Quote :

"Can Marijuana Help Rescue California's Economy? By Alison Stateman / Los Angeles Could marijuana be the answer to the economic misery facing California? Democratic State Assembly member Tom Ammiano thinks so. Ammiano introduced legislation last month that would legalize pot and allow the state to regulate and tax its sale — a move that could mean billions for the cash-strapped state. Pot is, after all, California's biggest cash crop, responsible for $14 billion in annual sales, dwarfing the state's second largest agricultural commodity — milk and cream — which brings in $7.3 billion annually, according to the most recent USDA statistics. The state's tax collectors estimate the bill would bring in about $1.3 billion in much-needed revenue a year, offsetting some of the billions in service cuts and spending reductions outlined in the recently approved state budget. "The state of California is in a very, very precipitous economic plight. It's in the toilet," says Ammiano. "It looks very, very bleak, with layoffs and foreclosures and schools closing or trying to operate four days a week. We have one of the highest rates of unemployment we've ever had. With any revenue ideas people say you have to think outside of the box, you have to be creative, and I feel that the issue of the decriminalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana fits that bill. It's not new, the idea has been around, and the political will may in fact be there to make something happen." (See pictures of stoner cinema.) Ammiano may be right. A few days after he introduced the bill, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that states should be able to make their own rules on medical marijuana and that federal raids on pot dispensaries in California would cease. The move signaled a softening of the hard-line approach previous administrations have had to medicinal pot use. The nomination of Gil Kerlikowske as the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy may also signal a softer federal line on marijuana. If he is confirmed as the so-called Drug Czar, Kerlikowske will bring with him experience as police chief of Seattle, where he made it clear that going after people for posessing marijuana was not a priority of his force. (See a story about the grass-roots marijuana war in California.) California was one of the first states in the nation to legalize medical marijuana in 1996. Currently, $200 million in medical marijuana sales are subject to sales tax. If passed, the Marijuana Control, Regulation and Education Act (AB 390) would give California control of pot in a manner similar to alcohol, while prohibiting its purchase to citizens under age 21. (The bill has been referred to the California State Assembly's Public Safety and Health Committees; Ammiano says it could take up to a year before it comes to a vote for passage.) State revenues would be derived from a $50 per ounce levy on retail sales of marijuana and sales taxes. By adopting the law, California could become a model for other states. As Ammiano put it: "How California goes, the country goes." Despite the projected and much-needed revenue, opponents say legalizing pot will only add to social woes. "The last thing we need is yet another mind-altering substance to be legalized," says John Lovell, lobbyist for the California Peace Officers' Association. "We have enough problems with alcohol and abuse of pharmaceutical products: do we really need to add yet another mind-altering substance to the array?" Lovell says the easy availability of the drug will lead to a surge in its use, much like what happened when alcohol was allowed to be sold in venues other than liquor stores in some states. Joel W. Hay, professor of Pharmaceutical Economics at USC, also foresees harm if the bill passes. "Marijuana is a drug that clouds people's judgment. It affects their ability to concentrate and react and it certainly has impacts on third parties," says Hay, who has written on the societal costs of drug abuse. "It's one more drug that will add to the toll on society. All we have to do is look at the two legalized drugs, tobacco and alcohol, and look at the carnage that they've caused. [Marijuana] is a dangerous drug and it causes bad outcomes for both the people who use it and for the people who are in their way at work or other activities." He adds: "There are probably some responsible people who can handle marijuana but there are lots of people who can't, and it has an enormous negative impact on them, their family and loved ones." (See pictures of Mexico's drug wars.) In response, retired Orange County Superior Court Judge James Gray, a longtime proponent of legalization, estimates that legalizing pot and thus ceasing to arrest, prosecute and imprison non-violent offenders could save the state an additional $1 billion a year. "We couldn't make this drug any more available if we tried," he says. "Not only do we have those problems, along with glamorizing it by making it illegal, but we also have the crime and corruption that go along with it." He adds, "Unfortunately, every society in the history of mankind has had some form of mind-altering, sometimes addictive substances to use, to misuse, abuse or get addicted to. Get used to it. They're here to stay. So, let's try to reduce those harms and right now we couldn't do it worse if we tried." Read "An American Pastime: Smoking Pot." See a story discussing whether pot is good for you."

