Marijuana Legalization as a Revenue Enhancer
Jesse McKinley takes a look at states searching for unorthodox revenue sources including this one:
Nowhere is that more true than California, where Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, a freshman from San Francisco, made a proposal intended to increase revenue, and, no doubt, appetite: legalizing and taxing marijuana, a major — if technically illegal — crop in the state.
“We’re all jonesing now for money,” Mr. Ammiano said. “And there’s this enormous industry out there.”
I don’t think this is the optimal policy. I fear the creation of a legal marijuana industry with lobbyists and advertising aimed at creating as many problem pot smokers as possible. It would be better, I think, to decriminalize possession and growing for personal use but keep maintain a ban on selling and marketing marijuana. That said, the revenue possibilities of moving to full legalization are pretty tempting. And what Ammiano is proposing would be a significant improvement over the status quo. I think it’s a real sign of the poverty of our policy conversation that this idea isn’t in wider circulation.
65 Responses to “Marijuana Legalization as a Revenue Enhancer”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 28th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Think of the revenue that could be realized by coupling this with a sales tax on Sun Chips.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Matt, why can’t we just legalize the industry but put restrictions on advertizing?
February 28th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Broad legal statutes should not be used to create narrow social effects. Making broad swaths of behavior illegal (even if ‘decrimialized’) just because you don’t want Marijuana marketing and lobbying? Really? Because right now Marijuana is marketed by word of mouth, rap songs, and popular media. Not for profit, but by people who like smoking it. And there is a lobbying effort to get it legalized, or legalized for medical use. Again, by people who like pot or think medical marijuana should be legal.
A much simpler solution would be an outright ban on people who *sell and grow* marijuana from marketing their products, similar to the restrictions the FDA puts on drug companies to market their legal drugs. You can’t sell a birth control pill as a way to cure headaches (as one company recently found out).
Lobbying is trickier, but there is no reason why people who make money on decriminalized pot can’t pay for lobbyists now.
And finally, leaving it ‘decriminalized’ makes it impossible for people involved in the industry to seek redress in court, which opens the door to criminal gangs doing illegal stuff (like stealing pot plants, intimidating growers, violence, etc)
It also conditions people to ignore laws.
Decriminalization is not the way to go, it’s a bad half measure.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
One thing to worry about though: Increased health care costs from all the extra food people eat while stoned!
February 28th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
In any case, even if you do have a legal marijuana industry, there might still be a competitive (and untaxed) black market. You know that if it’s legalized it’s going to be regulated for quality control etc. Those who don’t wish to bear the costs of such regulation and taxation will remain underground.
So instead of arresting people for selling marijuana, we will be arresting them for selling it without a license or without abiding by the imposed regulations. Which, I suppose is an improvement.
I share the same concerns you have about “marketing” marijuana, especially to youth. Then again, even now broadcast television is already promoting the industry (just look at That 70’s Show) even without it being legal.
I have nothing against pot on moral grounds, I just think that there are better uses of society’s time and resources. I don’t think toking up is the worst thing in the world, however.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Why can’t the state just make marijuana a state monopoly. No lobbyists, no advertising, and a price just low enough to keep there from being a sizeable black market? And all the money going directly to the state.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I don’t understand the reservation, myself. Growing your own should be legal as well. Most people aren’t going to grow their own, because marijuana is not your average houseplant and getting quality weed isn’t so easy. I’d prefer to see cottage industries, rather than big pharma getting the upper hand.
On an industrial level and for the restoration of land quality, you can’t beat hemp.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
This doesn’t need to be confusing. Just don’t allow advertising costs as a deductible business expense.
Nobody will need to advertise this product in any case. All the advertising it gets now is the endless assertion by the government that it is too cool for school, and it’s a seller’s market.
Hell, you could disallow any business expenses for this product and they’d still make money selling it. That would be some real flat-rate taxation.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Do you think this would be a better policy for alcohol, too? What about obesity-inducing cupcakes>
February 28th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
I agree with everybody, Matt. You’re totally wrong on this one. You make marijuana legal/taxed and prohibit advertising of all drugs. The state has money, nobody is getting arrested for pot, and no more hearing about 4 hour erections on the teevee. Winners all around.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
There are various taxes and restrictions on the production of alcohol, but – in the modern era – there’s very little black-market alcohol out there. And it’s not widely acceptable these days to market liquor to kids. I don’t see why legal-for-adults-but-taxed-and-regulated pot would be any different, really.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
I don’t like the idea of the government having a direct incentive of encouraging as many marijuana users as possible. Matt’s right that whoever profits from marijuana sales will have a vested interest in driving up usage, which is why a reasonable policy seems to be to allow both growth for personal use and for-profit sales of marijuana, with sales being regulated (however imperfectly) by some governmental agency. At least then there’s a system of checks and balances.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
there’s got to be a libertarian/paternalism solution to this problem.
let’s lower the drinking age while we’re at it.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
let’s lower the drinking age while we’re at it.
Woah, hold on, now. We don’t want to make too much sense.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
“Legalize it, I’ll advertise it.”
I’m pretty sure Peter Tosh said that. We already have all the advertisement we need. I don’t see that as a problem either way. It is what it is. And we have brand names. Trust me, the White Widow kicks the Blueberry’s ass. I’m smoking some random indoor Northern Lights variation right now. When she nails it down, she’ll a have catchy name for it. But the grower is still working out some kinks before she claims a brand name. But this idea that promotion will somehow increase consumption seems strange. Granted, I live in Boulder, our judges smoke pot with us. But let’s face it, The Netherlands has about the same per capita pot consumption as the US does. And a much smaller consumption than Boulder. And it’s completely decriminalized there. We in Boulder are only half-decriminalized. But let’s get real on consumption, you smoke what you want to and no more. I’ll reach my hand past the best pot in the world to get to that half-smoked cigarette in the ashtray. Pot has it’s limits, and you can see it clearly in Boulder. We have the best of the world, and it’s only so nice. After while, you just stop smoking. I already smoke all the pot I want, and it’s far less than what I could get. I don’t see how that could change.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:44 pm
a ban on selling and marketing marijuana.
