Should marijuana be decriminalized?

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Wow, I didn't think this reached nearly unanimous levels.  Granted it's a tiny poll, but still.

I know but c'mon this one really isn't even controversial anymore.....at one time it was like OMGZ NOES!!111, but now it's more of a yawn and who cares.

[angus]

Wow, I didn't think this reached nearly unanimous levels.  Granted it's a tiny poll, but still.

About 23.7 percent of Americans are incarcerated at some point in their lives for non-violent drug offenses.  That's nearly one out of every four people.  Federal prisons were estimated to hold 179,204 sentenced inmates as of Sept. 30, 2007, according to William Sabol and Heather West of the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics.  Of these, 95,446 were incarcerated for drug offenses.  The cost is approximately 20 billion dollars a year.  And that's just federal.  Imagine how much these cash-strapped states are spending.  Meanwhile, space for murderers, rapists, and thieves declines.  According to Daniel Macallair from The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, between 1980 and 1997, while the number of drug offenders entering prisons increased, the proportion of state prison space housing violent offenders declined from 55% to 47%. 

According to the Rand Corporation, Mandatory minimum sentences are not justifiable on the basis of cost-effectiveness at reducing cocaine consumption, cocaine expenditures, or drug related-crime.  Mandatory minima reduce cocaine consumption less per million taxpayer dollars spent than does spending the same amount on enforcement under the previous sentencing regime.  And either type of incarceration approach reduces drug consumption less than does putting heavy users through treatment programs, per million dollars spent.

I think people realize that this is all a huge waste of taxpayer money.  Back when we were flush, and the unemployment rate and taxes were low, it didn't matter as much, but now it's a bigger problem.  No doubt, drawing any type of smoke intentionally into your lungs is harmful, and can lead to emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, but we cannot justify the huge amount of dollars that we spend incarcerating and convicting people for marijuana use. 

Nor should we wish to bring upon marijuana users additional strife.  And I think folks understand that this is all you really do when you lock people up.  Few rehabilitate.  Mostly they just get beat up and learn new criminal skills and become bitter.  Obviously, if someone commits murder or burglary or rape then society will still willing to lock them up at great taxpayer expense, not because we think that they'll ever be rehabilitated, but because we fear for our own safety if they aren't incarcerated.  And people understand that if we crowd out prisons with weedsmokers and cocaine addicts who don't steal or kill, then we have to start paroling seriously dangerous thugs in order to accommodate the non-violet drug users.  The results of this poll are easy to understand.

And while we're at it, I think prostitution should also be legal, or at least decriminalized.

[fezzyfestoon]

Thanks, angus.  That's a lot of interesting information.  I wonder what would happen if a major candidate somewhere were to take up this issue as a major plank in their platform.

[Torie]

Thanks, angus.  That's a lot of interesting information.  I wonder what would happen if a major candidate somewhere were to take up this issue as a major plank in their platform.

It would be a winner, because folks are a bit frightened about government budgets being out of control, and want money spent on services for themselves, not for warehousing druggies unless they are dangerous. It is just a matter of time.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Thanks, angus.  That's a lot of interesting information.  I wonder what would happen if a major candidate somewhere were to take up this issue as a major plank in their platform.

It would be a winner, because folks are a bit frightened about government budgets being out of control, and want money spent on services for themselves, not for warehousing druggies unless they are dangerous. It is just a matter of time.

For it to be decriminalized on a state level, Torie, or nationally?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

no

[War on Want]

Obviously, I have never heard a good no argument for this.

[MK]

Yes.

The reason why it shouldn't be is

[angus]

The reason why it shouldn't be is ...

In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act, which ranked all drugs by capacity for harm.  Marijuana was placed alongside PCP and heroin on "Schedule 1."  This means that mary jane is bad stuff and has no medical value.  Two years later, a commission appointed by Richard Nixon recommended a lower ranking for marijuana.  Of course, Nixon disagreed.  "Damn near puked when I read that recommendation" is what Nixon can be heard saying on the White House tapes.  "Dammit Henry, get in here.  We need a law that just tears the ass out of them."  (Them probably refers to the long-haired, bearded, anti-war, free love crowd that always managed to raise Richard Nixon's blood pressure.)

