Decriminalizing a drug like marijuana means that it no longer is a crime to possess marijuana for personal use, The advantages of decriminalizing marijuana are so numerous and powerful that it is difficult to understand the intense opposition.
The movement at the state level of the United States to decriminalize various uses of marijuana-especially for “ medical” purposes- has accelerated in recent years. It will not be long before marijuana use for many purposes will be decriminalized in the great majority of states, and I also expect rapid expansion in the number of states that legalize marijuana for all recreational uses. It is much better for states rather than the federal government to decide about the legality of drug use since that would allow some states to continue to treat marijuana use as a criminal offense if they so wish. However, as Posner points out, it becomes harder for some states to criminalize marijuana use when the great majority of states have decriminalized it.
Decriminalizing consumption and some production of marijuana would have large beneficial effects on Mexico. Traditionally, Mexico has produced the majority of marijuana consumed in the US. The distribution of marijuana from Mexico to the US is controlled by powerful drug cartels that have made enormous profits from their trafficking in drugs. The Mexican government’s battles with these cartels have caused tens of thousands of deaths, and wholesale corruption of Mexican police and government officials. The trend toward legalization of marijuana in America is lowering the profitability of Mexican cartels and weakening their hold over the Mexican population.
Many people are unhappy when they are addicted to drugs, be it alcohol, nicotine, cocaine, or marijuana. They would like to free themselves from their addictions, but that is not easy to do by the definition of what an addiction means. This is especially difficult for addictions to illegal substances. Clinics are reluctant to treat individuals who are addicted to substances that are illegal to consume, groups like AA are more difficult to form and thrive, and informal support group also face many obstacles.
Critics rightly claim that decriminalizing marijuana is likely to encourage experimentation with marijuana use, and probably will increase total consumption (although see our discussion of taxes in the following paragraph). However, what is more important, decriminalization will tend to reduce the rate of addiction to marijuana. The reason is that decriminalization will encourage the development of more clinics that treat this addiction, will help spread the growth of Marijuana Anonymous organizations that help addicts break their addictions, and will produce other efforts to combat severe addictions to marijuana. As a result, while marijuana use may go up, the number of addicts is likely to go down. This should allay the fears of many opponents of decriminalization that it would lead to a large expansion in the number of addicts.
Decriminalizing marijuana paves the way for taxing its use, in the same way that alcoholic consumption became rather heavily taxed after the end of Prohibition. The higher the tax rate, the higher the retail price of marijuana, and hence the lower would be its consumption. So replacing the present situation with significant taxes on the legal consumption of marijuana could end up lowering the demand for marijuana, despite the effects of decriminalization on experimentation with marijuana.
The present spending of substantial resources on trying to combat marijuana use would be replaced by considerable revenue from taxing its use. That potential revenue is a temptation of many strapped state governments to decriminalize marijuana. Of course, if the tax rate were too high, some of the marketing of marijuana would move underground to try to escape the tax. However, experience with other goods that are heavily taxed, including alcohol, shows that the advantages of legal sale and purchase of a substance like marijuana are so large that the tax rate could be rather high without a large fraction of the sales going underground.
A good use of the tax revenue would be on education and other efforts to point out the harm from becoming addicted to drugs. Some of the revenue could also be used to support drug clinics and other private groups that are trying to both treat addictions and to discourage individuals from becoming addicts. These are far better uses of government revenues than are the expenditures on police, courts, and prisons to apprehend and punish individuals who consume marijuana.
The benefits to Mexico may be more than ridding themselves of murderous drug cartels and especially so if they legalized in the same time frame.
While "street prices" of MJ should fall dramatically object of "midstream" cartels is to max out the spread between what "dribbles down" to the farmer and what they get from street prices held high by our and Mexico's futile "drug war". The higher price created by the added costs of ducking US and Mexican authorities is precisely why there are always those willing to chance tough penalties.