Exemplifying the stereotype that liberals hate commerce more than love freedom.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
It would be impossible for any company to market marijuana better than it’s marketed now. If pot is legal, most of the culture that’s developed around it will probably wither away. Sure, people will still want to smoke pot, because smoking pot is an enjoyable thing to do, but nothing any advertiser could do would make it seem cooler than it seems now.
And I know Matthew doesn’t care about freedom in the abstract, but it’s morally wrong to punish someone for selling pot, or for paying for an ad that says, “here, try some pot.”
DTM is exactly right about the effects of advertising. I would really love to see Matt or Mark Kleiman or somebody provide some evidence for their contention that advertising by big alcohol companies has increased overall consumption.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Why can’t the state just make marijuana a state monopoly.
And I thought MattY was hatin on freedom.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Just because you cut and pasted that idea from someone who talks a lot about this (Kleiman) doesn’t mean that you’re more technocratic about this.
This concern is just a poison pill to prevent this from ever happening.
Why don’t you focus on making *real* problem substances like nicotine and alcohol more of a problem, instead of saying, hey, pot will become just like that.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
P.S. I’m done.
If I want a bunch of “Look at my philosophy major vocabulary” smarter than thou keyboard-kommandoing I’ll just read Slate.
/unsubscribe.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Matt says: “I think it’s a real sign of the poverty of our policy conversation that this idea isn’t in wider circulation.”
I think this is the real point of the post. Ammiano’s bill was introduced on Monday and today is the first real nytimes story on it. I think people still believe that the conventional wisdom is that “legalizing drugs” is a non-starter politically (and they may be right). But “legalizing marijuana” is a horse of a different color, and as the people who have never tried it (and therefore have no problem comparing it to heroine and cocaine) get older and fall away from the conversation, legalization will become inevitable. So why not legalize now? Now is the time: when we’re in desperate need of new American industry (and new revenue sources for the states).
February 28th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Marijuana is already legally sold in California by clubs and clinics. Until it is legal all everywhere the problems from drugs will continue, yet the government will derive only a fraction of the revenue.
California spends a great deal of revenue to chase illegal growing operations on private, state, and federal lands. As long as it is illegal, the state, counties, cities, and federal authorities are going to continue to spend millions if not billions on prohibition. We can no longer afford this conservative policy. It has not worked for 70 plus years. It will not work in the future.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Legalization makes the same sense and would have the same impact as the end of prohibition during the depression.
The other consequence worth considering is the impact on international relations when drug lords now threaten to turn Mexico into a failed state. Legalization would go a long way to crippling them.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
The solution here is accepting that it is a proper part of government’s role to restrict and control the marketing and provision of products that can have a negative impact on society, and write legalization policy with that in mind. A substance that is already illegal is the ideal product to do this with, as the existing business interests are not yet in place to spend money influencing your legislation.
What I kind of get from your post here is that we shouldn’t legalize pot because then those bad multinationals will get their hands on it — and while I fully agree that seeing MJ pitched to kids and sold with horrible sexist advertisements is not particularly appealing, I think the overall societal drawbacks will still be much less than we see with alcohol and the massive benefits (like eliminating the huge black market) will easily outweigh them.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
nobody [would be] getting arrested for pot
Which would have several important salutary effects :
- California’s rate of incarceration would decrease,
easing the state budget and making the overcrowded
prisons marginally less hell-holish.
- It would give the courts more room on their dockets
for crimes with victims.
- there would be no further reason for paramilitary
law enforcement campaigns in Humboldt County
- An important corruptor of our law enforcement agencies
(bribes from drug sellers, the need to look the
other way when a white college kid is holding,
civil-forfeiture proceeds retained by the arrestors)
would be eliminated.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
How about we make it legal and then you just mind your own god damn business Matt?
February 28th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I don’t have a personal problem with treating marijuana like we do alcohol, but there should be no advertising allowed on TV for sure, or any publication or broadcast available to children.
Britain prohibits advertising of pharmaceuticals on TV.
How wonderful is it to be sitting with the children, mom, dad, GRANDMA! when the Viagra commercial pops up? We all just act like it is not there! LOL!
February 28th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
“Exemplifying the stereotype that liberals hate commerce more than love freedom.” –Kolohe
Yes, and it kills me, quite frankly. I am proudly liberal. I am proudly for commerce and free markets. I see no contradiction between these two statements. In fact, I see contradiction only when liberals try and quash freedom. These people are not liberal, they are in fact conservative.
“It would be impossible for any company to market marijuana better than it’s marketed now.” –too many steves
I doubt that. Despite it being relatively easy to get marijuana now, it’s still not as easy as going down the store and buying a baggie. And a lot of people I know would smoke if it was cleverly advertised (portrayed either more like a harmless party drug or a harmless introspective drug) and legal.
“If pot is legal, most of the culture that’s developed around it will probably wither away.” –too many steves
It would change, for sure, but it would no more wither than alcohol culture withered when prohibition was lifted. If it was legal, I would open up a weed cafe a la Amsterdam.
“Sure, people will still want to smoke pot, because smoking pot is an enjoyable thing to do, but nothing any advertiser could do would make it seem cooler than it seems now.” –too many steves
They couldn’t make it seem cooler, but they could make it seem safer. A surprising amount of people have serious misconceptions about the effects of marijuana (both in terms of what happens when your high and what the health effects are). An educational ad campaign focusing on the benefits of marijuana could take a lot of the stigma away possibly.
