Mon 17 Mar 2008
Reduce the Black Market
Posted by Jason Morgan under Babeled, Business, Current Events, Economics, Politics
As I am wont to babel about the economy: here it goes again. President’s Bush’s economic stimulus package, which pledges to give the average tax payer a $600 rebate check sometime later this year, isn’t going to offset the negative impact produced by the net decline of 85,000 jobs in the first two months of 2008. The unemployment rate is a lagging indicator of the economy, meaning that job losses occur after the economy has already taken a downturn; or, jobs will increase only after the economy has begun to grow. That said, the evidence put forth in this poor start to 2008 would suggest that the economy is indeed in trouble.
Typically, even the promise of an effective stimulus package will uplift Wall Street and consumer confidence, thus leading to increased consumer spending and subsequently a growing economy. As you can see, the plan put forth by our fearless leader has not instilled confidence in the consumer and has not bolstered Wall Street. Therefore, it cannot be considered an effective plan.
How about something new? Legalize marijuana for economic reasons. It is estimated that the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. would lead to a $7.7 billion drop in law enforcement costs and generate $6.2 billion in tax revenue. This is a net $13.9 billion improvement to U.S. government budgets, not to mention the fact that the dollars being spent on marijuana would be included in the consumer spending category of GDP, which would improve economic measures. What the study done by Harvard visiting professor Jeffrey Miron doesn’t take into account is the improved quality of life which arises from less militant policing of a substance that’s use is fairly widespread and has less negative effects on both individual health and society than alcohol. In 2006, there were 829,627 arrests for marijuana, which makes up 43.9% of total drug arrests in the U.S. Of the 829,627 arrested for marijuana-related charges, 738,916 were for possession alone. This is in direct contradiction to the alleged philosophy of the Drug Enforcement Agency, which states, “DEA targets criminals engaged in cultivation and trafficking…”. The statistics seem to contradict the mission stated by the DEA.
If marijuana was legal, then growing and distributing it would not be a crime. Therefore, this would put drug dealers out of business. I am not so naive as to believe that the supply of drug dealers will decrease by the exact same number as the marijuana dealers who were put out of business, because some of these dealers undoubtedly dabble in other substances and others who only sold marijuana before legalization will probably sell something else post legalization. I acknowledge that there are a considerable amount of concerns centered around operation of motor vehicles and individuals going to work while under the influence of marijuana. This should be treated no differently than alcohol is presently: it is not acceptable and/or legal to operate machinery or motor vehicles, or to go to your job while under the influence of a marijuana or alcohol.
The side benefits are also quite substantial. The Cannabis plant can be used for a variety of commercial and industrial products. Paper, rope, soap, lotions, fuel and lubricants are all among these products. The crops grow well in the United States’ varied climates and are relatively easy to grow, making it an ideal cash crop. If the trend could be set by the United States, then other countries may follow suit. This could lead to a situation analogous to the one in the 18th and 19th centuries when America was exporting enormous quantities of tobacco. The trade deficit could be reduced by taking a progressive step forward, one executed with much forethought and wisdom, and enticing the world to join us on our revolutionary quest to change the prejudices of government against its society.
35 Responses to “ Reduce the Black Market ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Trackback from purrl.net |** urls that purr **|
March 18th, 2008 at 7:07 pmThis is one of the web’s most interesting stories on Wed 19th Mar 2008…
These are the web’s most talked about URLs on Wed 19th Mar 2008. The current winner is …..
-
Pingback from links for 2008-03-19 « Bob’s Weblog
March 19th, 2008 at 5:30 am[...] Reduce the Black Market It is estimated that the legalization of marijuana in the U.S. would lead to a $7.7 billion drop in law enforcement costs and generate $6.2 billion in tax revenue. (tags: economy) [...]
-
Pingback from Legalizing Drugs To Benefit The Economy? | Master Your Card
September 8th, 2008 at 9:17 am[...] Legalizing marijuana would inject roughly $10 billion in tax revenue into the economy. That money could be used in other areas like improving education [...]

March 18th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Sadly, legalization is such an unfashionable issue. Victimized by a nasty label in the same vein as Nuclear Power. The thought alone just makes too many people shutter. But you do make a perfectly logical case. Well done.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
There is logic in this therefore it is not White House friendly. We just can’t go around using logic and facts to make laws! We must use irrational fears and emotional speeches to ensure our freedoms are preserved!
March 18th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Agree that legalization has too many negative connotations. Instead we need to end marijuana prohibition.