The 1970 law was specifically targeted to restrain certain political behaviors as much as it was to limit drug use.

[Torie]

Thanks, angus.  That's a lot of interesting information.  I wonder what would happen if a major candidate somewhere were to take up this issue as a major plank in their platform.

It would be a winner, because folks are a bit frightened about government budgets being out of control, and want money spent on services for themselves, not for warehousing druggies unless they are dangerous. It is just a matter of time.

For it to be decriminalized on a state level, Torie, or nationally?

State level for now. The DEA will get out of the pot business after a few major states legalize it however. The Feds won't get in the way of the states trying to legalize and tax pot to raise revenue, and cut spending on prisons as discussed above (despite the best efforts of the prison guard unions, which seem to be in total control of the state of California for example for some reason); the Feds are broke too.

There is a silver lining to the the financial meltdown and ensuing deep recession. Tell you friends.

[paul718]

Yes, and I think it will be in my lifetime.

[Sbane]

Thanks, angus.  That's a lot of interesting information.  I wonder what would happen if a major candidate somewhere were to take up this issue as a major plank in their platform.

It would be a winner, because folks are a bit frightened about government budgets being out of control, and want money spent on services for themselves, not for warehousing druggies unless they are dangerous. It is just a matter of time.

For it to be decriminalized on a state level, Torie, or nationally?

State level for now. The DEA will get out of the pot business after a few major states legalize it however. The Feds won't get in the way of the states trying to legalize and tax pot to raise revenue, and cut spending on prisons as discussed above, despite the best efforts of the prison guard unions, which seem to be in total control of the state of California for example for some reason); the Feds are broke too.

There is a silver lining to the the financial meltdown and ensuing deep recession. Tell you friends.

I think we should be careful with the words decriminalized and legalization as there is a big difference between them. Decriminalization is what we currently have in California where users possessing less than an ounce don't go to jail, but rather pay a $200 fine. It is actually cheaper and less of an hassle than getting a traffic ticket. But this arrangement does nothing to solve the law and order problems created by prohibition and the marijuana trade is still controlled by criminals who take insane profits from it. To stop this and use those profits in a constructive way we need to legalize it and tax it. Decriminalization probably enjoys majority support today but we are far away from legalizing Marijuana. Ballot initiatives in both CO and NV tried to legalize Marijuana in 2006 and they both failed by double digits. In NV it lost 56-44 and in CO it lost by 59-41. I doubt CA is too much more liberal than NV on this subject and this is why I think the ballot initiative being planned for 2010 will lose. Legalization does gain support everyday since it is popular with the young, but not fast enough that CA will legalize Marijuana in 2010.

[angus]

this arrangement does nothing to solve the law and order problems created by prohibition and the marijuana trade is still controlled by criminals who take insane profits from it.

Indeed.  It costs nowhere near $3000 a pound to cultivate high-quality, smoking marijuana, but because its distribution is sent underground, that's what you can get for good Mendocino county bud.  And the fact that profit margins are artificially high (pardon the pun), some unsavory characters are easily recruited to the trade.  That 3000 you spend on a pound can easily be turned into 4800 if you're selling lids, and 6400 if you're selling quarters.  More if you're selling grams or joints.  Decriminalization might not change this.  Legalization would.

