The Case for Lifting the Prohibition on Marijuana

Introduction: Decades of Failed Drug Policy

After more than forty years of what Tim Dickenson calls "mindless prohibition," some measure of justice for users of medically prescribed marijuana may finally be in sight. The United States drug czar under the Obama administration, Gil Kerlikowske, stated that he had ended the war on drugs, and Governor David Paterson was quoted as saying, "We put a stop to 35 years of bad policy," in reference to the repeal of the Rockefeller Drug Laws, which punished and imprisoned addicts rather than offering the treatment needed to address their addictions. These old and outdated drug policies had not been meaningfully examined or discussed at the national political level since the Nixon administration in the 1970s. When evaluating the merits of these laws, it is essential to research and document the real motives behind them and to assess the success — or lack thereof — of the prohibition over the past four decades.

"Over half a century of marijuana prohibition in the United States has failed to control the use of the drug, and the government's accelerating pursuit of prohibition now exacts a price far exceeding the harm of this mild intoxicant" (Slaughter, 1987). Years of high criminal penalties and an aggressive anti-drug campaign did nothing to curb marijuana use in the United States.

Public Opinion and the Push for Decriminalization

Decriminalization and legalization of marijuana has been a topic of discussion among Americans for over three decades, yet voices calling for change have struggled to be heard at the policy level. "Seventy-two percent of Americans say that for simple marijuana possession, people should not be incarcerated but fined — the generally accepted definition of decriminalization" (Nadelman, 2004). Support for broader legalization is also substantial: forty percent of Americans agree that "the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol — regulate it, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children" (Nadelman, 2004).

California has been spearheading the movement by passing ordinances that allow for marijuana's medical use. An initiative to control and tax marijuana qualified for the November 2, 2010, California state ballot. "Passage of the measure, by no means certain, would make California the first U.S. state to legalize marijuana. Backers believe the state could be at the vanguard of a national movement toward decriminalizing the drug" (Reuters, 2010).

Financial Benefits of Legalization

In addition to its medicinal benefits, lifting the prohibition on marijuana carries significant financial advantages. Marijuana is California's largest cash crop, generating an estimated $35 billion annually. President Obama's administration went on record stating it would no longer pursue or prosecute clinics distributing medicinal marijuana. Nevertheless, the government has continued to direct substantial funding toward enforcing outdated laws. As Dickenson (2009) notes, "The legalization and taxation of cannabis would provide more than $1 billion to balance California's busted budget." Furthermore, "marijuana production has increased tenfold in the past quarter century despite an exhaustive anti-drug effort by law enforcement" (Bailey, 2006).

According to a report from the Department of Economics at Harvard University, "legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. It estimates that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco" (Miron, 2005). These expenditure savings would come in three forms: reduced prosecutorial and judicial resource costs, a reduction in corrections department spending, and decreased police enforcement costs.

Conclusion: Weighing the Benefits Against the Risks

"Marijuana is far less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. Around 50,000 people die each year from alcohol poisoning. Similarly, more than 400,000 deaths each year are attributed to tobacco smoking. By comparison, marijuana is nontoxic and cannot cause death by overdose" (Stone, 2009). The decision to use marijuana is often a conscious and informed choice made by an adult who prefers natural remedies over pharmaceutical or other legal alternatives.

The financial, medical, and social benefits of eliminating the prohibition on marijuana in the United States far outweigh the possible disadvantages. Decades of evidence demonstrate that prohibition has not reduced use, has cost billions in enforcement, has disproportionately criminalized nonviolent individuals, and has fueled corruption and cartel power. A reformed policy — one based on regulation, taxation, and treatment rather than criminalization — offers a more rational and humane path forward.

References

Dickenson, T. (June 2009). A drug war truce? Rolling Stone (1081), 45–48.

Miron, J. (2005). The budgetary implications of marijuana prohibition. Harvard University.

Nadelman, E. (2004, July 12). An end to marijuana prohibition. National Review.

Reinarman, C. (2000). The Dutch example shows that liberal drug laws can be beneficial. Current Controversies: Drug Legalization.

Roleff, T. (2005). Marijuana use may not lead to the use of other drugs. Drug Policy Research Center.

Slaughter, J. (1987). Marijuana prohibition in the United States: History and analysis of a failed policy. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 417.

Stone, M. (2009). Marijuana prohibition. Portland Examiner.

Wood, D. (2010). Now on the ballot, could marijuana legalization happen in California? Christian Science Monitor, pN.PAG, 1p.