resonant with a paper like yours because supply side economics tells us their will be a dramatic increase in use. After tobbacco we don't need another accelerate poured onto health care costs.

    3. Taxing it has two problems. The first is cost. With Heroin going for $3-$6 bucks in Jersey, its is questionable a state run licensing agency has pricing power. The Mexican Cartel doesn't pay taxes. Secondly, any activity that makes money can be taxed. Thus human trafficking (the second biggest money maker affter dope) Child pornography / prostitution, blood diamonds, conflict gold, etc face the same consideration. Afterall they're going to do it any way. And, how about the marijuana feed to these victims to keep them enslaved.

    4. Social costs, be it rehab, accidents, and "victimless crime to pay for the habit, or the like will eat up taxes to cover their cost.

    5. Permitting its use under any name rewards organized crime by cleaninging and freeing up dirty money for other criminal and legitimate investments. It rewards the criminal. Presently, drug money is being "reinvested' in human reafficiking.

    6. Disrespect for federal law by decriminalizing it essentially turns a state into a narco-state by allowing crime to overwhelm federal law enforcement. It also allows more dirty money - clean by state standards - to by political influence at the state local level.

    7. As for California - maybe its time the Feds prosecution some politicans.
  • Only people who believe everything the government tells them believe that pot is a dangerous drug. Do a little research and you'll see! Pot is not addictive....most repeat offenders do it because they just cannot understand how pot can still be illegal. Also, some see it as civil disobedience protesting as well we should.
    In the 70's my father told me that if the gov't wanted to get rid of the big marijuana dealers all they had to do is allow everyone to grow it. If the gov't wants to make money from it, they will screw it up!!! Treat it like homemade wine....just for friends and family. Everybody can live with that.
  • Joe,

    We are all entitled to our opinions -- and WSCS is a place for rational debate. However, I think you should supply some evidence supporting your claims. Off the top of my head, they are mostly incorrect.

    1) Alcohol and cigarettes are the most abused drugs by both children and adults. They also cause the most number of deaths a year. I recently read that over 50,000 people are injured each year from alcohol poisoning (this does not include drunk driving and the victims). Please show me where a similar number of people each year are injured from smoking marijuana.

    2) Please supply evidence proving marijuana is addictive and causes mental health problems. I think this is completely incorrect.

    3) First, what's the problem with taxing marijuana sales? California is already doing it. Denver started December first. From what I read, an eighth costs about $40. Seems like there's good tax revenue on that purchase. And even mentioning heroin in the same sentence as marijuana is completely misleading and ignorant. Second, comparing human trafficking and smoking marijuana is even more ignorant. That's the same as saying having a beer is like selling a human being. These type of ignorant statements do not pass the laugh test. Legalizing marijuana is not a slippery slope to legalizing the most disgusting behavior on the planet. Rather, it's a way to let law abiding citizens, professionals, family people, and church-goers live peacefully for enjoying an intoxicant which is safer than alcohol and has been used for medicinal purposes for thousands of years in most cultures. Oh yeah, it is a plant which requires absolutely no human alterations to consume ... much like food (and unlike horrible drugs like heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.).

    4) What are the social costs of legalizing marijuana? More responsible users? More revenue from taxes? An immediate savings in over-crowded prison costs and waging an expensive war against regular people who are doing nothing different than having a glass of wine? There will always be people who abuse something. Look at the American obesity problem. Should we ban food? This is a free country. We should start giving behavior the benefit of the doubt, and criminalize based on hard facts that something causes harm to society -- not the other way around. Since Europe and Canada have had very lenient stances on marijuana for decades, show that it's been a major social cost.

    5) When goods and services are moved from the black market to the legitimate one, criminals can no longer control the market. Instead, major corporations will move in and change the game. There will be less for current criminals, not more.

    6) Legalizing marijuana will put an end to "dirty money." That's what happened when alcohol prohibition ended. The mafia stopped terrorizing cities in a black market war to control the alcohol market.

    7) If we want to prosecute some politicians, I think we have a very long list before we get to people supporting the decriminalization of marijuana. But if that's your focus, that's your focus.

    8) Once we can get past the absurd moralists and their completely ignorant views of marijuana, we can more easily follow the AMA's directive to spend more money on research. However, I think there is plenty of science supporting marijuana as a medicinal substance. Go to mpp.org for more. Also, I don't think the issue of legalization should rely on whether marijuana has medicinal powers. Please show me the medicinal powers of alcohol, soda, Kool-Aid, cheeseburgers, and countless other substances people ingest for pleasure. I think adults should have the choice to use these substances responsibly. Again, abusers should be controlled, but that case should be made for every abuse which is causing problems in our society: food abuse, alcohol abuse, hard drug abuse, etc.

