I don't think that was within the scope of the study at all. Not saying that I disagree, but it's not an answer or to any of the questions being asked, and certainly not a refute to any of the study's attempts at answers.
> The data so far provide little support for the strong claims about legalization made by either opponents or supporters.
Many supporters, like myself, don't need data. It's wrong to put people in jail and fine them without reason. If there are no significant changes after legalization, then prohibition should be ended. There's no clear benefit to society and enforcement clearly harms the individuals impacted by these laws.
We don't put people in jail for pot, at least not here in California. We don't have the room. Officially in this state 0.3% of inmates are in for "possession for sale" and "sales" of marijuana. They don't even list simple possession.
It's true federal penitentiaries have a larger percentage of inmates in for simple possession, but the federal prison population is a tiny fraction of the number of people incarcerated by the states.
And while I don't have any evidence to back it up, the comparatively small number of people in federal prison for MJ possession suggests they're either the most unlucky people on the planet or they're really there for some other reason even if the government could only make the drug charge stick. Think Al Capone and tax evasion.
tl;dr: Legalizing pot isn't going to affect the prison population very much.
I absolutely agree. But I also think those people will find themselves in jail even in the absence of federal drug laws. Seems to be how things work, as we have given federal prosecutors far too many tools to work with.
They don't skip over this; it just isn't called out in the summary:
"One area where legal marijuana has reaped unexpectedly large benefits is state tax revenue. Colorado, Washington, and Oregon all impose significant excise taxes on recreational marijuana, along with standard state sales taxes, other local taxes, and licensing fees. As seen in Figure 25, Colorado collects well over $10 million per month from recreational marijuana alone.91 In 2015 the state generated a total of $135 million in recreational marijuana revenue, $35 million of which was earmarked for school construction projects. These figures are above some pre-legalization forecasts, although revenue growth was disappointingly sluggish during the first few months of sales.92 A similar story has unfolded in Washington, as illustrated in Figure 26, where recreational marijuana generated approximately $70 million in tax revenue in the first year of sales93—double the original revenue forecast.94 Oregon only began taxing recreational marijuana in January 2016, so data are still preliminary; however, state officials report revenues of $14.9 million so far, well above the initial estimate of $2.0 million to $3.0 million for the entire calendar year95 The tax revenues in these states may decline."
Agreed. Personally I find the moral argument, that people have self-ownership over their bodies and that it is immoral to initiate force against others (particularly for victimless "crimes"), far more compelling. You wouldn't argue against slavery on the basis of the potential for vast technological advancement decades or centuries after its abolition, would you? Nor would you cede the argument simply because it appears economically inviable.
I actually think that taxes functioning as user fees on things with significant social costs is the ideal policy approach to internalize the externalities at play.
OK so let's start with a "jackass tax". People who act like jackasses and end up in the emergency room for things like "hold my beer and watch how quickly I'm going to climb this tree". Then progress on to people who have children. Children cost a lot of money to the society.
We can't even agree on cap and trade which is so watered down that it essentially gives polluters a free pass. Can we really have a serious discussion about 'user fees on things with significant social costs"?
Maybe we ought to disincentivize marijuana use. I agree. I don't know what to do with that money. However, I strongly believe that we should not take that money and use it for anything beneficial to the society or to the tax collector. Doing so will mean we will no longer disincentivize what we said we'd disincentivize. It just becomes a tax on a minority.
These things should exist outside of revenue. If it was more to have a free society does should we rethink freedom? It feels silly to attach a monetary value to individual liberty.
Tax revenue is used as a benefit for legalization. It feels like a flawed argument, but it still aligns with where I would like to be.
The slippery slope argument applies here too: should our freedom be tied to tax revenue? Sure, it works for some drugs. Does it work for our other inalienable rights?
Specifically in California medical usage is already regulated and taxed.
Significant growth of tax revenue after legalization will only happen if the delta of people interested in cannabis and people who already have medical marijuana cards is large enough.
I am not opposing legalization by any means, but in the age of $49 medical evaluations via Skype what are the chances there's a huge market that's not been covered under current, fairly liberal, regime?