3/13/2009 3:54:33 PM

of course legalization would help the economy. and it'd help the budgets of states and cities, as well.

3/13/2009 3:57:56 PM

It couldn't hurt the economy... could it?

Disclaimer: I'm not an economist.

3/13/2009 3:58:18 PM

well, let's see:

1) taxes brought in on it
2) millions of people out of prison, contributing to society and reducing the money spent on their incarceration
3) elimination of funds spent fighting the wacky-weed
4) increased sales of potato chips

3/13/2009 4:01:51 PM

Quote :

"Prohibition Politics by Donald J. Boudreaux Wednesday, July 25, 2007 -- Pittsburgh Tribune Review The standard, schoolbook history of alcohol prohibition in the United States goes like this: Americans in 1920 embarked on a noble experiment to force everyone to give up drinking. Alas, despite its nobility, this experiment was too naive to work. It soon became clear that people weren't giving up drinking. Worse, it also became clear that Prohibition fueled mobsters who grew rich supplying illegal booze. So, recognizing the futility of Prohibition, Americans repealed it in 1934. This popular belief is completely mistaken. Here's what really happened: National alcohol prohibition did begin on Jan. 16, 1920, following ratification of the 18th Amendment and enactment of the Volstead Act. Speakeasies and gangster violence did become familiar during the 1920s. And Americans did indeed keep drinking. But contrary to popular belief, the 1920s witnessed virtually no sympathy for ending Prohibition. Neither citizens nor politicians concluded from the obvious failure of Prohibition that it should end. As historian Norman Clark reports: "Before 1930 few people called for outright repeal of the (18th) Amendment. No amendment had ever been repealed, and it was clear that few Americans were moved to political action yet by the partial successes or failures of the Eighteenth. ... The repeal movement, which since the early 1920s had been a sullen and hopeless expression of minority discontent, astounded even its most dedicated supporters when it suddenly gained political momentum." What happened in 1930 that suddenly gave the repeal movement political muscle? The answer is the Great Depression and the ravages that it inflicted on federal income-tax revenues. Prior to the creation in 1913 of the national income tax, about a third of Uncle Sam's annual revenue came from liquor taxes. (The bulk of Uncle Sam's revenues came from customs duties.) Not so after 1913. Especially after the income tax surprised politicians during World War I with its incredible ability to rake in tax revenue, the importance of liquor taxation fell precipitously. By 1920, the income tax supplied two-thirds of Uncle Sam's revenues and nine times more revenue than was then supplied by liquor taxes and customs duties combined. In research that I did with University of Michigan law professor Adam Pritchard, we found that bulging income-tax revenues made it possible for Congress finally to give in to the decades-old movement for alcohol prohibition. Before the income tax, Congress effectively ignored such calls because to prohibit alcohol sales then would have hit Congress hard in the place it guards most zealously: its purse. But once a new and much more intoxicating source of revenue was discovered, the cost to politicians of pandering to the puritans and other anti-liquor lobbies dramatically fell. Prohibition was launched. Despite pleas throughout the 1920s by journalist H.L. Mencken and a tiny handful of other sensible people to end Prohibition, Congress gave no hint that it would repeal this folly. Prohibition appeared to be here to stay -- until income-tax revenues nose-dived in the early 1930s. From 1930 to 1931, income-tax revenues fell by 15 percent. In 1932 they fell another 37 percent; 1932 income-tax revenues were 46 percent lower than just two years earlier. And by 1933 they were fully 60 percent lower than in 1930. With no end of the Depression in sight, Washington got anxious for a substitute source of revenue. That source was liquor sales. Jouett Shouse, president of the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, was a powerful figure in the Democratic Party that had just nominated Franklin Roosevelt as its candidate for the White House. Shouse emphasized that ending Prohibition would boost government revenue. And a House leader of Congress' successful attempt to propose the Prohibition-ending 21st Amendment said in 1934 that "if (anti-prohibitionists) had not had the opportunity of using that argument, that repeal meant needed revenue for our government, we would not have had repeal for at least 10 years." There's no doubt that widespread understanding of Prohibition's futility and of its ugly, unintended side-effects made it easier for Congress to repeal the 18th Amendment. But these public sentiments were insufficient, by themselves, to end the war on alcohol. Ending it required a gargantuan revenue shock -- to the U.S. Treasury. So, if the history of alcohol prohibition is a guide, drug prohibition will not end merely because there are many sound, sensible and humane reasons to end it. Instead, it will end only if and when Congress gets desperate for another revenue source. That's the sorry logic of politics and Prohibition."