    I respect your opinion. However, make it an informed one. Most arguments such as yours sound like someone who never touched an ounce of alcohol telling everyone that alcohol is the devil in all forms and amounts. Befriend someone who smokes marijuana. I know several marijuana smokers who are more productive at work and in society than most people I've met in my life. They are not harming anyone else. So what's the problem? Also, I smoked marijuana back in college and it hasn't damaged my life in any way whatsoever. In fact, I think I became a better person for some of the deep moments of self-reflection which I experienced while smoking marijuana. The people I know who smoke and smoked marijuana were always chilled out and a pleasure to be around when they were high. I cannot say the same for those who drink alcohol. So, in my personal experience (and that of almost everyone I know), marijuana can be used in a responsible and safe fashion which causes no harm to others. For this reason, I am sickened to see all our national resources and jails dedicated to marijuana prohibition. It's not only hypocritical, it's unjust and definitely not what I expect from a society which has been formed by our Constitution.

    Damien
  • joe stein
    1. It is amusing to me that you want sourced evidence to things you feel are incorrect. This is especially so when, off the top of your head, you rely on the lack of any authority for empirical claims about alcohol poisoning. Good for the goose - good for the gander you know.

    Even more amusing, however, is your logic. Let’s take both alcohol & cigarettes. It is common knowledge that use of either causes society harm and large social costs. If nothing else the tobacco settlement and increasingly draconian laws about use make that case. However, you seem to think social evils have rights and the rights of social evils, with or without similar circumstances, include equal protection of the law. A novel idea to say the least. (SEE 2 below)

    It also seems obvious, at least to me, such logic is faulty. Rather, the facts suggest, if we knew then what we know about tobacco now it too would be illegal. Like marijuana now, social approval of tobacco use was originally pitched as a healthy pick-me-up by early brands such as Old Gold and smokers such as Mike Wallace (use your initiative and Google it). So too, we today know little about the impact of the recreational use of marijuana (other than personal testimonials). The same, in fact more, unhealthy substances found in marijuana smoke are found in cigarettes. That presence and their known ill effect create a presumption marijuana is unhealthy. Thus, it is prudent for decisive
    research to be conducted if we are to avoid the enormous toll in lives and costs to the nation’s health. (An aside. Should you choose to produce studies arguing against this position, and they exist, save everyone the time and aggravations and first address the difference between preclinical and clinical trials, short and long term, size and internal controls and the import of those differences.) If not, then acknowledge their must be good reason for the AMA to oppose smoking it.
    Finally, similar defects in the arguments for vapor and ingestion exist. If you don't know them, look them up.

    (2 & 3) No one is advocating the slippery slope argument. Simply the recognition that every logic has its own conclusion. Like, an object set in motion tends to stay in motion and an object at rest stays at rest. But I'm glad you, with an obvious anointing if wisdom, had a good laugh.
    Your relative value assessment rests on your unsubstantiated assumption marijuana is harmless or the qualitative harm is substantially less. Given this belief and in the interest of some brevity it seems appropriate to return to your point "proving marijuana is addictive and causes mental health problems." The Baltimore Sun's article by Harvard's Michael Craig Miller, M.D. might be a good place to start. The title is 'Marijuana Withdrawal Can be Tough." It was published in
    early October. There is the CBS 10-29-09 news story "Teen eroin Use - and Deaths - On the Rise." Of special interest is the observation "A small bag of heroin "is actually cheaper than a six pack of beer". You might also want to read the 2004 American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry article "Is the Party Over? Cannabis and Juvenile Psychiatric Disorder: The Past 10 Years." Finally, you might also want to consider the Pediatrics’ technical report "Legalization of Marijuana: Potential Impact on Youth": "Legalization of marijuana could decrease adolescents’ perceptions of the risk of use and increase their exposure to this drug. Furthermore, data concerning adolescents’ use of the 2 drugs that are legal for adults (alcohol and tobacco) suggest strongly that legalization of marijuana would have a negative effect on youth. Alcoholand tobacco are the drugs most widely abused by adolescents, although their sale to adolescents (younger than 18 years for tobacco and younger than 21 years for alcohol) isillegal. That is just, however, the beginning and not the end of the discussion. And, they are no be all and end all. It's really more complicated. So, let’s return to thetopic after you've at least taken the baby steps to actually inform yourself on the topic so we can move from conclusionary allegations to a more knowledge fact based discussion
    of both pros and cons."