What would a reasonable in-store price be for a package of twenty Class A marijuana cigarettes?  A package of Marlboros could sell for a dollar and still turn a profit, because it costs about sixty cents to get them into the stores.  Then the tobacco tax makes the pack of Marlboros cost four dollars.  So you pay four dollars a pack, three of which go to the government, and about 40 cents profit is made by Phillip Morris.  Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that joints are slightly more expensive (sticks and stems being heavier so that, per pound of plant, fewer pounds of chronic are actually harvested when compared to cigarettes.)  Let's assume twice as much on that basis alone.  We could make further assumptions, but sticking with $1.20 a pack, and being taxed similarly to cigarettes, and the fact that the profit margins need to be greater for motivation because the industry would be in its infancy without an efficient distribution system so investors would need some reassurance, let's say that the pre-tax in-store price needs to be six dollars.  Then, if they're taxed similarly to cigarettes, then you apply an eighteen dollar per pack levy, making the cost twenty-four dollars per package of 20 marijuana cigarettes.  (A little less for Peter Pan or White Widow, more for Maui, premium prices for Afghani Black, etc., but let's take a decent mid-grade weed, something like sticky Jamaican sensimilla as our starting point, at 24 dollars per package, 18 of which goes to the federal government.)

Now, the number of joints smoked per day is only a rough estimate, but using available statistics, we can assume that about 18.3% of 12th graders have smoked pot at least once in the past 12 months, and the number is slightly lower for those 12-17.  The number of regular (daily) users nationwide is about six percent for people 18 - 30, then falls off.  But these are estimates and we don't have good info on how daily usage is defined.  But for the sake of argument, let's say that fifteen million people are each smoking four joints per day.  That's sixty million joints, or three million storebought packages.  That's about fifty-four million dollars (assuming 18 dollars per pack tax) of government revenue per day.

Or, twenty billion dollars per year in government revenues.

And that's a low estimate.  Assuming the assumptions of Price Theory hold, then we should see a shift in demand upon legalization, favoring a higher equilibrium quantity, but not necessarily a higher equilibrium price since the supply curve would also shift outward, so the twenty billion figure is likely a lower bound.

Twenty billion dollars is quite a bit of debt relief. 

[opebo]

no

Hah, I thought you tried to pose as a non-fascist.  So why should it be criminal?

[Aizen]

no

[Associate Justice PiT]

why not "legalized and taxed at a high amount?"

     No taxation of marijuana. It would be far better to have it merely be decriminalized than legalized & taxed.

explain.  I think the burden of proof is on you because alcohol is already successfully taxed and legalized with almost no black market, gangs, or dangerous substitutes emerging since prohibition seriously ended.

     Oh, I wasn't trying to suggest that taxing marijuana would cause disastrous issues like that. Rather, I oppose sales tax in general. Sorry if I caused any confusion there.

[Nym90]

Legalize it, tax it, regulate it. Same as tobacco.

[k-onmmunist]

Absolutely not.

[Earth]

I strongly favor legalization, but strongly disapprove of "regulation" of marijuana.

[The Vorlon]

With appropriate warning labels and quality control measures... sure.. of course...

When I buy my Jack Daniels I know I'm getting 40% alcohol, maybe a label for THC percentage or something...?


Don't think it would raise much tax revenue however..., I suspect the Government would find a way to lose money selling legalized dope....

[angus]

I suspect the Government would find a way to lose money selling legalized dope....

That's actually pretty funny.  Droll.  It's about as libertarian a quote as I could invent.  I might have to quote you sometime, if you don't mind.

[opebo]

Don't think it would raise much tax revenue however..., I suspect the Government would find a way to lose money selling legalized dope....

Your assumption that government is somehow 'less efficient' at 'running things' than, for example, corporations is just silly and baseless.  Have you ever noticed the Social Security Administration?  The IRS? 

And plenty of other government agencies are highly efficient.  Keep in mind that even those that are detailed to deal with nearly impossible situations - such as medicaid and medicare, do still manage to function quite effectively.  Our society reserves easy functions for the privileged (to be carried out by their corporations), and leaves the mess they leave behind (externalities, etc.) for the State bureaucracies to make the best of, and then criticizes these bureaucracies for not 'fixing' the problems!

Lots of countries have State monopolies - such as tobacco - which bring in a lot of revenue.  I'm afraid your anti-government stance here is nothing but ignorant prejudice, Vorlon.

[Eraserhead]

no

Tim and Eric! I get to see them Saturday!

[Eraserhead]

Yes, and I think it will be in my lifetime.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Yes, YEs, YES!!!