US government marijuana legalization policy considerations

¶ … U.S. government legalize marijuana?

The Legalization of Marijuana: Cost-Effective?

Marijuana use has been rampant in the United States for quite a while, and was just recently brought back into the spotlight with Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps caught using it. Marijuana was banned in a peculiar way in 1937. Marijuana usage was illegal if you did not purchase a tax stamp, but you could not obtain a stamp unless you had already produced marijuana -- which you grew before purchasing a stamp -- making it illegal. Many critics argue that marijuana should be legalized because a great amount of revenue could be made from taxation of the plant. Others argue that marijuana should stay illegal because it is a gateway drug leading its users on a path of more hardcore drugs.

As of the date of this writing, fourteen states have made possession of marijuana in small amounts legal. However, the United States government still recognizes marijuana as a schedule 1 drug. Schedule 1 is the highest rating a drug can get, meaning it has a high potential for abuse or no accepted medical use. My goal is to analyze the potential economic impacts of legalizing marijuana, as well as examine the impact of legalization in the aforementioned fourteen states in order to determine the 'value' of legalization of marijuana from an economic standpoint as opposed to a moral or ethical one.

Right now, most states and the federal government look upon marijuana as being unhealthy and dangerous, but they say little about the economic impacts of legalization. It is an area which warrants further exploration largely because it has not been addressed clearly in the past, and also because of the current state of the economy and the argument that legalization of marijuana and other drugs would generate enough revenue to correct any economic problems that this country is facing.

Criminalization

The Uniform State Narcotic Act

Marijuana was made illegal by the Uniform State Narcotic Act in 1932, and this Act made it and many drugs illegal to possess or distribute (Anslinger & Tompkins, n.d.). If there were legitimate uses for a drug - such as in the medical field - there were special provisions for those kinds of things. However, any other use of these drugs was completely prohibited and there were strict penalties for any person who was caught with these substances (Anslinger & Tompkins, n.d.). Each state was given the right to deal with search and seizure and addiction issues in ways that they saw fit, and that was not regulated by the federal government. Despite that, the Act was not something that the federal government took lightly or that they did not intend to strictly enforce (Anslinger & Tompkins, n.d.). The Act was very clear on what constituted marijuana for purposes of being illegal, as well, stating that:

Cannabis" includes all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of such plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of such plant, its seeds, or resin; but shall not include the mature stalks of such plant, fiber produced from such stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of such plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture or preparation of such mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of such plant which is incapable of germination" (Anslinger & Tompkins, n.d.).

Marihuana Tax Act of 1937

The Marihuana Tax Act, passed in 1937, was another way for the U.S. To try to gain revenue. Anyone who possessed the drug had to pay a tax on it, and there were serious fines for evasion, even for tiny amounts (Solomon, n.d.). Thousands of dollars in fines and up to five years in prison seem pretty harsh for an amount of marihuana that would bring in hardly any tax revenue (Solomon, n.d.). That did not mean that the drug was legal, though, and anyone could possess it if they just paid tax. The Act was designed for doctors and others who could legally possess the drug and offer it to their patients (Solomon, n.d.). The name and address of the patient and what was wrong with that person then had to be reported to the government (Solomon, n.d.).

Not following these rules made both the doctor and the patient liable for fines and imprisonment, and was just too risky. With that being the case, most doctors simply refused to prescribe marihuana to their patients for any ailments (Solomon, n.d.). This Act effectively made the drug illegal simply because it was so very difficult to use it legally and carried so much risk. The government had made it illegal not by officially saying so but by making it just too risky to use for any purpose (Solomon, n.d.).

Current

Currently, marijuana is illegal. There are some states where small amounts of it are not jailable offenses, and there are some states where medical marijuana is legal with a prescription for patients who have glaucoma and for those with certain cancers (Miron, 2005). However, overall marijuana is an illegal drug in this country, and more people are pushing for it to be made legal so that the government can get the huge tax revenues from it (Miron, 2005). The theory behind this is that people are going to use the drug anyway, legal or not, and if it remains illegal the revenue and taxes that the government could receive will not be available. Making the drug legal 'fixes' the problem because it can then be taxed and there will be a lot more revenue from something that the government has spent years ineffectively trying to stop (Miron, 2005; Austin, 2005; Schlosser, 2003).

Prohibition

Prohibition Era vs. Current Marijuana Era

In the 1920s prohibition was in full swing (Miron, 2005). Alcohol was illegal, and people could not purchase or make it. They wanted their alcohol, though, so they started making it and selling it illegally, and they had plenty of buyers. They would have stills built in the woods where their alcohol would be made, and they hid from the law fairly well (Miron, 2005). However, there was a 'war on alcohol' declared, much like the 'war on drugs' today - and it did not work. People still made their alcohol in their stills in the woods and they did not get caught as much as the law would have liked. Eventually, people gave up on the idea of prohibition because it just was not cost effective (Miron, 2005). Many businesses saw their revenues go down significantly because they had no alcohol to offer, and it did not help towns prosper and grow.