Alcohol prohibition ended when the Great Depression reduced tax revenues to a level that forced the government to look for creative revenue sources. We may be on a similar track today. Add to this the changing social attitudes of today (medical marijuana laws in many states, decriminalization laws appearing on ballots, etc) and it may not be as far off as some would think.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
In regards to boosting the economy, numbers don’t lie, and so on paper legalization seems like an awesome solution.
But, if we’re assuming that most drug dealers depend on sales for their primary income, then I’m thinking legalization of pot would increase the incidence of hard drug sales and consequently the incidence of overdoses. I have a hard time seeing dealers trading self-employment for a desk job.
Anyway, supposedly hemp, the non-psychoactive version of pot, is becoming very trendy around the world. It’s particularly popular as both a food and a reliable building material.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
The calculation in tax revenue is wrong.
This is an estimate, but lets say the following is true
1) marijuana is 4X as expensive to produce as wheat
2) the current price (I am guessing) of $10/gram for average marijuana holds
3)The remainder of the difference between the cost of the grower and the street price is picked up as Tax.
This yields ~$40/bushel to the grower
The “street” value is then roughly $45K (Assuming 1 bushel = ~10pounds = 4530 grams X $10)
(The assumption holds as 1 bushel is about the size of a black garbage bag, and one of those stuffed with marijuana makes sense at ~$45K)
So you have a cost of $40, a profit of $45K and even with overhead you walk away with VERY large tax windfall. If you produced 146K bushels then you would earn $6.6B in tax, and I have a feeling that legalized weed would draw a demand far in excess of 146K bushels.
Just my take on the $’s
March 18th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
I was going to right something….but I forgot. LOL….but really, very valild points here, and ones I’ve argued for forever. Hemp has very useful resources, from paper, rope, fossil fuels, medicinal purposes and ofcourse, wood. A hemp plant reaches adult age in 9 months or so. Trees, about 5 or so years…so you do the math on how we could save the rainforests..All in all though, marijuana will never be legalized..1) Because it will forever be considered a drug. 2) The government makes too much money off of law enforcement. Just my 2 cents.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Im surprised you didnt go into the terrible crowding in our nations prisons, or was this included in the “law enforcement costs”? I would be interested to find out the percentage of people in prisons who were arrested for simple possession.
@ fallinup:
How does the government make money on law enforcement? Seems to me its the other way around, what were you referring to?
I did like your opinions, very logical, I agree whole heartedly. I would like to hear someone on the other side of the issue present their opinions as well as you have. All you ever hear is the same old rhetoric.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
The government makes money through asset forfeiture laws in drug related cases, not necessarily directly through law enforcement.
The spoils of asset forfeiture are what is really stopping marijuana from being legalized.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Would cannabis be much use for biofuels?
March 18th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
The reason legalization will never happen is that there is to much money going into the “war” on drugs (which marijuana is the biggest of the targets).
Yes it would reduce the prison populations
Yes it would put many dealers out of business
Yes it would generate billions in tax revenu
Yes it would reduce the cost on fighting crime
BUT….
It would cost TONS of DEA jobs
It would cost TONS of border security jobs
It would reduce the seizure “booty” confiscated daily
In the old Jack Nicholson movie (The Border - 1982) he played a border guard. When he and the new partner came across a small business filled with illegal immigrants his partner wanted to round them all up. Jack said “If we round all of them up, we would be out of a job”.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
It’d be interesting to look at the impact of medical marijuana on crime in California. With quasi-legalization that state has enacted, a billion dollar industry has emerged that includes growers, pharmacies and physicians.
The Canadian and Dutch models are also worth looking at. No one likes the Dutch model because it is too liberal (but they did invent capitalism), but what has happened to crime there and how it attracts tourists is instructive.
As for Canada, they’ve basically gone to a model where the police focus on harder drugs and not pot. So, the industry has also flourished (though admittedly more than a little ends up here).
The real test of this theory would be if a place like Columbia or Bolivia legalised weed and coke. Talk about medical tourism and tax revenues.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Jl - I would argue that the DEA jobs could be redirected to the policing of more dangerous drugs such as methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroine. You would not realize the entire economic benefit as stated above, but you would keep people in jobs and possibly even more productive roles.