“I don’t think this is the optimal policy. I fear the creation of a legal marijuana industry with lobbyists and advertising aimed at creating as many problem pot smokers as possible. It would be better, I think, to decriminalize possession and growing for personal use but keep maintain a ban on selling and marketing marijuana. That said, the revenue possibilities of moving to full legalization are pretty tempting. And what Ammiano is proposing would be a significant improvement over the status quo. I think it’s a real sign of the poverty of our policy conversation that this idea isn’t in wider circulation.” –Matt Yglesias
Man, if you could put everything that bothers me about Matt Yglesias into a nutshell, this would be it. I get the feeling that Matt and I define liberal quite differently. For me, it is primarily about establishing certain rights for the individual and protecting them vociferously. This is a bottom up approach. For Matt, it seems to be about engineering society from the top down to maximize happiness. Maximizing happiness is a noble goal (and is, in fact, one we share, which is why we can both labor under the same moniker), but I have more epistemological skepticism than Matt. I simply know I don’t know a lot of stuff. Matt gives the impression he knows far more than one can. Society is infinitely complex, and trying to micromanage it in our current stage of primordial ignorance is a serious mistake. When we must tread down this path, we should be extremely cautious.
Matt thinks marijuana is bad. Why does he think this? I’m not sure, but if I had to guess, it would go something like this: the health benefits are questionable and the risks are mild but present; rather than destroying people’s lives, marijuana has the potential to make people lazy, inconsiderate and of less use to society. Therefore, marijuana is bad and people shouldn’t do it because it won’t make them happy. People don’t seem to not want to do it on their own, so the state should nudge them in the right direction through acts of minor coercion such as taxes and quasi-criminalization. This will, in turn, increase happiness. I find so much to this logic wanting and presumptuous.
First, even if marijuana is poison, by what right can Matt deny me my freedom to use poison, especially if it makes me happy? You can say it doesn’t make me happy, and I am in fact deluding myself, but who the fuck are you who is so omnicognizant as to be more intimately aware of my happiness than I am? Sure, kids are another story. But I am an adult. I can make decisions for myself, thank you very much. We all engage in behavior that is personally unhealthy. Matt drinks. Some people surf, rock clime or sky dive (and I can damn well guarantee you the fatality rate on these are higher than with pot). Ultimate fighting, boxing and other martial arts can be deleterious to one’s health. Does Matt believe two consenting adults do not have the right to enter a ring and beat the living hell out of each other? Liberalism of Matt’s variety, I hate to say, seeks to drastically limit free will. I’ll have none of it.
You know what? I smoke copious quantities of marijuana out of any device I can get my greedy mitts on. That is my prerogative as a sovereign being. Life is short and we only get one shot at it, and I’ll be damned if I let any fascist, whether liberal or conservative, tell me how to spend my time on this earth. Further, if happiness was maximized by obliterating unhealthy behavior than reality would be reduced to a hideously boring game of “see who can live the longest, dullest life.” No thanks. I’ll stick to my bong.
The arrogance of it all just drives me mad. What is a “problem pot smoker?” A problem to whom? And moreover, a concern to whom? Not every battle over happiness is best fought from Washington (most aren’t). Even if someone was a “problem pot smoker,” how on earth would the behemoth of government be well suited to handle this problem? And again, how is something that relates to individual choice a problem for the state? Negative externalities are one thing, and to the extent that marijuana has them (which I don’t believe it does), it should be taxed in proportion. But this is not what Matt is saying.
If you are not a smoker, and thus don’t get why this is so infuriating, let me do my best to break this situation down to its composite variables. Something you enjoy doing that effects no one and brings you pleasure is illegal. On top of that, things that DO effect others (i.e. alcohol) are legal. The double standard is bad enough, but it gets worse. You know in the back of your mind that you are constantly risking jail, losing your job or your place in college because of something you do in the privacy of your own home.
Now, along comes Matt. He doesn’t engage in your behavior, but sees fit to debate regulating it with a bunch of other people who also don’t engage in your behavior. He is convinced what you’re doing is wrong, despite it being something you willfully choose to do. He insists he knows better than you what’s good for you. And he just knows this isn’t good for you. But he thinks throwing you in jail for your harmless behavior is a bit much. Instead he just wants to throw you in jail if you promote this behavior. The rest of you can just pay a fine instead. When you ask him, “hey, buddy, what the fuck?” he replies, “well, we can’t legalize what you’re doing because then people would lobby and advertise it.” So, in sum, a harmless choice must remain in, at best, legal limbo so that people can’t promote said harmless behavior.
This is madness.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
In any case, even if you do have a legal marijuana industry, there might still be a competitive (and untaxed) black market. You know that if it’s legalized it’s going to be regulated for quality control etc. Those who don’t wish to bear the costs of such regulation and taxation will remain underground.
Why would this be any more of an issue than it is for, say, alcohol or cigarettes or designer handbags? In those industries I suppose there is small underground, but it’s effect is relatively de minimis.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
“I don’t have a personal problem with treating marijuana like we do alcohol, but there should be no advertising allowed on TV for sure, or any publication or broadcast available to children.” –Troy
We advertise alcohol on TV, but that’s besides the point. If I own a TV station, who in god’s name are you or anyone else to tell me what I can and cannot run on that station? If I want to run an ad promoting heroin use, so what? Are humans but mindless automatons who have no choice but to ingest everything they see?
This is the equivalent of helicopter parenting on a societal level: let’s try and take out all the sting and responsibility in life. Round the edges, sterilize everything, bubble rap the whole god damned place. This path lead inexorably to technocratic healthism, a kind of good-willed totalitarianism that seeks to make everything harmless. Bah, this is not utilitarian. Our happiness is maximized only if individuals have, gasp, the right to make stupid decisions that can hurt their health.
It seems to me that this is the core debate between two kind of liberals. The Yglesias brand of liberal doesn’t think you have a right to make retarded decisions. My compatriots and I do. Do other people think this split is kinda where the central difference lies?