3/13/2009 4:05:05 PM

place in oregon is gonna charge 100 dollar bucks an ounce from what i heard...think about that

3/13/2009 4:09:11 PM

A senator to the California State Assembly proposed legalizing pot.

This news is lacking in novelty.

3/13/2009 4:10:20 PM

this thread brought the funny! A++++++ would read again.

3/13/2009 4:21:20 PM

simple answer: yes.

3/13/2009 5:39:23 PM

Of course it could.

3/13/2009 5:41:42 PM

Quote :

"4) increased sales of potato chips"

win

3/14/2009 2:02:59 AM

Of course it would help our economy. Of course, nobody gives a rat's ass.

Anybody who honestly cares about what other people do in private needs a beating.

[Edited on March 14, 2009 at 4:16 AM. Reason : .]

3/14/2009 4:16:22 AM

and what about the asshats that do it in public or while they're working?

3/14/2009 6:44:25 PM

^more power to them? i'm not sure what you are looking for

3/14/2009 7:25:55 PM

Quote :

"and what about the asshats that do it in public or while they're working?"

than they will be fired for being high at work.

3/14/2009 7:53:06 PM

Quote :

"and what about the asshats that do it in public or while they're working?"

Pass a law against public drunkenness. Arrest them for doing pot on the subway, not for doing pot in their basement.

3/14/2009 8:17:41 PM

There are a lot of reasons to support legalization, but I'm not sure the economy is one of them. Suddenly releasing large numbers of unemployed people from incarceration into a country full of unemployed people isn't exactly going to help with the job market. And how much is the tax revenue actually going to help?

3/15/2009 2:14:41 PM

A valid point, except for the fact that you're releasing precisely the people with the job skills required to open up this new market. It isn't a 1:1 but that could mitigate the effect somewhat.

3/15/2009 2:25:25 PM

Hmm, people of questionable character too lazy to work a real job will now be in control of the finances and the pot banks of the newly established legalized weed trade.

3/15/2009 2:29:48 PM

I'm trying to figure out how being able to sneak a bad of leaves around in your car is going to be a useful skill in a legal market. Ditto being able to acquire a network of friends who like weed. I have a network of friends who like weed, and I've never sold the stuff.

Basically, the only useful ability these people have would be growing it, which plenty of people who aren't in prison already do quite successfully.

3/15/2009 2:39:56 PM

did they let people out of prison for being bootleggers during prohibition after it was repealed?

(thats a real question)

3/15/2009 2:48:54 PM

I mean the people they let out would have knowledge of the product.

^ don't know, that would be an interesting thing to know.

3/15/2009 3:19:26 PM

Quote :

"Hmm, people of questionable character too lazy to work a real job will now be in control of the finances and the pot banks of the newly established legalized weed trade."

What a ridiculous assertion. You sell weed, you must be lazy and worthless.

Besides, questionable character has never been a real leadership disqualification; note the current financial / political leadership crisis.

Quote :

"I'm trying to figure out how being able to sneak a bad of leaves around in your car is going to be a useful skill in a legal market."

That this would be the only skill the incarcerated possess would be based on the reason for their conviction. Was it possession of a dime bag, or something greater?


^^ Good question.

3/15/2009 4:06:52 PM

Quote :

"Hmm, people of questionable character too lazy to work a real job will now be in control of the finances and the pot banks of the newly established legalized weed trade."

Well, the people really running the show aren't lazy. Your average dealer may or may not be lazy, but I don't think you could back up that assertion with anything more than stereotypes.

If it became legal, do you really think the guy selling weed out of his apartment is going to be in control of the weed industry? Of course not. It won't take long for it to become "big marijuana," just like big tobacco. Everyone that claims to have moral objections to the drug will soon forget about their problems when they realize how much money there is to be made from the industry. And, depending on how they legalized it, the pharmaceutical companies could take over.