As far as seizure booty is concerned, there will be more generated from the real criminals that might be caught dealing harder drugs if DEA resources were redirected from marijuana.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
You make some great points, but seem to be missing a key factor: HOW do we treat marijuana like we do alcohol without being able to quantitatively define intoxication. I’m sure we can agree that 0.08 blood alcohol content means different things to different people, but the government can say “here’s the limit, ‘drunk’ or not, if you’re above it you’re legally intoxicated–can’t drive or operate machinery” and that makes all the difference. Where is that for marijuana? All regulators can do now is tell me if I’ve consumed marijuana in the past three months or not, let alone if I’m “high”. Until we can find something associated with marijuana (and only marijuana) that is conveniently measurable and naturally degrades in the body within a reasonable period of time, all the figures in the world won’t be able to placate people’s fear of its usage running rampant. Develop a THC breathalyzer and I’m sure legalization will follow.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
There is an issue with the amount that would be sold. That is the reason it is called weed is because it is a weed. It will grow practically anywhere with dirt, light, warmth and water. (not Antarctica) If it is legal to sell it then it is also legal to manufacture it, or rather grow it. This process can be done very easily with decent results. Many people would be willing to grow themselves, unless they are truly lazy Americans. Either way, stuff grown for one’s self would not be taxed.
Second reason to speculate the amount being sold would be different is that it would be legalized as a drug. It is still a drug, not a spice or other commodity with free access. It would still need to be prescribed as a drug to a specific person. Someone selling weed to someone without a prescription would be breaking the law by “practicing medicine without a license”. Things would not immediately swing to the libertarian ideal. It is not a cure all. It is helpful for many things, but it can still be dangerous. Someone self medicating what they think is depression may actually have bipolar disorder or another disease that would be harder to diagnose because of the changes weed does have on the psyche. It would be used more for legal purposes, but there would still be illegal uses for the drug, and still some need for enforcement of real drug laws.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Reid - great point. A point that has troubled me for quite some time. There has to be a way that is reasonably efficient. First, start with field sobriety tests, similar to those used to alcohol field sobriety tests.
Then, I think that ultimately we would have to look at some combination of the dopamine level (this is the chemical that THC triggers the brain to release, producing the infamous “high”) in the suspect’s brain and the level of THC in the blood relative to body weight. My point is that we launch stuff into space and land it on Mars, can you honestly believe that if we gave even a partial effort we couldn’t come up with a method of determining conclusively that someone is in fact under the influence of marijuana to an intoxicating degree? Seriously.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Paul - I respectfully disagree. While your points are valid, they can be remedied by precedents set with legally distributed drugs. The U.S. government already regulates who can manufacture tobacco products (tobacco contains nicotine which is a drug in the same class as THC, so no throwing up the “tobacco is not a drug” plea) and sell these products. The USDA holds that auspicious duty. I would imagine we could work out something similar with cannabis.
Which leads me to my second counterpoint to your comment. “It will grow practically anywhere with dirt, light, warmth and water.” Perhaps, but legalization also breeds the penchant for finer things in people. Meaning, different wines, makers of scotch, pipe tobacco, coffee, tea, all differentiate themselves on quality and value delivered to the customer. Why would it be logical to assume marijuana would be any different? It will be regulated and thus manufactured and done so with means which require capital and time investments that are not worth it to the average American in term of economies of scale regarding equipment and quality of raw materials.
And the whole “it is still a drug” thing gets to me a little. So are caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol, all of which are regularly consumed legally by many citizens. Alcohol and tobacco products are medically worse for you than marijuana, and caffeine is not particularly great for you either given its primary delivery mechanism is soda in the U.S. Soda makes people fat (if regular) or gives them cancer (if diet) so that’s not good for you either.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Initiatives
Attorney Gen. File #: 2007-064
California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2008
Legalization of Marijuana-Related Activities
. The initiative provides that no per-son, individual, or corporate entity could be prosecuted for the possession, cultivation, transportation, distribution, or consumption of cannabis hemp, including hemp industrial products, hemp medicinal preparations, hemp nutritional products, and hemp religious or recreational products. All of these products use as an ingredient the hemp plant commonly referred to as cannabis or marijuana. This measure also provides that the manufacture, marketing, distribution, or sale between adults of equipment or accessories associated with the above products shall not be prohibited.
California Hemp Initiative Volunteers is looking for volunteer petition signature collectors
http://www.myspace.com/hemp2008 http://capwiz.com/norml2/mailapp/
March 19th, 2008 at 7:48 am
To Reid:
Driving Under the Influence is not limited, even now, to alcohol; while a specific level of intoxication is set for alcohol, it is not set for pot, meth, coke, oxycodone, valium or a host of other drugs for which people are incarcerated for being influenced by when they drive.
Quantification of intoxication is not necessary; there are simple motor-skills tests that tell far more about a person’s ability to operate heavy machinery than blowing a 0.08 on a breathalyzer.
One might also note that people who are stoned tend to drive much better than people who are drunk, though they do admittedly clog traffic a bit by driving so slowly and carefully. And don’t forget, people on cell phones are considered to be just as dangerous as people driving under the influence of alcohol; the DUI/DWI connection is really insignificant under the circumstance.