February 28th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Bravo, Smarmy Liberal. I also find Matt’s condescension and blithe paternalism a bit repellent, and I hope he reads and considers your criticism seriously.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Different drugs affect different people differently. With two hits of good bud I start cleaning house and enjoying it. Three hits and I’m ready to wax the appliances. I had to stop early in the day or it would keep me up at night. Now, it’s not worth the risk to smoke, though it makes me much better at my job, and a much happier person. I also take better care of my body when I smoke because my senses are heightened. It’s the very best medicine I could possibly take.
I have always suspected that the people who get lazy are just smoking too much. Of course, no one is going to advertise that you should smoke less to get the most out of it, but word would get around much quicker if everyone felt free to talk about it.
February 28th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
The revenue case is no reason to legalize something you’d otherwise rather not legalize. We could raise a lot of money by taxing activities that are now illegal, but nobody thinks of legalizing murder because there’s money to be made for the government. Now I don’t think pot consumption is that big a deal, but if I did the argument that we’ve got a big deficit and legalizing+taxing the stuff would help fix the problem would make little headway with me.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
No one is talking about legalizing activities that interfere with the rights of others, Rich.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
What a pity Matt doesn’t engage with his readers on a regular basis. I would be quite interested to hear his reply to my critique.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
“Same with his opinion about buying houses, which we saw last week. According to Matthew, people are too stupid to understand how much of a house and a mortgage they can afford. Therefore, it was not buyers’ fault when they took out mortgages they couldn’t pay to buy houses they couldn’t afford. According to Matthew, expecting somebody to stay within their means was expecting too much.” –Al
Yes, this was positively maddening. It’s as if Matt actually wants to prove conservatives and libertarians correct when they stereotype liberals as eschewing personal responsibility.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
As an aside, I would note that pro-marijuana ballot questions have been surprisingly popular. Here in even in liberal MA the entire political establishment was against a pro-pot b allot question (turning possestion into a traffic ticket essentially), but voters supported it 65-35.
It’s almost as if we’re all pretending changing the status quo is some sort of third-rail, but in fact is probably easier than raising the gas tax.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
It seems to me we ought to be aiming for the policy that is most likely to end the negative effects of the drug war, such as the militarization of the police, the erosion of the Bill of Rights (the Supreme Court seems to think there’s some clause in those amendments that says, “except when it comes to illegal drugs), the strengthening of organized crime, and the militarization of relations with Latin America. I believe that policy is legalization. Under MY’s (and Mark Kleiman’s) policy, city dwellers (unless they want to invest in grow lights and all of that) likely would still have to go through the black market to get their weed. I’m a suburbanite with some really nice flower beds (deep topsoil, well fertilized and mulched), so I’m betting with some easily available instructions I could grow some pretty good stuff. I might have to buy a rottweiler to patrol the garden against local teenagers digging up the crop at harvest time, and that wouldn’t please me, though.
If we’re going to do anything, just legalize it and get it over with. I’m betting sales through (say) liquor stores would reduce availability to 15-year-olds as well.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Tom Ammiano was a friend of Harvey Milk:
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=2606
I don’t think he was in the movie though.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Legalize Marijuana don’t decriminalize it.
Matt suggestion raises a problem. Under Matt’s decriminalization plan, there will still be some individuals who sell the substance. By banning the sell of Marijuana police will have discretion to only arrest certain sellers. The sellers who get arrested will mostly be African American.
It makes more sense to make Marijuana legal and to treat it like cigarettes. While were at it we should treat booze in the same manner.
February 28th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Seriously, is this Matt just being contrarian? It seems that he recognizes that our drug policies have been disastrous, but to pick decriminalization as the answer seems purposely obtuse. We already restrict advertisements on nicotine and alcohol, and it’s obvious that we could do the same for weed.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
I’ve been writing a lot about this recently, and gthinking hard, and I find myself as puzzled by the Matt-Mark position as are most of you. The more i see where Mark is coming from, the more obvious it seems that he has used the wrong business model for marijuana, one that might be true for cocaine, but which has never been true in the 40 years I have been smoking.
Mark uses an ‘itegrated’ top-down corporate model, but marijuana has always been a ‘classic’ (in the Adam Smith, not the Alfred Marshall) economy of diverse buyers and sellers, with no monopoly, very little control of one level over a lower one — marijuana dealers are independent, they don’t work for a supplier except as an independent contractor.
(Can’t help an anecdote. I knew a family, father and three sons, all of whom were dealers. Even in the family they had two different suppliers — the bags were ‘brand-marked’ this was over 25 years ago — and were loyal to them, and customers would choose whether to go to the father and older son or the two younger ones.)
I could make a list of the valid arguments in the comments above, just to summarize them, but it would take two pages by itself. More interestingly no one here even thinks that Matt’s solution is an inefficient half measure. (I discuss the problems with ‘decriminalization’ — comparing it to DADT — in my own post here
But there is one argument in favor of legalization that no one is making, apparently, except me — I hope that changes soon. This is that, along with the tax revenues and savings and the unquantifiable benefits like those joel haynes mentions at #26 above, legalizing marijuana would provide a major economic stimulus, one I conservatively estimate at $2 billion a month.
The high cost of marijuana currently comes almost exclusively from ‘mark-ups’ coming from ‘assumption of risk’ rather than from ‘value added.’ They are a form of ’self-insurance’ against the possibility of police action or other serious losses — including unprosecutable theft because of marijuana’s ‘outlaw status.’ Once the primary need for this sort of ’self-insurance is eliminated, market forces will force the prices down maybe as much as 90% (before taxation — which lessens the stimulus effect).
If you figure a reasonable rate of taxation — $10 an ounce at the federal level and the same at the local level — and figure other costs extremely generously — and if you ignore the question of premium types which would drop percentage-wise as much — you get a very conservative drop of $100 an ounce for average commercial. But that money is in the hands of consumers to spend on other things — and since there is no ‘moral bias’ in stimulus economics, there is no less stimulus for booze than cat food, rib roast or round roast, diapers or designer underwear, this means that even if they spend some of it on more (legal) marijuana, it still is subject to the multiplier effect of any commerce. (The dealers still need lunch, diapers, cat food, and gasoline too.)
[Some blogs kick out comments with more than one cite, so I'll just say that if you check out my piece above and check the other entries at my blog, you'll find a discussion of the economic stimulus argument.]
And this brings me to ‘Rich in PA’ at #36. You ask the right question, but you ask it in reverse. (Ask it the right way and you see why I am not discussing legalization of ‘all drugs’ without similar analyses.)
You ask, in effect, ‘why, if marijuana is harmful, would the tax revenues be an argument against keeping it illegal.’ (To your credit, you ask it in general and admit you don’t see it applying to marijuana.)
I’m going to turn it around. “Admitting that legalization would cause some harm to society — at least arguendo — but also granting it would supply the benefits of the stimulus effect, the tax revenue, and the other points joel made, can you demonstrate that the harm would be of sufficient magnitude to justify rejecting these other benefits and keeping it illegal?”
Framing the argument that way, with the burden of demonstrating the harm on the side of opponents of legalization, makes it almost impossible to argue against it, but I’ll ask Mark, Matt, and anyone to try, if they wish.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
For some reason, the one cite I included didn’t come out. Let’s try again.
It was supposed to be here
February 28th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Wtf, the stimulus argument is here
February 28th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
I feel like the stimulus argument is a weak argument. A state that appropriates the right to tell an adult citizen what substances can or cannot be ingested is one that is yet to completely renounce fascism. I don’t wish to sound hyperbolic, but sometimes one must really call a spade a spade. Arguing that prohibition should be repealed because it could make a buck is totally missing the point. It would be like saying gay marriage should be legal because it would raise property values.
February 28th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Just make it the same as selling 100 proof, that is the only thing that really makes sense. It is not as bad for you as 100 proof so why would you treat it more severely? Not like tobacco which sells anywhere but like hard liquor from licensed dealers. If it is allowed to be grown by anyone, they will get the income and people will get what they want so let the government in on the profits through taxation and regulation on par with liquor.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:23 am
Wow, potheads are probably the least self-aware people on Earth. If we took you guys out Logan’s Run style, that would both solve our unemployment issue and create jobs (to create and maintain these places). STIMULUS!!!!
March 1st, 2009 at 1:44 am
1) Not very green of you, Matt. Forcing Northerners and city dwellers to use energy-intensive grow lights to grow their own is wasteful. You wouldn’t say this is feasible for apple production, would you? Economies of scale, my man.
2) Why not say the same of alcohol or fatty foods? We don’t ban sales and marketing of those things. What we do is stigmatize being a stumble-down drunk who doesn’t show up to work, or a fatty fat-fat who can’t get laid.
March 1st, 2009 at 4:42 am
This is all a joke. Just elect the people who will treat marijuana the way you want them to treat it. Where I live, a cop might ask you to put your joint out while he’s talking to you. But he won’t take the pot he knows you have. And he surely won’t bust you. All you have to do is vote, and then you get the people you want. Where I come from, we elect people who won’t steal our pot. They might buy some from us, but they don’t steal it. When I lived on the East Coast, I bought drugs from cops. I live in the Mountain West now, and I sell it to them now. Maybe I’ll learn which is better before I die. But probably not.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
DTM,
You’re right that there are two arguments here: a principled one and a practical one. The reason I don’t believe the practical argument is worth our time is because it is infinitely more debatable. The ins and outs of any policy on a day-to-day practical level are, because of the flaws of induction, inherently less knowable and vulnerable to solipsism. Principle is less fungible. Most Americans clearly have differing opinions over the efficacy of whether X should be legal, and if so, whether it should be regulated (and how it should be regulated), and if not, how it should be prohibited (and how violates should be punished). This raises issues of taxation, federalism, law enforcement, markets, etc. All of a sudden, the sub arguments one must have become enormously complicated. Arguing, however, that X should be legal not because of practical issues, but because it is wrong, just plain good god damned wrong, for the state to tell an individual what they can or cannot do with their own body in the privacy of their own home has a lot more resonance. Why? Because most people in fact believe this to be true in principle. The problem is one of conception. Most Americans don’t look at drugs this way. If it were framed differently, I believe they would change their tune.
Here is a thought experiment to clarify this point. Say there is a debate over whether X should be legal. X is gay sex. Now, most Americans have a reflexive dislike of homosexuality. Tradition mandates that gay sex is illegal and punishable by imprisonment. State and federal law enforcement routinely raid homes and arrest people for sodomy. Last year almost one million Americans were arrested for having homosexual sex in their own homes. Now, you are in the position of arguing against this policy. Do you: A) argue that because of the recession, legalizing and taxing sodomy would be a form of stimulus and a relief to our overtaxed law enforcement agencies; or B) this policy is fucking insane because every individual, no matter what you think of their practices, has sovereignty over their material body and home?
In this analogy, Matt is arguing that sodomy should be decriminalized, but still illegal, because the policy as it works in practice is inefficient, and not because the policy is morally wrong. He still favors the stigmatization of the practice because he personally disapproves of it. Sure, gay sex should be decriminalized, he says, but we can’t have gay lobbyists or gay advertisements. The problem with this argument is that it is one of efficiency, meaning that should we stumble upon a way to enforce the policy in an efficient manner, we should go ahead and do so. This concedes far too much of the argument to those who wish to micromanage our every action.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:32 pm
you have to get over the conceptual framework of puritanism, wherein any decision to become intoxicated is inherently “bad”. worrying about lobbyists trying to “create problem pot smokers” as a reason to keep spending $$ and sending people to jail over weed is just plain silly tut-tutting.
you have to be more specific!
is this pot being consumed at the expense of, say, far more damaging alcohol? if so, at pretty much any given instance if you can switch someone’s decision to get intoxicated from alcohol to marijuana, it saves money on health and societal repercussions. it would take a long, long time for the ‘ill social effects’ (whatever people define that as, I’ve never heard a coherent definition) of pot to eclipse those of alcohol. in the mean time, if we can decrease the number of alcohol overdoses by increasing the level of pot consumption, that would in fact be good for us, as a society, pretty much without qualification.
silly imaginings like ‘how powerful the pot lobby will be’ one day just reveal a fundamental lack of understanding of the situation at hand. and also I don’t understand why a highly regulated industry couldn’t be part of the legislation in the first place. simple – ‘as a part of this bill, we ban the creation of any lobbying group with any stated purpose of increasing consumption of any intoxicating substance. add a huge pot industry, and in the mean time, sacrifice the lobbyists. we don’t need any of these jerks tricking people and lying about the facts anymore. just ban them, and start treating adults like adults.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:42 pm
This is a perfect description of Matthew, and his type of liberal. He thinks that people are stupid
You really don’t do much to set him to rights, Al.