3/15/2009 4:29:21 PM

Quote :

"That this would be the only skill the incarcerated possess would be based on the reason for their conviction. Was it possession of a dime bag, or something greater?"

I'm trying to think of all the skills that working with marijuana in this country could involve.

1) Smuggling
2) Illegal salesmanship (very different from normal salesmanship, which would be irrelevant anyway because the stuff basically sells itself)
3) Production, which I allowed would be useful, but masters of which we currently have practicing their craft out of jail all over the country

You seem to be suggesting that there's other useful skills here, and there may be some that I'm not noticing -- but if you know of any, please point them out.

3/15/2009 4:54:21 PM

Quote :

"Hmm, people of questionable character too lazy to work a real job...."

Quote :

"Basically, the only useful ability these people have would be...."

What a bullshit stereotype.

Quote :

"It won't take long for it to become "big marijuana," just like big tobacco"

Perhaps, but many predict that after possession is decriminalized, the next push will be for the decriminalization of growing a very limited number of personal plants. However, I don't see it becoming legal to sell without a license of some sort....

Quote :

"I'm trying to think of all the skills that working with marijuana in this country could involve"

BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE MORE THAN ONE SKILL!!!1
Grumpy, what are you smoking?
Why the fuck would having "black market" skills imply IN ANY FUCKING WAY that one doesn't have other skills? Are you trolling or actually that dumb?

[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 5:03 PM. Reason : ]

3/15/2009 5:01:26 PM

I'm not saying that the people in jail for drug-related offenses only have drug-related skills. This particular line of discussion is very specific and relates exclusively to the possible effects of releasing large numbers of (presumably unemployed) people from prison.

I suggested that in a market already saturated with job-seekers, a sudden influx of even unemployed people would not be helpful. Also, before you even start, this is in no way to imply that I think we should avoid or hold off on legalization simply because of this issue. I am merely saying that I'm unconvinced that legalization would be substantially beneficial to the economy.

JCASHFAN responded by saying that the people being released would be "precisely the people with the job skills required" to work in the new drug market. I don't think it was unreasonable of me to infer that he meant these skills were acquired during their participation in the black market trade. I think that these black market skills would be of limited use in a legal drug market, and so far nobody has actually contradicted that point with any example.

Even if every person currently incarcerated for drug offenses has skillsets comparable to law-abiding citizens on the outside, you're still suddenly increasing the number of similar people competing for scarce employment.

3/15/2009 5:09:04 PM

I'm just brain-storming. I put no real thought behind 99% of my posts on TWW.

3/15/2009 5:46:04 PM

Quote :

"Suddenly releasing large numbers of unemployed people from incarceration into a country full of unemployed people isn't exactly going to help with the job market."

Why would they suddenly be released? Just because something isn't illegal anymore doesn't mean you don't finish out your jail sentence for committing the crime when it was.

3/15/2009 6:11:29 PM

I can't imagine what justification you would use for keeping a large number of people in prison for doing something that is no longer a crime. It gets even harder when you're talking about drugs, since one of the major arguments against prohibition is that it is filling prisons and jails with nonviolent, otherwise law-abiding people.

I suppose you could say, "They knowingly did something that was against the law, and that makes them criminals who should serve out their sentences." Just seems awfully flimsy, to me, as an explanation for letting people rot in jail for doing something that other people are doing legally on the outside.

Bob grew a marijuana plant last year. He will spend the next five years in NC Central. Charlie grew a marijuana plant yesterday. He will profit from it.

It would also raise the question of people who have charges pending. Tim grew a marijuana plant a week ago and is out on bail with a trial scheduled for tomorrow. What the fuck do we do with him?

3/15/2009 6:36:24 PM

Quote :

"I suggested that in a market already saturated with job-seekers, a sudden influx of even unemployed people would not be helpful. Also, before you even start, this is in no way to imply that I think we should avoid or hold off on legalization simply because of this issue. I am merely saying that I'm unconvinced that legalization would be substantially beneficial to the economy."

It always depends. The same argument is had occasionally in economic circles in relation to immigration during a recession. The conclusion arrived at implies that such activity is good regardless of the business cycle. This conclusion is reached because while immigrants or (former prisoners) are workers vying for work, they are also consumers vying for consumption. This depends heavily on why you believe recessions occur, but one perspective holds that recessions occur when sectoral shifts overwealm the ability of the labor and capital markets to adjust. For example, the demand for medical services is growing, but the demand for cars has fallen.