The real reason these things (and I mean all the controlled substances, not just pot) remain illegal is because there is much money to be made by dealers, DEA agents, and drug companies that supply dealers and growers/manufacturers with processing ingredients as well as the drugs themselves. Trace the ownership of the drug companies, and you will find, at least in part, lawmakers who stand to gain by these drugs remaining illegal.
The figures are great, and I completely agree (ignoring entirely the fact that half the reason people engage in consumption of illegal substances is because they are illegal; taboo is an incredible motivator–look at underage drinking) but until you can stop the illegal profits gained by lawmakers in control of the legality, nothing will change–these people will put personal profit ahead of reduction of national debt every day of the week.
And remember, all of these drugs (well, pot and coke) became illegal because the revenewers and the mob got together to lobby for it when prohibition of alcohol was lifted because it had cut out their income base, and they needed something else to do.
March 19th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Jason: just one minor point. Nicotine is not a drug. In chemistry it is defined specifically as a poison. THC, however, is defined as a drug.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:31 am
What, you think drug dealers have it good? In George W Bush’s economy, most of them are pulling federal crimes just to pay rent. Legalize it!
March 19th, 2008 at 9:02 am
I agree with the solution you propose and many of its tax benefits; unfortunately, your argument about the struggles of Wall Street should probably be tempered in light of the phenomenal week it has had.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:35 am
rude john - good point. To be honest, that part of the blog was written before this past week and I acknowledge the language should have been softened.
That said, one good week on Wall Street doesn’t equal an effective economic stimulus package. In fact, this past week was driven by strong earnings growth and a interest rate cut by the Fed.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:37 am
@Andrew Blanco:
But, if we’re assuming that most drug dealers depend on sales for their primary income, then I’m thinking legalization of pot would increase the incidence of hard drug sales and consequently the incidence of overdoses. I have a hard time seeing dealers trading self-employment for a desk job.
What you say has some truth to it — namely, the fact that pushers will depend on other drugs (assuming they sell other drugs) for income. But this fact does not mean that more hard drugs will be sold in the states. Customers have to buy them. People have to want the hard drugs. Furthermore, they have to want the risky and expensive hard drugs more than cheap, legal, relatively safe, and easily-obtainable marijuana. So the possibility of hard drug use increasing drastically is not likely; in fact, I suggest that legalization would have an opposite effect, in which hard drug use falls dramatically.
People who are attached to one particular drug will likely continue to use it, no matter how unsafe or expensive it is. There will always be the die hard heroin addicts, cocaine users, and so on. But consider the people who are indifferent between types of drugs. People who try random things at parties or clubs. People who are just experimenting. Think of high school kids, who use whatever they can get their hands on.
These people will gravitate toward marijuana and away from hard drugs. If you can grow marijuana in your basement and smoke it without putting yourself at legal risk, why would you go down to the shady guy on the street, who’s got ties to criminal gangs, and might even be a cop waiting to bust you for attempting a purchase?
March 19th, 2008 at 9:53 am
I was a cop for 30 years and participated in the “war on drugs” I have worked in a hospital emergency room for 6 years.
I am amazed that marijuana is illegal, and that alcohol and nicotine and oxycontin (all more destructive) are legal. Have you ever seen a patient alcohol detox?
The drug industry wants everyone on “their” drugs, so they can maximize profit.
I am tired of paying my tax dolalrs for incarceration of non violent drug offenders. Its also downright mean.
March 19th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
@Hugh
I agree with you totally. Think about what the end of prohibition did to the bootleggers and rum runners. During prohibition, bootlegging was so popular that merchant ships dropped anchor just outside the US territorial waters and sold alcohol to anyone with a boat. People in cities were making bathtub gin regularly. What happened after prohibition was lifted? Most of these people went back to their regular jobs. Sure, theres still people in the south (where I live) who still make moonshine, but its not even close to the same amount they were making during prohibition. Same thing will happen when marijuana is decriminalized, Im sure a few people will continue to grow and sell it, as well as other drugs, outside of whatever restraints and taxes the government imposes, but like you said, people have to be willing to buy it. Personally, i would never buy moonshine when i can go to the state store and get a bottle of good whiskey. People who are addicted to coke and heroin will still do those at the same rate. Marijuana will become less of a “gateway drug”
@Doofus
good to hear a law enforcement officer making sense. in your estimation, however, how many of your fellow officers feel the same way? are you in the minority?
March 19th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
@Hugh,
All good points. What particularly concerns me is the rise of Meth.