March 1st, 2009 at 1:56 pm
The biggest obstacles to legalization are:
1. International treaties. Mexico, with its current drug gang war, would be particularly difficult to finesse.
2. Who will be the producers? In the early 80s cigarette companies could not find an agribusiness method to compete with Ma and Pa Mendocino county for quality. Growing quality marijuana is a work intensive operation that requires cottage agriculture rather than agribusiness. And with marijuana quality is not that small an issue–it is more akin to wine or whisky than light beer.
3. There are a million reasons economically to keep it illegal. On the law enforcement side, the prison industry side, marijuana is a cash cow. Insofar as the illegal side, there is a huge amount of money that supports large scale criminal gangs and an underground economy that is the mainstay of many lower class and rural parts of America, for whom the lack of taxation and regulation is as appealing as it has been to the fat cats on Wall Street.
It ought to be legalized, taxed, and regulated in a sensible manner, but I am not holding my breath–there’s no real buzz in doing so.
March 1st, 2009 at 2:18 pm
One last point. Folks who think making pot legal will lead to an outrageous drop in price are probably fooling themselves. The cost of marijuana like the cost of gasoline often depends on the health of the overall economy as much as any other thing. Growning good pot requires high overhead costs. The workers in the industry, while being paid a decent, not great mind you, wage, recieve no benefits, and for the most part live from harvest to harvest, somewhere in the lower economic class.
Taxing producers, merchants, customers, while appropriate, will certainly assist some vs. the value added for its black market cache, but by and large, it may well be a wash as the costs really do more reflect overhead and the state of the economy.
As with other issues, I think it is a mistake to think of this in moral terms. The health and social effects of marijuana are in fact mild compared to legal substances, and already working. Marijuana is the biggest cash crop in the US, and we waste huge amounts of money in law enforcement costs and revenues by keeping it illegal. There are plenty of precedents out there for regulating far more deleterious substances. The problems with getting it legal, I outlined above, and those forces are far more powerful than the moral issue cover that is typically foisted upon the populace, a cover that only people with fried eggs for brains really buy into.
March 1st, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Smarmy Liberal:
I appreciate your rant, because it saves me time in writing my own.
I’m not generally pro-legalization, because I do believe marijuana to be harmful based on the experiences my family went through. That’s anecdotal, personal, and hard to argue against, so I’m willing to accept this may be a sampling error; but nicotine and alcohol are the most dangerous drugs in the country by virtue of their accessibility. I remain unconvinced that marijuana is that much safer.
But if you accept the position that marijuana is not a sufficiently harmful substance for possession or growth to be criminalized, you lose any moral basis on which to criminalize its sale. It’s a Broderite half-measure for the sake of not seeming radical, and not something that would ever be sustainable in real-world conditions.
As ever, Matt’s solution is too eager for technocratic social-engineering. I’m a liberal, not a libertarian; I do believe government can be a force for good in society. But shouldn’t we have learned some measure of humility by now?
March 1st, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Actually, Matt, it would be better for you not to try to control other people’s consumption of pot, which is better for you than alcohol. Are you also advocating making alcohol legal to make at home but not to produce as a business?
I know many, many major potheads who hold positions of responsibility and perform quite well, thank you very much. Get over it. Pot simply shouldn’t be illegal — never should have been. The wingnuts are just afraid of it because it makes people peaceful and thoughtful and because it enhances sex and music.
Sex and drugs and rock and roll, baby.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Lots of comments adding to the discussion, but I want to start with Smarmy Liberal. Your argument is what I referred to when I mentioned arguments that ‘convince onlhy those who don’t need convincing.’ In fact, it doesn’t even do that, because I’m not sure I’m willing to accept unlimited (adult) access to methamphetamine, or that all prescription pharmecuticals should suddenly be made OTC — both logical consequents of your argument.
(Also, btw, it is rarely good to use the term fascism in an argument unless you use it strictly. Too often a person who throws it around is like a 10 year old who hears the word in class and says “Daddy, you took my toys away, you fascist!” People who know what the word means and meant wince pretty hard when they see it used the way you did.)
Admittedly, somebody who can produce the word salad of
has more problems with the language than the simple misuse of the word ‘fascism.’ (Not that I don’t get carried away myself at times.
The reasons why an economic approach is better — besides the fact that it gives you a chance to bring in the Miron Report and the list of 500 economists who signed a statement supporting it, including 3 Nobel Prize winners, George A. Akerlof, Vernon L. Smith, and Milton Friedman — are three.
First, a lot of people who have no problem with legalizing marijuana question the legalization of all drugs. By using my argument, you can reply “Each drug must be taken on a case-by-case basis, and we’re only talking about marijuana, so the other drugs are irrelevant.” (Your approach invites, in fact demands the response ‘You why not legalize crack, and meth, and heroin at the same time.’ You lose a lot of support right there.)