Repeal of Prohibition

The repeal of prohibition created a lot of celebrating, but it also created some strong economic growth (Miron, 2005; Lemieux, 1992; Williams, 2001; Williams, 2004). People could get a drink with dinner, they could go out to bars, and they could purchase alcohol to consume in their own homes. Businesses flourished and many more opened up so that they could cash in and sell alcohol to the people who were out there wanting to buy it (Pacula, 2003a). There was a lot of celebratory purchasing which leveled off after a while, but alcohol sales remained strong even after the initial surge died down.

People still made their own, too, but they could do it legally. They did not have to worry so much about it, and some of the people who were making their own decided that it was too much trouble so they went back to buying it from the stores. All in all, the repeal of prohibition was a great economic choice for the country and it did not cause the kinds of problem with crime and debauchery that many people argued would take place (Pacula, 2003a; Saffer, 1999; Pacula, 2000; Dubner, 2007). Those who believe in legalizing marijuana today say that the same type of experience would likely be seen and that the worries that 'everyone will be stoned' are not at all realistic.

Decriminalization

State Decriminalization

Fourteen states currently say that medical marijuana is legal under their laws (Seamon, 2007). However, it is still illegal under federal guidelines, so there is a serious 'gray area' regarding this issue. These state laws do not simply allow anyone to possess marijuana, however (Seamon, 2007). There has to be a medical reason, they have to be under a doctor's care, and most states make them register. In addition to all of this, there is a specific amount that they are allowed to possess, and if they have more than that it is still illegal (Seamon, 2007).

Analysis of States

The laws in specific states have changed several times, but they are relatively stable now and they all have basically the same requirements (Seamon, 2007). Becoming a patient in one of these states is not that easy, however, and people who think that they can go to one of these places, see a doctor, and get a free pass to smoke marijuana are largely mistaken. There is much more to the issue and how it is addressed than that (Seamon, 2007). These states are:

Alaska

California

Colorado

Hawaii

Maine

Maryland

Michigan

Montana

Nevada

New Mexico

Oregon

Rhode Island

Vermont

Washington (Seamon, 2007)

Criticisms of Decriminalization

Gateway Drug

The war on drugs has been in the news for some time now, and marijuana has been included in that war. It continues to be listed as important in the speeches of many politicians, and it continues to be at the forefront of a great many debates about how our tax money should best be spent (Gray, 2005; Pacula, 2003b). One of the main concerns of the war on drugs, however, does not deal with what politicians think about it. Rather, it deals with what police think about it. Police are, after all, the ones that are out there on the streets every day, trying to fight the war on drugs. They have limited resources and limited manpower, but they fight just the same. So is the war on drugs really working, and how is it impacting the bottom line of the economy?

First, the war on drugs is not working as well as it could. Many studies show that drug use has not gone down significantly since this war was implemented 30 years ago, and even though politicians talk about taking a stand and fighting against drug abuse, very few of them do much about it once they are elected (Pacula, 2003b). It is important to note however, that many people seem to think that the war on drugs is really working because they see reports of drug busts on their local news or read about them in the paper. Many of these busts are for marijuana, which is generally thought of to be a gateway drug.

A gateway drug is one that is used as a starting point (Pacula, 2003b). When it becomes not enough for the person using it, he or she will then move on to harder drugs. The theory is that, if the person never gets started on the gateway drug, drug use overall will be much lower than it would have been if they were allowed to easily get a hold of that drug and move forward (Clements, et al., 2005). There is an argument about this, though, stating that many of the people who try marijuana never move on to experiment with any other types of drugs. They simply continue to smoke marijuana, and it is really not a gateway drug.

Helping Terrorism

Critics who do not believe in the legalization of marijuana argue that drugs and terrorism go hand in hand, and that people who support and/or use marijuana are contributing to the terrorists who have harmed this country (Clements, et al., 2005). They feel that the legalization of any kind of drug would be giving money to the people who flew planes into the trade center and other buildings on 9/11 and that there is no good excuse for this kind of government policy. However, much of the marijuana that people in this country are already using is grown in this country and in Mexico, as well as south American countries, and these countries have nothing to do with terrorist activities against the United States.

Mental Affects

Another large target for critics are the mental affects that marijuana produces (Clements, et al., 2005). People behind the wheels of cars and working in jobs where they have to have good concentration, etc., could be dangerous if they were under the influence of marijuana. This is true, but those who are for the legalization of the drug find it hard to see much of an argument in this (Clements, et al., 2005). Like alcohol, driving and working under the influence of marijuana would most likely be prohibited behaviors, so this would not be any more of an issues than it already is. The long-term mental affects for people who would choose to use large quantities of marijuana would not be any more severe than the effects on someone who used alcohol for a long period of time (Clements, et al., 2005).