    (4-7) No reason to change my original thoughts. Busy day ahead. So, Bye, bye.
  • 1) http://talkrehab.org/alcohol-poisoning-statisti... (and every other site if you google alcohol poisoning stats).

    2) "social evils have rights:" Joe, please read the Constitution. There are no such things as social evils. We are inherently free, we grant the government the power to stop behavior we tell our legislators we do not want in our society, and that's it. There is nothing in there about banning whatever you personally do not agree with. Maybe if you were king.

    "equal protection of the law": apparently you have no idea what this term means in its legal sense. It's "equal protection UNDER the law" and it's a constitutional issue regarding states providing equal protection under the federal law. I have no idea how you are using the term, nor does it really matter.

    3) Making unhealthy things illegal: Joe, welcome to tyranny. Who are you to say whether someone can smoke a cigarette or have a beer? Who are you to say whether we should be able to have Dairy Queen? As I noted in my previous comment, I am a strong advocate that adults should be able to decide what they want to do so long as it does not harm others. We've already banned smoking indoors in most states. What more do people want? They want to control people's behavior and be self-righteous. Well, I for one am not interested in your self-righteous police telling me how I should live my PRIVATE life. I have a strong suspicion there are hundreds of millions of other Americans who don't want you stepping in between them and their Constitutional freedoms. You should move to a theocracy. That's what you are advocating. Oh, but they are extreme liberals when it comes to smoking tobacco. Scratch that off the list. Just start your own country.

    4) Health: Obviously, putting smoke into a lung is unhealthy. So is too much sun, too many calories a day, sugar, living near power lines, processed foods, watching TV, the stress from trying to control everyone's behavior, etc. The fault with your logic is you are not addressing my assertion. Maybe you don't understand it. I am not arguing smoking is healthy. I am arguing that it's like a very long list of other things people do which are unhealthy, but it is their PRIVATE right to do those things as responsible adults. As I mentioned, we should address the abusers -- but NOT people who don't need your Nanny State coming to the house to make sure we're living according to the wishes of a select group of self-righteous people who think they know what's best for everyone else. That's not the society our Constitution manifests.

    5) We have no reason to discuss this anymore because you are on a mission to stop people from using a medicinal and recreational substance which has been part of most cultures across the face of the earth for thousands of years (take the initiative to google it or read one of the many books at Amazon which share the history of marijuana).

    You should start a group to stop the sale of St. John's Wart and millions of other herbs which have not yet been 100% proven to have medicinal value in Western Medicine (the youngest medicinal system in the world). You did not address any of my points which reduce your position to self-righteous policing of free adults who are not harming others. You did not address the social costs of imprisoning marijuana users and fighting the war on drugs. You did not address how marijuana does not cause overdoses like alcohol or how users do not become violent (what is the cost of domestic and public violence related to alcohol use?).

    Instead, you are clinging to one idea: marijuana smoke harms people's lungs. Well, they are not your lungs. And of course it's a bad idea for children to smoke anything. No one disagrees with that. You are throwing children into the conversation and the national debate is about responsible adults (which we must assume is the majority of the country -- unless you've done a study).

    And if you want to say the social cost of marijuana smokers with lung cancer is enough to ban its use, then you are another hypocrite unless you eat all organic, exercise at least 60 minutes a day, sleep 8 hours a night, never drive over the speed limit, never ingest sugar or processed foods, don't watch TV or stare at a computer screen, live in an area with low pollution and sun exposure, etc. And, even if you did all those things, you would still be a hypocrite because you want to live your life how you desire (in a harm-free way to others), yet you are trying to self-righteously tell others how they should live their lives (in a harm-free way to others). There is a reason we have the 21st Amendment. The one great thing this country has is the Constitution. There is NOTHING in the Constitution which is violated by people privately smoking marijuana. It may hurt your feelings, but those are not protected under the Constitution.

    In other words, you are the guy famously talked about who is casting the first stone. I, for one, cannot say I know what's best for responsible adults to do in their private life. Good luck with your cause.
  • joe stein
    What's the matter Damien. (1) Don't like the sources that document the facts that off the top of your head seem wrong. Can't you address them straight on. Can't you at least counter if marj.'s not addictive. At first you tell me I we have no facts, then you don't respond to the facts. But of course you are an expert on telling people where the facts are and what the ultimate conclusions are.

    (2) You only throw up red herrings to redirect attention when you can't directly respond. For instance you can't seem to differentiate between "ordered liberty" and anarchy. Something that's not that unusal when the arguments made are shallow. The police power of the GVT. (including public health & safety), be it federal of state, is under the appropriate Constitution, if you've read any, superior when it comes into conflict with an individual right that is not consitutionally protected. Since there is no constitutional right to smoke dope the state need only show some reason, real or hypothetical, to suppress it. You may not like it but what is, is.