At the same time, your approach, and many marijuana proponents, leads them to be vulnerable to the response pointing out that marijuana can be harmful in some cases. Yes, it is possible to make the case — and I totally agree — that marijuana is a very beneficial substance that can be abused — and, for that matter, that if legalization caused a substantial shift from alcohol to marijuana this would be reason enough to legalize it — but it means an extra level of convincing. My approach can concede that yes, there might indeed be harm from legalization, but that the benefits far outweigh any possible harm.
But finally and most importantly, the reason above makes it possible — at last — for proponents to put opponents on the defensive. “Okay, it is up to you to show the specific harm that marijuana legalization would cause, and that, even in a worst-case scenario, this harm would be worth sacrificing the benefits legalization brings.”
Oh, and the history of civil rights legislation — and I was alive for Brown v. Board and have studied the whole history — and of gay rights progress was almost exactly the opposite. In fact, there was a forerunner of Brown which demonstrated that ’separate but equal’ couldn’t work first. And almost all gay rights progress has been made by specifically not challenging people’s opinions about gay people, but by appealing to a ‘okay, hate the sin, don’t take it out on the sinner in unconscionable ways’ approach or a strictly practical approach. (Remember Harvey Milk’s Coors boycott. That didn’t try and convince Coors that homophobia was wrong, did it?)
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:39 am
There are many arguments as to why it should not be legalized. But i believe the real truth here is that not one bad thing, in my opinion, can come from the natural herb becoming legalized. In state and federal correctional facilities over 60% is occupied by non-violent drug offenders. If marijuana is legalized it will release those NON-VIOLENT drug offenders and therefore save the state million. another reason is if we legalize it the state can tax the substance. also it will save over an estimated 3 million dollars each year for the recall on narcotics prevention officers and related groups. then the state can put that noney towards education and schools. in my school district they are talking about cutting ALL sports, laying off hundreds of teachers who are not “10-years”, and enlarging our classes by 20%. thats setting up the future generations to become these “non-violent drug offenders”…if that still does not satisfy you…there is the argument that only a hand full of actual marijuana overdoses have been reported throughout history. It takes over one kilo of marijuana, in one sitting, to actually have an overdose. How many people have died from alcohol poisoning just this week? hundreds. its an herb. it grows naturally, let it be sold like vanilla or oregeno.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:57 am
Now back to the discussion as a whole. There seem to be six possible directions the legal status of marijuana can go.
One “legalize it as a part of legalizing everything’ is the consequent of SL’s argument and I discussed it above.
Two others aren’t worth discussing until someone defends them. Those are keeping the status quo, or increasing the penalties. So far, in my discussions I have yet to find anyone — ignoring our idiotic drive-by troll above — discussing and defending either of those, or, for that matter, arguing from the point of view that marijuana is inherently a ‘bad substance.’ (If anyone has any articles at all taking that position, I wish you’d link to them, because I’d like to see at least one. No, that is not Mark or Matt’s position, btw, as I’ll discuss below.)
The fourth is ‘decriminalization,’ which is currently Barney Frank’s position, and that of the Congressional Black Caucus, among others. But, as I argued in the piece I linked to above, this is a major misstep rather than a first step. It assumes the ‘conservative position’ that marijuana smoking is wrong, it protects users but not dealers — thus setting up the beautiful paradox that ‘it is legal for A to buy X from B, but illegal for B to sell it to A.’
More importantly, it brings none of the benefits that legalization would bring economically. It ‘immunizes’ users but their risk has never affected the price, so it remains $100 more than what it should be — at least. It gives neither specific marijuana taxation, sales tax or income tax revenues, nor the law enforcement and incarceration savings that legalization brings.
And finally it is very open to abuse. (Quick example. Prosecutor summons grand jury, subpoenas 100 users — even medical users — asks them where they obtained their weed. They can’t be prosecuted, so can’t refuse to answer. Grand Jury indicts dealers based on this evidence. I give others in the article.)
Then there is the Yglesias/Kleiman ‘grow your own’ option. I think Matt was wrongly characterized in a couple of comments as thinking “because I don’t like it, I’ll stop you from doing it.” I think both of them see a potential for increased advertising-stimulated usage, and see an overall harm from this increase.
Again, I might feel I can argue this with them, that I could make a case that increased use would be beneficial — but I don’t have to. I can demand they produce even a worst-case scenario of such harm and show that it would be worth foregoing the financial and other benefits that full legalization provides. I can even ask them to show that legalization would cause more harm than the current system.
But more importantly, I can challenge their business model. Again, they see ‘legitimate corporations’ replacing the ‘marijuana cartels’ they see as currently existing. But they don’t exist, and it is highly unlikely that there will be a major corporate presence in the marijuana field. CitizenE’s point at 59 is still true. There will be some agribusiness sales — the way they sell those hard ripe pool balls they call tomatoes — but most of it will be small businesses.
(If you want to make money on the legalization, invest heavily in the first company that begins to export marijuana abroad. By report — I admit I have almost no experience with the premium varieties — we probably produce better marijuana than almost anywhere, and once we are no longer pressuring countries to keep it illegal, a lot will make it legal at once. And they’ll be buying from us. We’ll probably be importing some specialty types as well, sometimes just for the cachet of saying you are smoking ‘guaranteed genuine Thai’ — and we’ll probably be importing hashish as well, so that’s another place to invest.)
Again, we sacrifice all the benefits — and I again stress the economic stimulus benefits. (There would still be an illegal market, and only a slight downward push from the market on prices.)
For a policy based on a flawed premise.
That is impractical for many of us who have neither the equipment, room, cat-free environment, or patience to grow marijuana from seed.
That continues the legal paradox I mentioned above.
That is open to the type of prosecutorial abuse I mentioned above.
Matt and Mark are going to have to show pretty substantial evidence of the harm that legalization would cause to make this highly-flawed a policy the preferable one.
Which again brings us to legalization as the only remaining alternative. Whether you see it as the ‘least bad’ choice or — as I do — as a positive good, it seems like the only possible choice.
Did I miss one? I’m being serious. Perhaps there is another ‘half-measure’ out there that some one is backing. I’ll gladly consider it, if someone points me towards it.
