Pubdate: Thu, 02 Jun 2005
Source: Boston Phoenix (MA)
Copyright: 2005 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group.
Contact:  http://www.bostonphoenix.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/54
Note: See the full report at http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project ( www.mpp.org )
Cited: Office of National Drug Control Policy (www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov )
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)

SMART NEWS ABOUT POT

500-plus economists can't wrong. Right? Seems a slew of them have
finally decided what most of us have known for a long time: that pot
prohibition "has minimal benefits and may itself cause substantial
harm."

A report just released by visiting BU economics professor Dr. Jeffrey
Miron and endorsed by more than 500 of his peers offers yet another
commonsense critique of current marijuana policy. This time, the issue
is framed in terms -- dollars and cents -- that even conservatives can
understand. Some of them, including Nobel Prize-winner Dr. Milton
Friedman, have seen the light. Will the Bush administration? Don't
count on it.

In The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition, Miron finds
that by instituting a system of regulation and taxation for pot
similar to those in place for alcohol and tobacco, the money that
would be saved in expenditures and gained in tax revenue is
considerable: between $10 billion and $14 billion annually. That's
real money that could be used to address real problems like gaps in
homeland security, failing schools, and growing budget deficits. If it
might help change GOP minds about our nonsensical drug laws, we
suppose it could even fund tax cuts.

Miron explains his methodology: "We can easily determine the
expenditure by state on police, on judges and prosecutors, and on
prisons. We have a reasonable sense of what fraction of arrests are
for marijuana charges, what fraction of prosecutions are for marijuana
violations, etc." After crunching the numbers, he found that replacing
marijuana prohibition with a system of regulations would save
approximately $7.7 billion in government expenditures: $2.4 billion at
the federal level and $5.3 billion at the state and local levels.

"On the tax revenue side, there are estimates available from some
standard sources on the size of the marijuana market," Miron says.
"Then I used other information about how much demand would likely
change, based on how much the price would likely change, to estimate
revenues." He found that taxing legalized pot could reap $2.4 billion
each year if the drug were taxed like standard consumer goods -- and
perhaps $6.2 billion annually if it were taxed like alcohol or tobacco.

"This is not a trivial amount of money," Miron says. "This is $10
billion, not $10 million. Clearly, we should care about what the
ramifications are of having a policy that's spending that kind of money."

In fact, says Bruce Mirken, director of communications for the
Marijuana Policy Project, Miron's estimates may be on the conservative
side. The study doesn't take into account the money that might be
saved when pot smokers won't have to be referred to drug treatment
programs, or when parolees aren't reincarcerated for testing positive
for marijuana use. Also, Miron worked on the assumption that just one
percent of state prisoners are in jail for marijuana violations. The
White House's own Office of National Drug Control Policy puts that
figure at 1.6 percent. At any rate, Mirken says, "it's a considerable
amount of money -- on enforcing a policy that clearly does not work."

While Mirken recognizes that the study is simply "one more step" in
the advancement towards more sensible drug laws, he thinks it's
significant that it frames an old issue in new terms. "Conservatives
are starting to really have the conversation about whether we're
getting our money's worth," he says. "Is this an expenditure that
makes any sense? Eighty-five percent of high school seniors have been
telling government survey takers that marijuana is easy to get for 30
years, virtually without change. That's a sign that what we're doing
is not working. And when you put that together with what adds up, over
a period of years, to hundreds of billions of dollars, maybe there's
other things we can do with that money."

He cites specifics. "Here's a hunk of money that, in two and a half
years or so, could secure all those loose nukes rattling around the
old Soviet Union. All the port security measures that have been put in
place would be taken care of with a year's worth of savings alone --
let alone the tax revenue. This is a serious amount of money and it's
time to have a conversation about whether we're pouring it down a rat
hole."

Still, he says, "I think the people running drug policy in the present
administration are ideologues who aren't going to be changed by
anything. If Jesus came down from heaven and told them to rethink our
marijuana laws, they'd say he was bought off by the drug
legalizers."

Miron agrees. "I think [conservatives'] concerns are more in terms of
the message or symbolism attached to saying certain things are legal
or not legal." On the other hand, he says, "I think a lot of
conflicted conservatives say, 'Gee, if alcohol and tobacco are legal,
maybe we should think about whether certain illegal drugs should be
legal."

So even though we're finally speaking their language, one shouldn't
expect to soon be able to walk down to the corner packie and buy a
six-pack and a spliff.

Miron just laughs. "No, I don't think that's gonna happen any time
soon."

See the full report at http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/. Also visit 
http://www.marijuanapolicy.org
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake