The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says that about one in three American adults have tried marijuana. What’s your first reaction to that number?
A They should all be jailed as punishment for their crime to serve as a deterrent to others.
B Good thing they didn’t survey me and my friends. Their numbers would have been closer to 100 percent.
C Gold mine!
The first choice is a knee-jerk response resulting from years of indoctrination: “Drugs are bad. Just say no.” The second answer is a reflection of the relaxed attitudes toward marijuana use in this country (see recent legislation in Denver, Colo., for more details). The third answer is a close reflection of Jeffrey Miron’s attitude toward the subject.
Miron, a Harvard University economist, released a paper titled “The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition” earlier this year that estimated the federal costs of prohibition to be between $10 billion and $14 billion annually. $7.7 billion is the approximate cost of marijuana law enforcement, while legalization and taxation would yield an estimated $6.2 billion a year. He also estimates the costs for continuing prohibition to each state; Mississippi weighs in at $32 million per year.
Mississippi’s costs are relatively low (perhaps due to moderate decriminalization in the state), but any spending is still a waste of taxpayer money on an issue when an overwhelming majority of Americans favor legalization of the plant.
The money saved on enforcement of marijuana laws could help offset budget cuts at Mississippi’s Institutions of Higher Learning. In other words, Joe College would not be paying more money (in tuition) so that extra money could be diverted into drug enforcement programs (i.e. arresting Joe College and his pot-smoking friends).
Miron’s research is just another example of the growing legalization movement in this country. Five hundred thirty other distinguished economists have already signed off on the plan and signed their names to a letter addressed to President Bush requesting an open and honest debate on the topic. After all, 530 distinguished economists can’t be wrong.
Bush proclaims to be dedicated to securing the homeland, and if he’s serious about that, then this is a good place to start. According to the paper, the money saved by regulation and taxation “would cover the securing of all ‘loose nukes’ in the former Soviet Union … in less than three years. Just one year’s savings would cover the full cost of anti-terrorism port security measures required by the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.” It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.
Those opposed to legalization will produce myriad reasons to continue shoveling money into this black hole masquerading as a public health initiative, but at the core of this debate you will find a dude with a dime bag that is less of a danger to society than the average bar patron. Unless by “society” you mean “bag of Cheetos,” then I’ll concede their point.
The criminalization of cannabis has led to more arrests annually (90 percent for possession) than all arrests for violent crimes combined. The product of this is that our jails are overcrowded, resources are tied up in finding and arresting half-baked kids and the attention of the police is diverted from rapists and murderers. Many Americans will have a hard time coming to terms with the information presented by the pro-pot people; these groups realize this, and all they request of you is an open and honest debate.
Ultimately, I believe that overwhelming public support will supersede the reservations that the government still holds concerning legalization, and we’ll get our debate, but until then you’ll just have to wait for 4:20 a.m. to roll around in the privacy of your own bong.