March 2nd, 2009 at 11:32 am
Thanks SL for your hilarious diatribe.
I think the comments so far have covered the major points. Perhaps I’m missing some, but I think the one area where Matt has not been sufficiently excoriated is the relative danger marijuana.
I think I see where Matt is coming from with regards to advertising/lobbying, recalling the massive legal battles and obstructionism of the tobacco industry, and their horrifying campaign to disguise the massive death caused by tobacco.
The thing is…marijuana is not remotely comparable to tobacco or alcohol in terms of danger. Something like 450,000 people die from tobacco-related conditions. Add to that 110,000 or so from alcohol. Both have been linked to literally hundreds of different cancers, organ problems, diseases, etc. Something like 90% of all domestic abuse cases involve alcohol.
To the best of my knowledge, there has never in the history of the world been a death linked conclusively to marijuana use. The most solid research I can think of concludes that it does not cause lung cancer as tobacco does. A fatal overdose is basically impossible.
As the DEA’s own administrative law judge Francis Young said, “In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume.”
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“Tom Ammiano was a friend of Harvey Milk:
http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=2606
I don’t think he was in the movie though.”
He was, he had a cameo as an agitated demostrator outside SF City Hall.
I love Ammaniano: he was the Supervisor for our district, and as shrewd, frankly, as Milk himself.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
So, if I may, the arguments against my position amount to:
1) Arguing pragmatism is a better strategy than arguing principle
2) Legalization is questionable because Marijuana does, in fact, hurt people
3) Arguing for Marijuana legalization on ethical grounds means arguing for total drug legalization on ethical grounds
4) I am a verbose douche who understand neither fascism nor the English language particularly well
I hope I’m not oversimplifying too much, but this is what I believe to be the core of my opposition. Let’s start from the top.
1) Pragmatism may indeed be a quicker route to decriminalization than arguments from principle. As a matter of fact, I suspect this is actually the case. But I doubt it is a quicker route to legalization, which is what is desirable and just. The problem with pragmatism is two fold. First, it is a diversionary tactic, and the opposition knows this and refuses to battle on such ground. While we are making the practical argument, they are making the moral one. This cedes control of the ethical high ground, and makes it look as if we have no moral position to advance. Second, it does not solve the route of the problem: too many people are too comfortable giving the state the right to regulate the behavior of others within the confines of their own homes and even the confines of their own bodies. This is a bigger battle than just drugs. Even if DTM were right about gay rights being advanced more by practical rather than ethical arguments, this in no way implies that ethical arguments should not be made. Martin Luther King Jr didn’t go around arguing that segregation should be dropped because it was inefficient policy. And at the end of the day, I am both a gay man and a pot smoker. Both of these things involve my own body, my own home, and my own sovereignty of being. Anyone who wishes to prohibit me from these activities invades my sovereignty as much as any foreign occupier. I refuse to kowtow to such bullies. While I am a big believer in civility, one must take a stand. Anyone who tells me I cannot be gay or I cannot smoke Marijuana can simply go fuck themselves. A society that believes it can take away these rights from the individual is one that believes it can take away much more than that. I am willing to risk people’s disagreement with my arguments, but I will not pretend to believe anything else.
2) Yes, Marijuana can hurt people. Do people not have the right to hurt themselves? The only time a behavior should be regulated is if it has negative externalities. My freedom to murder inhibits your right to live, hence it should be illegal. But my freedom to smoke pot or be gay in no way inhibits the rights of anyone else. Again, we should not pretend otherwise.
3) A principled argument does indeed imply all drugs should be legal. That’s because all drugs should be legal. That it is assumed a priori that the state has the right to tell you the degree to which you can hurt yourself is absurd. If I want to do heroin, who are you to tell me I can’t? This is my life and I’ll do as I please with my own body. Who would wish for anything else?
4) I’ll concede I am wordy, taken to rant, and enjoy complex sentence structure. This annoys some people. As the saying goes, tough titties. I simply don’t care. This is how I think and being true to myself means writing this way. If you don’t like it, don’t read it.
In regard to fascism, you can argue on the technical merits all day, but my use of the term is meant to imply that a state with the right to regulate your physical body and what you do in the privacy of your own home is one that is far too comfortable with fascism. Fascism is impossible if you believe the state cannot do such things. Totalitarianism and fascism are just two sides of the same coin. Acquiescing to the government’s invigilation of the individual’s most private moments is giving in to a fairly strong totalitarian impulse. I do not apologize for saying this is fascism.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:43 pm
I forgot one point in response to DTM’s argument about gun control. The reason appeals to principle are less convincing for gun legalization is because there are pretty obvious negative externalities associated with guns. A drug’s primary purpose is to be ingested by a consenting adult. A gun’s primary purpose is to shoot things. The extent to which gun control is a principled issue involves what things are intended to be shot. There are in fact very convincing reasons of principle for an individual to have the right to own a gun in the middle of no where and within the privacy of their own property (providing it can be contained there). I doubt even you would have had a hard time acknowledging this. The problem is to what extent the negative externalities of guns can be constrained in less isolated areas. This is indeed a practical issue. But it is an issue of regulation, not prohibition. Similarly, there are negative externalities associated with, let’s say, driving and shooting heroin. No one’s saying drugs, like guns and everything else with negative externalities, shouldn’t be regulated. I’m just saying that the state has no right to regulate these things within the privacy of your own home. This is an argument with which the vast majorities of Americans agree. That’s why I believe a principled argument is, in the long run, more effective than pragmatism.
March 2nd, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Prohibition Politics
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/print_518872.html
Revenue enhancement will be the tiebreaker for allowing legalization. Legalization without revenue has only political risks, and few policy upsides, for politicians.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
How are you. Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship.
I am from Faso and now study English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: “Offers best buy northwest airlines airfares for first class and business class nw airline tickets.”
With respect 8-), Shaquille.