Okay, so this is my argument paper that we've all talked about on facebook. Truth be told, I felt like I could have spent a lot more time tweaking and perfecting it to be a little more... effective. But I spent countless hours on it already, and it was due, so I had to stop! Hope you guys enjoy.
"Legalizing Marijuana Could Cure California's Ailing Economy"
By Christie Flower
The battle over legalizing marijuana is one that has been going on for decades, resulting in only minor (and usually unsatisfying) victories for either side. There’s no doubt that it is a complicated issue, with many factors to be considered. However, the current economic crisis facing California is setting the stage for some serious change. For the first time, proponents of legalization are gaining some surprising allies-- state officials. As lawmakers are being forced to “think outside the box” in a search for solutions to overwhelming financial woes, they’re quickly beginning to recognize that legalizing and taxing marijuana could create an enormous new influx of tax revenue.
These potential economic benefits are not what opponents of legalization tend to focus on. Rather, the critics often argue from a stance of morality, claiming that legalizing another mind-altering substance is a dangerous idea. The broad range of concerns stem from the possibility that with an increased availability of marijuana comes an increase in dangers, such as intoxicated drivers and usage amongst minors.
However, with legalization comes regulation. Just like alcohol and tobacco, marijuana, too, would have strict guidelines for production and distribution. One could even argue that with regulation, the situation would be a safer one, as the criminal element of the black market would be taken out of the equation.
In this debate, it is difficult not to see the parallels between alcohol and marijuana. From moral and religious issues, to the system for taxing and regulation, there are obvious reasons to make the comparison. It would only make sense, then, to review the history of alcohol prohibition in the early twentieth century to better understand how prohibition effects the bigger picture.
Alcohol prohibition did not crop up suddenly, but evolved over decades from a stance of temperance and self-control to a more radical and politically motivated ideal. By the time prohibition took effect in 1920, the anti-alcohol movement had become a powerful machine comprised of lawyers, politicians and influential churches.
During the 13 years of alcohol prohibition, many negative side effects began to appear. People continued to drink alcohol, but the government was no longer collecting taxes on any of the alcohol consumed. An increased consumption of “harder” alcohol like wine and liquor also occurred, because it was easier to produce and transport than beer. The term “bathtub gin” was coined as amateur liquor makers took matters into their own hands, and their inexperience often resulted in batches of poisonous alcohol.
Additionally, criminal organizations, like that of the infamous Al Capone, gained enormous power and financial strength by having a stake in the illegal distribution of alcohol. There were, indeed, other factors that contributed to the rise of these criminal empires, but they certainly had their hand in the proverbial cookie jar.
The United States was not the only country grappling with anti-alcohol issues at the time. A research paper by Harry G. Levine and Craig Reinarman, at the Center for Drug Research, University of Amsterdam, points to one intriguing fact
England reduced overall consumption by instituting fairly stringent alcohol regulation at about the same time as the United States instituted prohibition .... it reduced the negative consequences of alcohol consumption more effectively than did the United States , but it did so in a manner that raised substantial government revenues. (1)
From this we begin to understand that when a substance is strictly prohibited, the governing body not only loses the ability to collect tax revenue, but also to regulate or have any control over it. What’s left? The responsibility to punish those who consume, possess, or sell the prohibited substance, which will ultimately require a good deal of funding.
It seems logical to then apply this rationale to the prohibition of marijuana. It simply has to cost money to enforce the laws. Because of many different factors that vary with arrests, it’s virtually impossible to nail down precise numbers. As one researcher states
Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior economics lecturer at Harvard University . . . came up with the most recent prohibition cost estimate: about $13 billion in federal and state enforcement-related expenses. Miron estimated that 50 percent of possession arrests are for possession alone. (Katel 2)
With all that money being spent on marijuana prohibition, one would hope that something significant and tangible was being accomplished. However, as was the case with alcohol prohibition, it really isn’t putting much of a dent in marijuana’s popularity. In a 2006 study by Jon Gettman, PhD, he notes
The ten-fold growth of production over the last 25 years and its proliferation to every part of the country demonstrate that marijuana has become a pervasive and ineradicable part of the national economy. The failure of intensive eradication programs suggests that it is finally time to give serious consideration to marijuana’s legalization in the United States. (3)
Is the end of marijuana prohibition on the horizon? Possibly. For years, the prospect of legalization seemed to be little more than a fond fantasy for potheads. But recently California has, rather suddenly, changed the entire tone of the conversation.
Boasting the largest economy in the country, California has been especially vulnerable to the financial troubles plaguing the nation, particularly in real estate and job markets. With little to no economic growth expected any time soon, a vein of creative thinking is evolving amongst state officials.
