The Economic Twist on Marijuana Legalization
Although it seems like no one in Washington is ready to have a serious discussion about it, those advocating the legalization and taxation of marijuana aren’t keeping quiet. Could they be right?
The economic crisis has made the issue a popular one once more. So popular, in fact, that it was the most buzzed about topic when the White House website allowed people to submit their questions its first virtual “town hall” meeting.
President Obama quickly dismissed the notion that legalizing – and, therefore, taxing and regulating – marijuana would be beneficial to the country’s economy.
It was just 2 months ago when California’s Tom Amniano drafted legislation to regulate the drug, estimating a tax windfall of over $1 Billion to help the state’s severe fiscal problems.
The bill hasn’t passed yet, but it might. Could the country follow in California’s footsteps?
Most Americans, according to a CBS poll, don’t agree with legalizing marijuana:
Politicians opposed are quick to voice their position. More than 500 economists, including Milton Friedman, disagree. They endorsed Harvard Economics Professor Jeffrey Miron’s 2005 tax estimations for the legalization of marijuana.
Here he is on CNN earlier this month:
According to his report, the United States could rake in over $10 Billion in tax revenues from the legalization of the drug. This figure doesn’t take into account the amount that would be saved from drug enforcement and jailing costs.
According to the Marijuana Policy Project, there are more arrests for marijuana posession each year than for all violent crimes combined
The legalization of marijuana could also have positive implications for the ongoing drug related violence on the US Mexico border.
The drug is the largest source of revenue for the multibillion dollar drug cartel business.
Speaking to a reporter, a Mexican Ambassador suggested that the idea merits a serious discussion
Interesting blog. A very relevant, yet underplayed component to the issue of marijuana legalization is generational, which might well be a gamechanger. Obama, and many of his key appointees, are members of Generation Jones-—born 1954-1965, between the Boomers and Generation X. Many top national commentators (from Newsweek, NBC, CNN, etc.) have spoken about the importance and relevance of GenJones as the new generation of leadership; this could be a gamechanger re. the drug issue for at least two reasons:
1) Jonesers are by far the biggest pot smokers compared to the other generations. While Boomers are associated with pot, it was only a small, albeit very visible, segment of Boomers who actually smoked pot back in the day. Govt. and independent studies show that Jonesers as teens (in the 1970s) smoked 15 to 20 times more pot than Boomers did as teens. And not only did Jonesers smoke much more grass than any other generation of teens in US history, but still today–in middle-age–smoke it a remarkable amount. The data is really striking.
2) One of the key collective personality traits consistently attributed to Jonesers is their pragmatism. This is a generation which is far likelier to put aside ideology and deal with drugs in a realistic and practical way.
If ever there was a generation of leadership open to legalizing pot, it probably is Generation Jones. And if there ever was a time that the country might be open to this change in drug laws, perhaps it’s now…given the cash infusion that taxes on legalized pot might bring to this troubled economy, coupled with the easing of the escalating drug violence in Mexico legalization would likely bring.