    (3) No, I have the definition of equal protection correct. The problem is when it comes to everyday matters anaylsis and comparisons are usually made one at a time depending on the on a "totality of the circumstances."

    (4) The problem is this - you have no facts and cannot address the facts you don't like. You have no logic and cannot address logical arguments you don't like. The only thing you can do is bang the table and scream you are right and othe people are facists.

    (5) You are right about one thing. There is no reason to discuss it anymore because now no one is listening. So don't go away sore - just go away. But, good luck downtown cause they're gonna eat you alive
  • 1) There are a handful of links on marijuana addiction in these comments. Read them. Go to MPP.org. They have ALL the medical research and studies available on the subject. If you want to take away people's freedoms, the BURDEN is on you to PROVE people should be prohibited from behaving in a certain manner. In this great country, we assume all behavior is acceptable UNTIL it has been proven to be a detriment. I have already typed a book about the hypocrisy of picking on pot smokers in a country which allows alcohol, cigarettes, fast food, processed foods, GMOs, unlimited TV consumption, etc.

    2) You have proven you do not understand the Constitution. The Constitution DOES NOT grant us rights. We are free. The Constitution grants the government the very limited right to execute power. There is a huge difference of which most people are completely ignorant. That's why some people are scared of the government: they think it's an independent entity with inherent powers. IT IS NOT. If you think we have the right to do only the things mentioned in the Constitution, I feel sorry for you. You've been living in a cage that does not exist.

    3) Wrong. Reread your other comments. Maybe it helps that I went to law school and clerked at the Florida Supreme Court. Apparently I have done my homework on what the law is and how it works.

    4) My logic is completely sound and simple. The true problem is I absolutely destroyed your case. Again, you're entire argument rests on the social costs of marijuana smokers. Prove that marijuana smokers cost more than obese people, cigarette smokers, alcoholics, etc. You cannot. And we accept all that behavior. So, if those legal things cost X, marijuana smokers cost less than X. You should be able to follow that logic. It's not pounding tables.

    5) All the best to you, Joe. And please make sure not to do anything which will become a social cost in the future. You must be a perfect being with no faults or flaws.
  • Erik
    Marijuana doesn't cause lung cancer.

    http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/ha/present/Sta...

    And THC is more of a neuro-protector than a neuro-destroyer.

    http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/21/17...

    You can't make a similar comparison between the health costs associated with alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana because they're all so different. Use alcohol correctly, and you could help add years to your life. Use it incorrectly, you can die. Cigarettes are SO physiologically harmful that a tax wouldn't be able to close the gab. Cannabis has never unquestionably been demonstrated to be physiological harmful, so the increased health care cost wouldn't exist.

    Neither is it addictive, because the active ingredient in it, THC, does not become a part of the body chemistry. So that then, that body, would be dependent on it just as it is dependent on water or food. Cannabis doesn't interact with dopamine release like in heroin, cocaine or other addictive drugs. Less than 10% of users could be considered regular, and it's extremely difficult and rare to have anything like a withdrawal from it. Investigators at four separate German universities assessed the self-reported withdrawal symptoms of 73 subjects diagnosed with "cannabis dependence" who resided in an inpatient facility. Overall, investigators determined that fewer than 50 percent of the trial subjects reported experiencing physical or psychological withdrawal symptoms of any clinical significance, even though all of the patients had a diagnosis of cannabis dependence according to DSM-IV criteria. Further, among the minority who did report such symptoms, "The intensity of most self-reported symptoms peaked on day one and decreased subsequently." The authors concluded: "The most frequently mentioned physical symptoms of strong or very strong intensity on the first day were sleeping problems (21 percent), sweating (28 percent), hot flashes (21 percent), and decreased appetite (15 percent). ... Other often highly rated psychological symptoms included restlessness (20 percent), nervousness (20 percent), and sadness (19 percent)."

    I'm not coming back to this article again so my silence to any reply should not be taken as conceding.
  • See just how much our Cities & States can save on taxing Marijuana, then sign the petition: MarijuanaLobby.org :: Yes, We can America!

    http://www.marijuanalobby.org"
    Change we can engage in...
  • "It has been almost fifteen years since California decriminalized medical marijuana"

    Prop 215 was passed in Nov 1996 - try 13 years. Not to be super knit-picky but it just weakens your paper : P.

    -legalize
blog comments powered by Disqus

This post was written by:

Young Money - who has written 1 posts on Wall St. Cheat Sheet.


Contact the author







Advert

Share Your Thoughts

Did you or will you take a vacation this summer?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...