Pubdate: Mon, 20 Sep 2010 Source: Gazette, The (Colorado Springs, CO) Copyright: 2010 The Gazette Contact: http://www.gazette.com/sections/opinion/submitletter/ Website: http://www.gazette.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/165 Author: Mark Garrard HISTORY SUGGESTS OTHERWISE Once more The Gazette offers an editorial supporting medical marijuana, (Sept. 16) arguing "an above-ground, regulated, taxed, store-front trade is better than a trade regulated to the black market or neighborhood basements." Inference: we must accept either one or the other. If we adopt your logic, accepting the first (regulated, taxed drug trade) presumably would help us avoid the damaging effects of the latter (illegal drug trade). History suggests otherwise. Legalized gambling, for example, did not reduce illegal gambling in the U.S.; rather, it has increased it. (MacCoun and Reuter, 2001) This is especially so in sports gambling, most of which is illegal. Legal gambling is regulated, and taxed and illegal gambling is not. Legal gambling sets the stage for illegal gambling; it does not eliminate it. Your own paper offers evidence undermining your logic (page A6, Sept. 16): Illegal drug use in the U.S. rose nine percent last year, to the highest levels seen in a decade "fueled by a sharp increase in marijuana use." The Director of Office of National Drug Control Policy was disappointed but not surprised given "eroding attitudes" toward drugs "...and the growing number of states approving medicinal marijuana." Even the U.S. government then, acknowledges that accepting a regulated drug trade - as you've endorsed - not only fails to eliminate or reduce harm caused by the unregulated drug trade, it often facilitates and encourages greater illegal use of the same drug. As you've often reminded us, there is tax revenue gained from such trade, just as there are from gambling and alcohol sales. I'm not comfortable reducing the issue to mere economics. But even if we do so, with alcohol and tobacco taxed and regulated, the tax benefits to the public are far overshadowed by the harmful consequences of their use. Alcohol-related costs total over $185 billion while producing an estimated $14.5 billion in tax revenue; similarly, tobacco use costs over $200 billion but only $25 billion is collected in taxes. Thus the costs of legal alcohol are more than 12 times the total tax revenue collected, and the costs of legal tobacco are about 8 times the tax revenue collected (MacCoun and Reuter). If we make it solely about tax revenue for our seemingly insatiable government, one might legalize cocaine, methamphetamine and prostitution as well. Hopefully, folks will first consider the character of the community we want to live in and look at the full consequences and costs, intended and otherwise, of our choices. Mark Garrard Colorado Springs - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D