Potential Economic Impacts

Federal Decriminalization

Not everyone thinks that the war on drugs is a good idea. A police constable in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada is facing a reprimand from his superior officers for comments he made saying that the war on drugs must be stopped because it is dangerous. While this gentleman does not live in the United States many of the comments he has made regarding the war on drugs are very important, and should be examined by United States law enforcement and politicians. His main argument is that, while the war on drugs has the best intentions, there is not the manpower, resources, or money available for it to actually be beneficial to the good of society. He contends that it is actually hurting society instead of helping it because it keeps police officers from dealing with more dangerous criminals (Puder, 1998).

This allegation that the war on drugs is actually hurting society ties in with another of Mr. Puder's concerns. That concern is that while police need to be worried about drugs and drug users, they need to be more concerned about serious criminals such as murderers, rapists, and sexual offenders. The basis of his argument is that while police are spending time arresting drug users and those who sell drugs, they are not spending enough time looking for criminals who might be engaged in far worse activities.

He believes that the reasoning behind this is that drug users, when arrested, make an officer look like he or she is really doing something to benefit society. It is fairly easy to arrest someone for drugs and have that person in jail and the drugs as a piece of evidence. This makes the officer who made the arrest look as though they're actually doing a lot of work to keep crime off of the streets, when in fact most of these officers are arresting small-time individuals, and the officers' time would be better spent dealing with more serious criminal cases (Puder, 1998).

While Mr. Puder offers suggestions to improve the war on drugs, there are many people who do not think that the war on drugs is working at all. These people contend that the war on drugs cannot be fixed, and that it should be abandoned altogether. They point out statistics that show that the production of illegal drugs in other countries is increasing, not decreasing. They also point out that illegal drugs are being made more cheaply now, which means that the user of heroin or cocaine can get a better quality drug for less money than they could years ago (Brazaitis, 2002).

This is very disturbing to those who claim that the war on drugs is doing a lot for society. Those who feel that the war on drugs is very important are not happy with statistics that show that there are actually more, and higher quality, drugs in the United States than there was 30 years ago when President Nixon first declared a war on drugs. Everyone has their own opinion of the war on drugs, but most of these opinions seem to fall into three main categories.

The first category states that police are much safer now, and that there are fewer criminals on the streets because those same criminals are afraid of being arrested for illegal drug use. The second category states that the war on drugs is taking valuable manpower and valuable money away from the prevention of other forms of more violent crime, and it needs some work if it's going to function correctly. The third category states that the war on drugs is simply not working, and that the quality and quantity of drugs in the United States today are actually greater than they were when the war on drugs was first declared 30 years ago.

With this in mind, removing the criminal stigma from marijuana and making it legal would free up officers to do a lot more with other kinds of crimes as opposed to often focusing on small time drug offenders. These people just return to the streets after paying a fine. They can also be jailed, and when they are it is the taxpayers who must foot the bill. Marijuana would bring in a huge amount of tax revenue, and when that was coupled with the lack of cost for jail time for these people as well as court costs and supervision programs, the savings would be enormous. A growing number of people in this country believe that there is already widespread marijuana use, and legalizing it will not really result in that many more people using it than are currently doing so.

Marijuana and Crime

Because people's perceptions of the war on drugs vary so widely it is important to examine the differences in thought that cause some people to think that the war on drugs is working while others are convinced that it is not. It is especially important to realize that not everyone will have the same opinion as to what works and what does not, it is also important to realize that what works in one community or one state may not work in another.

In a recent forum at the Wisconsin Academy, it was noted that many people to longer use drugs because of the fear of the police catching up with them (the War, 2001). This would imply that the war on drugs is working, at least in part. There are many effects of this war that can be seen, and many of these show that the war on drugs is indeed working. What can be seen, however, is not the whole picture. The visible effects of the war on drugs are only half of the picture, and both the visible and the invisible effects of the war on drugs must be examined in order to arrive at a total understanding of whether this war is actually working to protect our society.

In order to understand how well the war on drugs is actually working it is very important to look behind the scenes at some of the effects of the war that we cannot see. There are several behind the scenes effects, but not all of them are significant, and there is no need to discuss them all here. Probably the most important thing that really is not seen when looking at the war on drugs is that many people who would be using drugs and otherwise causing trouble in society do not do so because of the fear of problems with the police, or the fear of apprehension and jail time (Clements, et al., 2005). Naturally, not everyone who uses drugs is afraid of being caught by the police, but there are significant numbers of drug users who say that apprehension by the police and/or jail time is a major concern for them.