Here are some articles documenting its unprecedented spread around the world, and not just in poor areas…
Flavored Meth
Drug of Choice Among the US Workforce
Meth & The EU
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:29 am
This is very well articulated. Unfortunately the average American is an idiot who thinks marijuana, crack and LSD are all the same. Legalization and hence taxation of marijuana would indeed help our nation, but it would harm those who profit by making war on this plant. Politicians don’t want to support the legalization of marijuana because the lobbyists who wine and dine them are supported by the pharmaceutical companies who have their own agenda i.e high priced chemical products.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Please, folks, let’s review some American history and economics.
Prohibition coincide with the end of WW1. It also coincided with the triumph of the Banker’s Revolution, otherwise known as the law that established the Federal Reserve (the Fed).
The Fed tells the Congress how to control inflation, recessions, depressions, unemployment, etc.
Congress passes laws and borrows money from the Fed accordingly, based on our good credit: The Federal Income tax. If you don’t help pay off _that_ “loan,” like Al Capone, you end up in federal prison.
When there is unemployment people are unhappy and can get pretty desperate. Some turn to booze, others to pot & drugs for solace. Others get mean and turn to crime and just plain violence.
Social engineering remedies?
Alcohol and drug laws become an excuse to hire _half_ of those “potentially violent” poor to arrest, and if needed, kill the _other half of the poor_.
All at taxpayers expense. Thus, the righteous _but deputized_ “poor” can legally arrest those who use booze and drugs and incarcerate/warehouse them (it also cuts down on unemployment statistics. Clever, huh?).
Those individuals who _manifest_ “social unhappiness” due to _engineered_ economic conditions–over which they have/had little say–are given “time out,” in prisons, bought and paid for at taxpayer expense.
We “need” a power establishment in place. It provides _employment_ for “power-worshippers” (SEE: George Orwell, “Raffles and Miss Blandish”) at taxpayer expense. And if it requires the demonization of a class of users, so be it.
“Drug enforcement” is just an excuse to prevent a bigger socio-economic problem from blowing up in banker’s faces.
All profit, as some have written, Big Pharma, Big Insurance and all who thrive on the “fear” of crime.
WE have been disempowered by the banking establishment who set the _value_ (buying power) of our saviungs, our retirement and of our hourly wages.
Sorry about that Marxist analysis. But, what do you think is happening on Wall Street right now? And why the FED at taxpayer expense bailed out the “credit-making” establishment?
August 7th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Right there with you, Carlos. All good points.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Jason,
Thanks. Bottom line: anti-drug laws function as an _excuse_ to keep a full-time and lethally armed law enforcement establishment ready to _tame_ us at a moments notice. At their disposal: water cannons to “non-lethal” tazers to asbestos walls to round up innocent demonstrators as happened during the GOP convention in New York and as happened in the trade talks in Miami (almost hushed by the national media). Demonized drug users/dealers and petty criminals are just “practice.”
It’s not as bad as envisioned by Hollywood in the “Soylent Green” food riots. But…
August 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
An on an aside. Hemp pulp makes a great paper, one that lasts for centuries. Wood paper is more costly and not as long-lasting or so I’ve been told.
During the 30’s when the anti-Hemp establishment got around to demonizing hemp it was more than coincidence that the Hearst chain of papers was one of the biggest demonizers. The Hearst corporation reputedly owned extensive lumber and forest holdings at the time and Hearst’s lumber pulp could _not compete_ with less expensive and higher quality hemp paper. So he joined the federal crusade in outlawing his inexpensive _competitor_.
It wasn’t a “drug war” at first, at least nor for the Hearst nationwide chain. It was just plain greed. So much for laissez-fair and free enterprise…
September 26th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
It’s time to make it legal. The government can decide who gets to grown it. The tax revenue alone would bail us out of this mess our Country is in now thanks to the past 8 years and a War that was never justified. How did George W. Bush ever get into office in the first place? Cheating in Florida. Smoking Pot is not as bad as going to War and killing people without just cause. Our soldiers that are not dying over there are coming home and living a hell that you don’t read about in the news, they don’t publish it but yet it is very real.
If Marijuana where legal the only people really out of a job here would be the illegals that are bringing in the crappy pot from Mexico, then maybe they’d go home and stop sucking up all the assistance our Government has to offer, as well as the crimes commetted then they flee back to Mexico. The quality of the Marijuana would improve as well as people could smoke it with less chance of smoking chemical that people add to make produce a better high.
Somebody please put this before Congress. We have no real choice here in a President in the 2008 Election. I don’t believe the lies of either party. I think McCain is too old (age 72) and I think Obama is really not black, I wish he really was but he is not. It would be great if just anyone could run because they’d beat those two Bozos’.