Meanwhile immigrants (maybe also prisoners) have a willingness to travel for work (say from Michigan to Wyoming) as well as change sectors of employment by doing so. And wherever they move, they will increase the absolute size of the local economy, filling jobs in up-sectors if there are any and increasing the demand for down-sectors.

^ It is the case that making something legal does not automatically release everyone from prison. As I understand it, what happened after prohibition was the state governors issued pardons to the non-violent offenders.

[Edited on March 15, 2009 at 7:26 PM. Reason : .,.]

3/15/2009 7:23:40 PM

Quote :

"Perhaps, but many predict that after possession is decriminalized, the next push will be for the decriminalization of growing a very limited number of personal plants."

as someone who lives in a state that has decriminalized small amounts

my mind has ALWAYS wondered "where do they think these people are getting these <ounce bags?"

its a chicken and egg thing yo, you need some legal growers if you're gonna have legal smokers
otherwise you're sending law-abiding citizens to criminals

3/15/2009 7:34:12 PM

^ Here here.

3/15/2009 9:31:33 PM

Quote :

"I can't imagine what justification you would use for keeping a large number of people in prison for doing something that is no longer a crime."

Its quite simple. They were in jail for peddling / smuggling / hiding an illegal substance. Its not necessarily relevant what that illegal substance is. There will ALWAYS be illegal substances no matter what, so all laws related to illegal substances will never go away.

Or some sort of spin like that.

--------------

And no offense, but you bandwagon idiots that jump on any excuse to try to push whatever cause you support (legalization of this/that/other drug, homosexual marriage, etc) only manage to cheapen the cause you support. Regardless of merit, it will demean any chances you have of a long-term gain and cause further resentment from your opposition to try to use any sorry excuse as your needle-that-broke-the-camel's-back.

/rant

3/15/2009 10:06:57 PM

Quote :

"This conclusion is reached because while immigrants or (former prisoners) are workers vying for work, they are also consumers vying for consumption."

Maybe. But then, as we've seen lately, immigration is liable to constrict on its own during a recession -- bad economic times mean fewer jobs, and why else do most people move? Nobody's going to opt to stay in prison because finding a job is hard. Plenty of people have apparently opted to stay in Central America for that reason.

Aside from which, prisoners are already consumers of American goods and services. Not the full set, obviously, and their choice is extremely limited because the state is generally what actually does the buying. But still, those things are being bought.

Quote :

"Meanwhile immigrants (maybe also prisoners) have a willingness to travel for work"

I would suspect that most native-born American prisoners still have ties to their home here -- family, friends, etc. -- that they intend to return to when released. It strikes me as unlikely that they would be remarkably more likely than the average American to move away from their support network to find employment.

Quote :

"Its quite simple. They were in jail for peddling / smuggling / hiding an illegal substance. Its not necessarily relevant what that illegal substance is."

I alluded to a similar spin in my post, but what you say here isn't really accurate. Drug laws are generally more specific than "illegal substances."

I do agree with the second part of your post about people who jump on every excuse. I suppose I should've seen it coming, with the economy being the biggest issue around, that someone would eventually try to tie it to drug prohibition in some way. But it's still stretching a bit.

3/15/2009 10:45:49 PM

Quote :

"Aside from which, prisoners are already consumers of American goods and services. Not the full set, obviously, and their choice is extremely limited because the state is generally what actually does the buying. But still, those things are being bought."

True, but think deeper. The money spent on prisoners is raised via tax dollars, which for every dollar collected to spend on prisoners took more than a dollar from the citizenry. Closing a prison or two could allow tax rates to be lowered, improving the citizenry's balance sheets and increasing the incentive to produce.

Quote :

"I would suspect that most native-born American prisoners still have ties to their home here -- family, friends, etc. -- that they intend to return to when released. It strikes me as unlikely that they would be remarkably more likely than the average American to move away from their support network to find employment."

I disagree. Most Americans decide not to move because they are tied to the house they would need to sell, would prefer not to leave their job. Yes, many are tied to their families, but just as an unemployed American is more likely to move than one with a job, a prisoner who is not only unemployed but has no place to live should be even more-so.

