How does legalizing pot put any cartels out of business? That is false.
How does legalizing pot increase revenues? That is pure speculation without a corresponding look at the COSTS associated with legalization and the decrease in prices that will impact any perceived benefits to tax revenue.
Here is a great article that throws some cold water on these false assertions:
Media Talk Up Pot Legalization as Possible Answer to Bad Economy
But according to a report by National Public Radio’s John Burnett on the April 20 broadcast of “All Things Considered,” the theory that legalizing this vice would bring in big bucks for the government is a myth.
“A lot of people think this taxation of marijuana will create a windfall for government coffers,” Burnett said. “[J]effrey Miron is a Harvard economist who has studied and written about the economics of the marijuana market. Miron figures state and federal taxes on cannabis sales adds up to $6.7 billion annually. And he calculates the savings from not having to enforce state and federal marijuana laws, in arrests, prosecution and incarceration, at $12.9 billion a year. Excluding additional expenses, such as the public health cost of marijuana, or the cost of administering the new law, Miron figures that legal pot creates almost a $20 billion bonus.”
With a federal government that is on track to be running $1-trillion deficits, that’s just a drop in the bucket, and doesn’t necessarily justify legalization, as advocates and some in the media suggested.
So, it does create a tax profit of almost 20 billion. I forgot this was a bad thing. Just because it is dwarfed by the deficit doesn't make it unprofitable.
This theory also ignores the societal costs of such legalization. The legalization of alcohol brings in billions in tax revenue, but the costs for alcohol addictions and treatment super exceed any revenues they have brought in thus making it MORE costly for states rather than bringing in revenue.
Quite recently, I have had to stop smoking marijuana to be able to pass a drug test. I quit cold turkey, had no side effects, and while I would like to be able to smoke as I enjoy it, I have no physical NEED to do so. Alcoholics have withdrawal and need more intense treatment. Potheads just need a good reason to quit and if they don't, many see no reason to do so.
One thing that is often overlooked in the recent string of media coverage about marijuana legalization is what would happen to the market if it were a legal drug. The revenue-generating potential would be greatly reduced if it were legal to be grown anywhere.
“The price is very important,” Regan said. “Because, think about this guys – it really wouldn’t be this expensive if it was legal.”
“You’d get a glut,” “Power Lunch” co-host Michele Caruso Cabrera added.
Basically, the tax potential of pot becomes significantly diminished when it is now grown everywhere and becomes common place. After all, why pay taxes if you can grow the stuff yourself and avoid the extra cost right?
A common argument, but the same can be said of brewing ones own beer, distilling one's own liquor or making one's own wine. All these things are much cheaper to do (once a few batches are made to make up for equipment cost) but take MUCH more time and effort to do so. Yes, legalize pot and some people will grow their own crop, but the majority of the marijuana smoking community would MUCH rather drive to the local dispensary and smoke that day. Producing a proper female plant with a bumper crop and good buds is much easier said than done...
But about them cartels, chances are they will continue to thrive pushing the REAL cash items like cocaine and heroine.
Agreed, but lets at least take this away from em.
The notion that legalizing pot will be this panacea for over extended budgets or even revenue enhancing is nothing more than wishful thinking and false arguments from groups who just want to sit around and get stoned without worrying about enforcement.
It's certainly not the goose that laid the golden egg, but if we can stop enforcing a stupid law because of false information about the drug while the government makes a few cents, why not?
How about the current costs to society for alcohol related abuse?
1.8 Who Bears the Costs of Alcohol and Drug Abuse?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Much of the economic burden of alcohol and drug problems falls on the population that does not abuse alcohol and drugs (see table 1.3). For alcohol problems, governments bore costs of $57.2 billion (38.6 percent) in 1992, compared with $15.1 billion for private insurance, $9 billion for victims, and $66.8 billion for alcohol abusers and members of their households. For drug abuse, governments bore about $45.1 billion (46.2 percent) of the total of $97.7 billion; private insurance, $3.1 billion; victims, about $6.5 billion; and abusers and members of their households, $42.9 billion
I agree, alcohol causes MANY of our social problems and is a huge social burden, but it something that is not going away, and prohibition certainly won't help. I am also curious in these statistics how much of that 46.2 percent cost was related to marijuana and not harsher drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines.
Costs are imposed on society (nonabusers) in a variety of ways. These include drug- and alcohol-related crimes and trauma (e.g., motor vehicle crashes); government services, such as criminal justice and highway safety; and various social insurance mechanisms, such as private and public health insurance, life insurance, tax payments, pensions, and social welfare insurance.
The costs primarily born by abusers include (1) lost legitimate earnings (and household productivity) related to impaired functioning in the labor market;
I have had been a full time employee for years and smoked marijuana for most of them. I am much more productive than an alcoholic battling a hangover every day.
(2) lost legitimate earnings related to incarceration;
How about the savings in enforcement and the rooms opened up in prisons for real crimes?
and (3) foregone legitimate earnings when drug abusers pursue income through illegitimate means, including predatory and consensual income-generating crime (e.g., theft, drug trafficking, and prostitution). Even these costs are shifted somewhat. Lost earnings translate into lost tax revenue (a shift to government), and income from theft accrues to the benefit of abusers - a loss for victims. It is more difficult to assess the incidence of burden from the drug economy, where abusers forego legitimate earnings for income from other sources. This is discussed briefly in chapter 7.
So we agree, legalize marijuana and more people will be forced to earn a legitimate living instead of earning it in the drug market.
Anyone who thinks similar costs reflected in alcohol abuse won’t also translate over to legal pot use is wallowing in denial. While the health related costs may be much less, the other associated costs are valid arguments to NOT legalizing this drug; and it is a "drug."
I guess I will start wallowing, but can I light up a bowl while doing so? Oh, and have a nice snack? Or does it bother you that I am doing that in the comfort of my own home, responsibly, harming no other people? Yes, it is a "drug" but I am an adult and the fact of the matter is I am the one taking the grunt of the side affects, not society. Show me a statistic that shows deaths caused by marijuana overdoses or accidents due to marijuana intoxication.