In February, 2009, State Assemblyman Tom Ammiano introduced a bill, called the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390) that would effectively legalize marijuana. In a press release, Ammiano explains
With the state in the midst of an historic economic crisis, the move towards regulating and taxing marijuana is simply common sense. This legislation would generate much needed revenue for the state, restrict access to only those over 21, end the environmental damage to our public lands from illicit crops, and improve public safety by redirecting law enforcement efforts to more serious crimes . . . California has the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to enact a smart, responsible public policy for the control and regulation of marijuana. (4)
Although the bill (AB 390) expired before it could be passed in January, it was quickly replaced with an identical bill. This time it’s a voter initiative (AB 2254) that has been added to the ballot for November, 2010, thanks to citizens who gathered over 600,000 signatures on a petition.
If the pressing economic situation is what has thrust California into the spotlight in this debate, the state’s history pertaining to marijuana has undoubtedly laid the foundation for this to happen-- beginning in 1996, when medical marijuana was passed into law.
Initially found to be extremely effective in cancer and AIDS patients as a means to endure treatments and regain appetites, marijuana quickly evolved into a virtual panacea for a multitude of ailments. This led to the advent of medical marijuana “dispensaries,” where any person with a doctor’s recommendation could buy pot for personal use.
The dispensaries were legal, by state standards. However, because marijuana is still illegal on a federal level, the dispensaries were still vulnerable to raids by agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). It was a fundamental clashing of state and federal governments, and with the fiercely enforced drug policies of the Bush administration, the federal government always had the final say.
However, even in the beginning of President Obama’s administration, we are already seeing what is arguably the biggest change in federal drug policy since the war on drugs began. Last year the US Attorney General announced that the federal government would back off raids where a state’s medical marijuana laws are being followed. No longer living in fear of having their inventory carted off in cardboard boxes by the feds, the medical marijuana dispensary business is booming like never before.
Many critics dislike the ease at which medical marijuana card (doctor’s recommendation) can be obtained in California, and often argue that the state’s lax medical marijuana laws are simply a form of “backdoor legalization.” It’s a point that is hard to argue against, and thus, California has earned itself a reputation for being “soft on pot.”
Those opposed to legalization may be frowning on this burgeoning enterprise, but it’s hard to ignore the fact that the marijuana industry is ready and willing to dump big money into the state’s empty coffers.
In an article for The Washington Post, author Karl Vick explains that the chairman of the California State Board of Equalization, Betty Yee, is backing the proposed bill on regulating and taxing the state’s $14 billion marijuana industry. “California currently collects $18 million in sales taxes from marijuana dispensaries, and Yee said a regulated pot trade would bring in $1.3 billion.” (5)
When the top tax official in the state is on board, it lends some serious credibility to the pro-legalization side of the argument. Yee’s estimate comes from data collected on the cultivation of marijuana in the state, for which there is plenty of research. As Time Magazine writer Alison Stateman notes
Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion a year in sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity — milk and cream — which brings in $7.3 billion a year, according to the most recent USDA statistics. (6)
When you understand that the cultivation of marijuana is already a massively successful operation in California, it seems only logical to find a way that the state can capitalize on that asset.
The crux in this long and bitterly fought debate is whether or not we, as a society, are ready for legalizing marijuana. Over the years, polls have shown a rising trend in supporters of legalization. A field poll in April, 2009 revealed that 56 percent of Californians approved of legalizing marijuana. Ironically, this is the same majority that voted medical marijuana into law in California back in 1996. On a national level, however, polls show the majority (55 percent) is still opposed to legalization.
The debate will inevitably become more heated as the voting date draws nearer. Come November, Californians will be the first to decide if legalizing marijuana is a reality or nothing more than a pipe dream.
Works Cited
Levine, Harry G. and Reinarman, Craig. “Alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition. Lessons from alcohol policy for drug policy.” Center for Drug Research, University of Amsterdam 2004. Web. 1 Apr. 2010
Katel, Peter. "Legalizing Marijuana." CQ Researcher 19.22 (2009): 525-548. CQ Researcher. Web. 6 Apr. 2010
Jon Gettman, “Marijuana Production in the United States (2006),” Bulletin of Cannabis Reform. Dec. 2006. Web. 27 Mar. 2010
Quintin Mecke, “Ammiano Proposes Bill To Tax And Regulate Marijuana” Press Release for Tom Ammiano. http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov 23 Feb. 2009. Web. 28 Mar. 2010
Vick, Karl, “In Calif., Medical Marijuana Laws Are Moving Pot Into the Mainstream,” The Washington Post. 12 Apr. 2009. Web. 5 Apr. 2010
Alison Stateman, “Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy?” Time.com. Cable News Network (CNN). 13 Mar. 2009. Web. 5 Apr. 2010