3/15/2009 11:43:25 PM

Quote :

"Closing a prison or two could allow tax rates to be lowered, improving the citizenry's balance sheets and increasing the incentive to produce. "

You and I both know this isn't true. If we save money on those prisoners, the money is still going to be spent by the government -- quite possibly still by the prisons and associated agencies. They're not going to give up money, even if they have less to spend it on.

Now, sure, if you want to talk about an ideal world where we could change all these things at once, maybe what you describe would happen. But you and I both know how the system works. At best, that money would go to schools or something.

Quote :

"Yes, many are tied to their families, but just as an unemployed American is more likely to move than one with a job, a prisoner who is not only unemployed but has no place to live should be even more-so."

When all those factors are true, sure. But a lot of them do have homes with family living in them. And I have this feeling that people who decided to sell drugs for a living are not going to turn their noses up at the opportunity to leech on their friends and family so that they can move away from all that support to actually work for a living.

3/16/2009 12:11:51 AM

why is it not morally acceptable to weed out certain prisoners as "lost causes" and clear up some jail space for the rest of the criminals currently in society?

3/16/2009 12:22:03 AM

^^ I recognize the extreme pessimism. I too have said that from time to time. But the fact is that taxes on the local level do sometimes go down, but they never do it with a budget shortfall since local government are usually restricted in their ability to borrow.

Which brings up a good point; this discussion is presuming a severe recession, which means local budgets are most likely already in the red, so the ability to liquidate a prison or two could forestall a tax increase.

And we are only talking about in terms of mobility is "more likely than not". Why do you assume all marijuana related prisoners were selling? Similarly, while I don't have the statistic, most marijuana offenders had jobs when they were arrested, so we already know they are the type of person to work for a living.

3/16/2009 12:19:38 PM

I assume that at least the majority were selling because, as I understand it, minor possessions don't normally warrant prison time and larger possessions imply at least some sales are going on. I know a number of people like that. They're not what you would call dealers, but they generally have more on them than they need because they know they'll end up selling some to friends or acquaintances.

However, I admit that I overstated the case when I talked about "selling drugs for a living." But the fact is that they recognized and took advantage of the opportunity to make very easy money doing something illegal. More on point, we're talking about people who just got out of prison, which doesn't appear to be a good place for building motivation or skills to do much of anything besides commit more crimes. Yes, there are exceptions, but (as the pro-legalization lobby is quick to point out) time spent in prison seems to make people worse citizens. They've been locked in a place full of criminals with bad advice and warped views, they may have been involved in even more criminal activity inside, and they're understandably bitter about their lot in life. Not exactly a good recipe.

So even though, as you say, most marijuana offenders had real jobs, I'm far from convinced that they're going to be the work-focused contributors to a mobile economy that you suggest they'll be.

Quote :

"But the fact is that taxes on the local level do sometimes go down, but they never do it with a budget shortfall since local government are usually restricted in their ability to borrow."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't prisons almost exclusively state or federal entities? They're the ones paying for them, not local governments. And I may be even farther off base here, but I was under the impression that prisons tend to benefit local economies -- they employ a lot of people and require fairly substantial local services.

3/16/2009 2:11:34 PM

Quote :

"Suddenly releasing large numbers of unemployed people from incarceration into a country full of unemployed people isn't exactly going to help with the job market."

how many people are actually currently incarcerated for weed anyway? I dont have any figures but I would wager that number is pretty small. I always hear as an argument from the weedies about how many tax dollars are wasted on people in prison because of weed and I have always doubted it. I dont think you stay in jail from a weed offense alone, unless you are habitual or caught with a huge amount.

3/16/2009 5:28:27 PM

Maybe it's not many. I was running with the large figures that "weedies" normally suggest. Frankly, it doesn't matter. One unemployed person suddenly released into the economy is one more than our economy currently seems suited to take.

3/17/2009 3:38:35 AM

It would definitely help the economy, no question. It's a huge cash crop nationally and it has the potential to help buffer the tax burden for federal, state and local government agencies.

3/17/2009 9:14:37 AM

Quote :

"weedies"

3/17/2009 12:07:17 PM

Quote :

"did they let people out of prison for being bootleggers during prohibition after it was repealed?"

