1
   

The War on Pot: America's $42 Billion Annual Boondoggle

 
 
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 10:52 am
The War on Pot: America's $42 Billion Annual Boondoggle
By Rob Kampia, AlterNet - executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, DC.
Posted on October 9, 2007, Printed on October 10, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/64465/

What would you buy if you had an extra $42 billion to spend every year? What might our government buy if it suddenly had that much money dropped onto its lap every year?

For one thing, it might pay for the entire $7 billion annual increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program that President Bush is threatening to veto because of its cost -- and there'd still be $35 billion left over.

Or perhaps you'd hire 880,000 schoolteachers at the average U.S. teacher salary of $47,602 per year.

Or give every one of our current teachers a 30 percent raise (at a cost of $15 billion, according to the American Federation of Teachers) and use what's left to take a $27 billion whack out of the federal deficit.

Or use all $42 billion for a massive tax cut that would put an extra $140 in the pockets of every person in the country -- $560 for a family of four.

The mind reels at the ways such a massive sum of money could be put to use.

Why $42 billion? Because that's what our current marijuana laws cost American taxpayers each year, according to a new study by researcher Jon Gettman, Ph.D. -- $10.7 billion in direct law enforcement costs, and $31.1 billion in lost tax revenues. And that may be an underestimate, at least on the law enforcement side, since Gettman made his calculations before the FBI released its latest arrest statistics in late September. The new FBI stats show an all-time record 829,627 marijuana arrests in 2006, 43,000 more than in 2005.

That's like arresting every man, woman and child in the state of North Dakota plus every man, woman, and child in Des Moines, Iowa on marijuana charges ... every year. Arrests for marijuana possession -- not sales or trafficking, just possession -- totaled 738,916. By comparison, there were 611,523 arrests last year for all violent crimes combined.

Basing his calculations mainly on U.S. government statistics, Gettman concludes that marijuana in the U.S. is a $113 billion dollar business. That's a huge chunk of economic activity that is unregulated and untaxed because it's almost entirely off the books.

Of course, the cost of our marijuana laws goes far beyond lost tax revenues and money spent on law enforcement. By consigning a very popular product -- one that's been used by about 100 million Americans, according to government surveys -- to the criminal underground, we've effectively cut legitimate businesspeople out of the market and handed a monopoly to criminals and gangs.

Strangely, government officials love to warn us that some unsavory characters profit off of marijuana sales, while ignoring the obvious: Our prohibitionist laws handed them the marijuana business in the first place, effectively giving marijuana dealers a $113 billion free ride.

All this might make some sense if marijuana were so terribly dangerous that it needed to be banned at all costs, but science long ago came to precisely the opposite conclusion. Compared to alcohol, for example, marijuana is astonishingly safe. For one thing, marijuana is much less addictive than alcohol, with just nine percent of users becoming dependent, as opposed to 15 percent for booze. And marijuana is much less toxic. Heavy drinking is well-documented to damage the brain and liver, and to increase the risk of many types of cancer. Marijuana, on the other hand, has never caused a medically documented overdose death, and scientists are still debating whether even heavy marijuana use causes any permanent harm at all. And then there's violence. Again, the scientific findings are overwhelming: Booze incites violence and aggression; marijuana doesn't.

Despite all that, we now arrest one American every 38 seconds on marijuana charges. And we do so at a staggering cost in law enforcement expenses, lost tax revenues, and staggering profits for criminal gangs.

The alternative is clear: Regulate marijuana just as we do beer, wine, and liquor. The only thing lacking is the political will.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 380 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 11:59 am
Romney confronted with medical marijuana issue
Watch Romney tackle the medical marijuana issue with a voter in New Hampshire.
WASHINGTON (CNN) ? Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was confronted head-on Saturday over the issue of medical marijuana.

Following a campaign appearance in Dover, New Hampshire, a member of the audience, Clayton Holton, told Romney he has muscular dystrophy and said five of his doctors say he is "living proof medical marijuana works."

"I am completely against legalizing it for everyone, but there is medical purposes for it," Holton told Romney.

Romney pointed out that there is synthetic marijuana as well as other pain medications available.

"It makes me sick. I have tried it, and it makes me throw up," Holton said. "My question for you is will you arrest me or my doctors if I get medical marijuana."

"I am not in favor of medical marijuana being legal in the country," Romney said as he moved on to greet other people.

Holton continued, "Excuse me, will you please answer my question?"

"I think I have. I am not in favor of legalizing medical marijuana," the Massachusetts Republican said.

Other Republican presidential hopefuls have also recently been confronted by patients on the issue.

The New York Times reported a patient in New Hampshire accused former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani of saying he would have "federal agents arrest the sick and the dying."

"I never said that," Giuliani said.

Meanwhile, The Associated Press reported late last month Arizona Sen. John McCain told a patient, "Every town hall meeting I have, someone shows up and advocates for medical marijuana, and, by the way, in all due respect, alleges that we are arresting the dead and the dying, and I still have not seen any evidence of that."
link
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 12:27 pm
just think.... if we had an extra 42 billion dollars a year we could buy a couple of toilet seats from Haliburton....
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 12:32 pm
Skunk is well known to put 30 points on the average IQ.

That's what they are scared of you dopes and they have good reason to be. Have you never laughed your way through a convention.?

Imagine knocking blokes out of a presidential run because they were caught shagging two bints on a yacht.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 12:40 pm
While I don't doubt there would be massive savings from legalising marijuana, may I have a couple of questions about this article (which questions are the same about most savings estimates made of many govt services)

Quote:
$10.7 billion in direct law enforcement costs

Did the person estimating this do it on a per case basis? In other words, did he work out the average cost of each case, and then multiply it by the total number of cases? If so, then the total figure is wrong, because in relation to police, most police would still be employed if you removed each an every one of their marijuana arrests from them…in other words, in most cases the costs exists whether or not you legalise marijuana

Quote:
and $31.1 billion in lost tax revenues.

Basing his calculations mainly on U.S. government statistics, Gettman concludes that marijuana in the U.S. is a $113 billion dollar business.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 02:51 pm
International Facts, Policies and Trends: Data From Various Nations

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/internat.htm
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 02:56 pm
vikorr wrote:
While I don't doubt there would be massive savings from legalising marijuana, may I have a couple of questions about this article (which questions are the same about most savings estimates made of many govt services)

Quote:
$10.7 billion in direct law enforcement costs

Did the person estimating this do it on a per case basis? In other words, did he work out the average cost of each case, and then multiply it by the total number of cases? If so, then the total figure is wrong, because in relation to police, most police would still be employed if you removed each an every one of their marijuana arrests from them…in other words, in most cases the costs exists whether or not you legalise marijuana

Quote:
and $31.1 billion in lost tax revenues.

Basing his calculations mainly on U.S. government statistics, Gettman concludes that marijuana in the U.S. is a $113 billion dollar business.


Vik,

10 billion is straight given to the police depts. for drug/marijuana enforcement, if I read this right.

31 billion in tax revenues; and some of that would go down if the street prices went down, yes.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Thu 11 Oct, 2007 12:15 am
Quote:
Vik,

10 billion is straight given to the police depts. for drug/marijuana enforcement, if I read this right.


Hi Cycloptichorn,

Yes, that was the problem...if you (or I) read it right...hence why I asked.

It could well be a true $10B cost, or it could be a mathematical equation that hides the true nature of the 'savings' in order to present a seemingly stronger case.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The War on Pot: America's $42 Billion Annual Boondoggle
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 04:53:47