I wouldn't count on elasticity to do much to dampen demand as those most have jobs good enough to say "Well, no more costly than a couple of martinis or glass of wine, and somehow it seems those of lesser means find ways to buy cigs, pay fairly high cellphone bills and imbibe a bit.
If our Coast Guard or other enforcement wins a few rounds they simply raise the stakes for more creativity and higher pay to offset risk to "mules".
Becker is right in counseling "strapped states" NOT to count on legalization as a huge cash cow as the economics are very different. Most of us have little incentive to try to make a good wine or bottle of distilled spirits at home to save, "high taxes and all" $10 - $30 a liter, and have little expectation that we could make a finer product.
MJ would be very different at levels from "savers" growing a few plants at home, to hobbyists striving for their own distinctive product to be exchanged with and "liked" by their (Facebook?) "friends".
It's interesting to reflect upon war time scarcity and high cig prices creating the flurry of "roll your own" either skillful hand means or by those little wallet shaped machines, but that $5/pack or so seems not to create any lash back today.
Posted by: Jack | 02/23/2014 at 11:14 PM
Of course marijuana should be legalized. Years of experience shows that cannabis use and a vigorous and peaceful society can live hand in hand. On a personal note this rent seeking farmer would just as soon not see legalization on a nationwide basis until I have a few years taking advantage of Washington States deliciously restrictive legalization regime which will serve to accomplish several things. By it's restrictions requiring shareholders and their wives to all pass criminal and financial background checks they have effectively kept the growing, processing and retail sales of cannabis widely dispersed in local businesses hands. By the severe restriction on numbers and amount to be licensed to growers and the number of retail locations the state has effectively established what will likely be a VERY lucrative cartel that will not, for the effective future, have a chance to meet the demand that legalization will create thus ensuring that growers and retailers will regulate demand by price just as is happening in Colorado where prices have soared. By limiting the amount that any individual grower or grower group can produce the state has ensured that there will be a geographically diverse group of relatively small growers that will bring great prosperity to their areas and all without fear of the law. This law is a cannabis growers dream and one can expect the value of licenses to skyrocket as sales commence. I have farmed legal crops for many years and let me say that the prospect of raising a crop with a value in the thousands of dollars per pound and with the power of the state restricting the propensity of farmers to overproduce has this old farmer giddy!
Posted by: Steven Walser | 02/24/2014 at 06:26 PM
I don't get all this talk about treating "addiction." If a person spends all his time sleeping, playing video games, eating or copulating, we don't normally call him and addict or consider fines, imprisonment or AA meetings.
I condemn fellow Amerikans for addiction to religion, dogs, cats, work, new cars, recycling and organic food, but I wouldn't think of fining or imprisoning them.
What's the deal, Becker? Is an "addict" merely someone who obsesses about something you disapprove of? Carlson is a chess addict, after all, as was Bobby Fischer, who went so far as to learn Russian to support his addiction.
Posted by: jim kirby | 02/25/2014 at 12:42 PM
A recent Pew Research Center poll found that for the first time a majority of Americans favor legalizing the use of marijuana. Indiana Governor Mike Pence is not among them. With the rest of the United States moving towards relaxing marijuana laws, Indiana seems to be bravely marching into the past. The Hoosier State's penalties for marijuana are getting tougher after Gov. Mike Pence requested, and was granted stricter laws for low-level cannabis offenders.
In Indiana lawmakers have gone so far as proposing that felony charges for possession be extended down to cover one-third of an ounce of marijuana, down from 30 grams or one ounce of marijuana. More on the direction Indiana is going and why in the post below,
http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2013/07/indiana-marijuana-laws-step-back-in-time.html
Posted by: B Wilds | 02/27/2014 at 09:50 PM
Any comment on the teratogenic effects of marijuana consumption? It's surprising that not more research has been done. The effects will should be seen in the 2nd generation offspring of marijuana users, i.e. it should show up in the grand-children of baby-boomers.
Posted by: Jdwalton | 03/06/2014 at 06:52 AM