I looked around and couldn't find a solid answer. Anecdotal evidence makes it sound like most of the states that didn't have prohibition laws after the repeal granted pardons to most or all of those incarcerated.

Of course, many bootleggers had ties to organized crime and were probably locked up for more than just getting caught with booze.

3/17/2009 8:11:37 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html

3/24/2009 1:55:24 PM

^
So... Are you suggesting that the inevitable decrease in violent crime that would result from drug legalization would help the economy?

the article:

Quote :

"Commentary: Legalize drugs to stop violence By Jeffrey A. Miron Special to CNN Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Over the past two years, drug violence in Mexico has become a fixture of the daily news. Some of this violence pits drug cartels against one another; some involves confrontations between law enforcement and traffickers. Recent estimates suggest thousands have lost their lives in this "war on drugs." The U.S. and Mexican responses to this violence have been predictable: more troops and police, greater border controls and expanded enforcement of every kind. Escalation is the wrong response, however; drug prohibition is the cause of the violence. Prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. This means buyers and sellers cannot resolve their disputes with lawsuits, arbitration or advertising, so they resort to violence instead. Violence was common in the alcohol industry when it was banned during Prohibition, but not before or after. Violence is the norm in illicit gambling markets but not in legal ones. Violence is routine when prostitution is banned but not when it's permitted. Violence results from policies that create black markets, not from the characteristics of the good or activity in question. The only way to reduce violence, therefore, is to legalize drugs. Fortuitously, legalization is the right policy for a slew of other reasons. Prohibition of drugs corrupts politicians and law enforcement by putting police, prosecutors, judges and politicians in the position to threaten the profits of an illicit trade. This is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for prohibited industries but rare otherwise. Mexico's recent history illustrates this dramatically. Prohibition erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure because neither party to a drug transaction has an incentive to report the activity to the police. Thus, enforcement requires intrusive tactics such as warrantless searches or undercover buys. The victimless nature of this so-called crime also encourages police to engage in racial profiling. Prohibition has disastrous implications for national security. By eradicating coca plants in Colombia or poppy fields in Afghanistan, prohibition breeds resentment of the United States. By enriching those who produce and supply drugs, prohibition supports terrorists who sell protection services to drug traffickers. Prohibition harms the public health. Patients suffering from cancer, glaucoma and other conditions cannot use marijuana under the laws of most states or the federal government despite abundant evidence of its efficacy. Terminally ill patients cannot always get adequate pain medication because doctors may fear prosecution by the Drug Enforcement Administration. Drug users face restrictions on clean syringes that cause them to share contaminated needles, thereby spreading HIV, hepatitis and other blood-borne diseases. Prohibitions breed disrespect for the law because despite draconian penalties and extensive enforcement, huge numbers of people still violate prohibition. This means those who break the law, and those who do not, learn that obeying laws is for suckers. Prohibition is a drain on the public purse. Federal, state and local governments spend roughly $44 billion per year to enforce drug prohibition. These same governments forego roughly $33 billion per year in tax revenue they could collect from legalized drugs, assuming these were taxed at rates similar to those on alcohol and tobacco. Under prohibition, these revenues accrue to traffickers as increased profits. The right policy, therefore, is to legalize drugs while using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior related to drug use, such as driving under the influence. This makes more sense than prohibition because it avoids creation of a black market. This approach also allows those who believe they benefit from drug use to do so, as long as they do not harm others. Legalization is desirable for all drugs, not just marijuana. The health risks of marijuana are lower than those of many other drugs, but that is not the crucial issue. Much of the traffic from Mexico or Colombia is for cocaine, heroin and other drugs, while marijuana production is increasingly domestic. Legalizing only marijuana would therefore fail to achieve many benefits of broader legalization. It is impossible to reconcile respect for individual liberty with drug prohibition. The U.S. has been at the forefront of this puritanical policy for almost a century, with disastrous consequences at home and abroad. The U.S. repealed Prohibition of alcohol at the height of the Great Depression, in part because of increasing violence and in part because of diminishing tax revenues. Similar concerns apply today, and Attorney General Eric Holder's recent announcement that the Drug Enforcement Administration will not raid medical marijuana distributors in California suggests an openness in the Obama administration to rethinking current practice. Perhaps history will repeat itself, and the U.S. will abandon one of its most disastrous policy experiments."

[Edited on March 24, 2009 at 2:08 PM. Reason : ]

3/24/2009 2:07:39 PM

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/26/time-for-us-to-legalize-drugs/

Quote :

" Time for U.S. to legalize drugs? FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty: As drugs and related violence from Mexico continue to infect 230 cities in the United States, some politicians, economists, and even drug law enforcement leaders say legalizing drugs may be the answer. One Texas city councilman tells CNN “it’s the least worst option to ending cartel violence.” He says decriminalizing drugs would take away a lot of the financial incentive for the cartels to kill. Arizona’s Attorney General says 60 percent of the battle is marijuana — and he’s called for “at least a rational discussion” on ways to take the profit out of weed. Some insist legalizing drugs like pot would help our economy. One California congresswoman says it would pump $1 billion into her state’s budget alone every year. A senior economics lecturer at Harvard says federal, state and local governments spend $44 billion a year to enforce drug prohibition. If drugs were legal, they could be making about $33 billion per year in tax revenue. Jeffrey Miron describes how prohibition creates violence because it drives the drug market underground. He says the same was true with alcohol; and is also the case for illegal gambling or prostitution. He says prohibition of drugs also corrupts politicians and law enforcement, which is why bribery, threats and kidnapping are common for industries that are prohibited; but rare in other cases. But critics say the consequences of legalizing drugs would far outweigh the benefits. Some focus on the moral and health related concerns about drug use. One former special agent for the federal Drug Enforcement Administration told CNN “No way. We would lose a generation.” Some wonder if drug use itself can cause violent behavior; and others aren’t sure if decriminalization would make much of a difference in the Mexican drug war. However, the country has managed to survive the repeal of Prohibition almost 80 years ago. Here’s my question to you: Is it time for the U.S. to legalize drugs? Interested to know which ones made it on air? Kevin from the Netherlands writes: Let American politicians ask us here in the Netherlands how we are successfully dealing with the drug problem. Most of the junkies here are foreigners who are not free to smoke weed in their countries. Check the crime statistics in America and the Netherlands, then I’ll leave the answer to you. C. from Tampa, Florida writes: We seem to be running out of ideas on how to make money. Legalizing and taxing the hell out of some softer drugs like marijuana could bring us considerable amounts of money. Danny from Williamsburg, Kentucky writes: Absolutely not. You don’t legalize murder or rape because they keep happening, nor should you legalize drugs. Drugs put us all in danger, not just from the violence that surrounds them, but because of their adverse effects on society. Do not trade one evil for another. Jacob writes: Only somebody who’s high could think that fighting this “war” has been effective. I don’t do drugs, and I don’t support doing so, but we’ve got to realize that everything isn’t in our control. For now, we’re only burning dollars. Mark from Columbus, Ohio writes: Jack, It seems like more and more people are calling for this rational discussion, so why is Obama laughing off the question like it’s some sort of joke? There have been many studies showing broad potential savings from a legal Cannibus plant and also broad potential earnings, including from taxes, industrial, textile, and biofuel resources. Maybe if Obama would sit down and “relax” for a few minutes, someone could explain to him some of the benefits that aren’t necessarily recreational. Bill writes: I don’t agree with the legalization of drugs. I do agree with the legalization of marijuana. Dean from Modesto, California writes: You are on the right track, Jack. We have to keep in mind that the “demonization” of drugs came from the federal government’s “easy” solution to something that they didn’t want to bother on figuring out how to tax. R. writes: If Palin becomes president, yes. Filed under: Law Enforcement • United States "

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 6:12 PM. Reason : -]

3/26/2009 6:10:31 PM

Whelp, too bad Obama's just going to sit around being flippant about the issue:

/message_topic.aspx?topic=562138

Hope 'n change, bitches.

[Edited on March 26, 2009 at 7:54 PM. Reason : .]

3/26/2009 7:54:16 PM

All Things Considered just did a story in the hypothetical future where pot has been legal for 2 years. It was pretty interesting and done quite well. They seemed to hit on most major points on both sides, and it was produced and enacted just as well as a normal story.

the transcript is here, but the audio is not up yet
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103276152

4/20/2009 5:00:31 PM