NormanTBates
New Member
Now I am no member of ASA but that doesn't mean we dont share similar ideas. 
I have a little something I wrote that has been collecting dust, not really sure who I aimed it at, just wanted to express my opiniion through a research paper. I figured there is only one language Big Brother speaks, so I figured I would speak his language. Money! So anyways here goes nothing and I didn't quite finish it but you'll get the idea.
The Effects of the Decriminalization and Regulation of Marijuana
How much money would you spend each year to curtail the use of marijuana in the United States? Our government budgets just fewer than eight billion dollars every year for the enforcement of marijuana laws (Miron 2). But, this is only a small figure compared to what the government could generate from the regulation of marijuana. Regulating marijuana (selling it as a legal, taxable good) is estimated to produce an additional six billion dollars annually (Miron3)!
The government spends billions of tax dollars every year to enforce these laws against marijuana. The decriminalization of marijuana would relieve ten to fifteen billion dollars in direct cost from the tax budgets (Nadelmann 124). In addition to that, there would be a drastic budget cut for the War on Drugs amounting to billions annually. Marijuana should be decriminalized and regulated because of the economic benefits.
Decriminalization is the relief of laws prohibiting the use or possession of marijuana. The costs of keeping marijuana illegal are numerous. There must be funds provided to attempt prevention of the use of illegal substances, prevention of drug shipments into the United States, and the incarceration of drug offenders. After decriminalization, there would be billions saved on enforcement of these laws. According to the Miron report, “legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in gross
expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $5.3 billion of this savings would accrue local governments, while $2.4 billion would accrue to the federal government” (Miron 2). Although quite surprising, these numbers do not include the War on Drugs annual budget. While the War on Drugs does not release financial statistics of budget on individual drugs, the direct costs of marijuana enforcement are estimated to be around ten to fifteen billion dollars annually (Nadelmann 126).
The War on Drugs is a national campaign designed to curb drug use in the United States. Their main points of operation are intercepting foreign drug shipments, aiding foreign governments to prevent trafficking, and treatment and prevention of drug abuse (Goldberg xiii). Our government shares its budget with foreign governments to help with their own enforcement of drugs laws. The War on Drugs is a very costly operation to perform, the government budgeted $800 million dollars in 1990 for the use of armed forces, Coast Guard and Civil Air Patrols’ resources; for radars, ocean interdiction, and interception vehicles alone (Boaz 164). The enactment of these laws reduces supply of these drugs, resulting in increases in the price of the demanded drugs, therefore suppliers can yield more profit.
One reason for the failure of the War on Drugs is that it ignores the fact that prohibition sets up tremendous financial incentives for drug
dealers to supply the demand. Prohibition, at least initially, reduces the supply of the prohibited substance and thus raises the price. In
addition, a lark risk premium is added onto the price. One has to pay a painter more to paint the Golden Gate Bridge than to paint a house
because of the added danger. Similarly, drug dealers demand more money to sell ******* than to sell alcohol. Those who are willing to
accept the risk of arrest or murder will be handsomely-sometimes unbelievably-rewarded (Boaz 164).
After decriminalization, the arrest of users should cease, while arresting dealers and allowing commercial distribution. Users pose no real threats to society or law enforcement, why should they go to jail? Some of the people involved in the distribution of marijuana have violent histories. With no regulation on the sale of marijuana, many dealers feel ‘above the law’. The sale of large quantities of marijuana can sometimes end in violence. The arrest of dealers will prevent violent crimes related to drugs.
There is a tax law in place for marijuana presently, but discretion is not involved and many users feel they will be punished for admittedly owning marijuana. There are many cases where dealers are arrested, and the only charge they are convicted of is tax evasion. The arrest of dealers and distribution by the government or private organizations would end this chain of tax evasion.
The use of marijuana should be restricted to the home by an adult only. A person poses no threat to themselves or society while using marijuana in their home. Many would argue this to be the constitutional right of a person. Does the regulation of what substances a person is legally allowed to enter into their body infringe on their personal pursuit of happiness? According to Stroup, “…’decriminalization’, greatly reduces the harm caused by marijuana prohibition by protecting millions of consumers from the threat of criminal arrest and jail. It represents a cease fire in the war against marijuana smokers; smokers would no longer be arrested, although commercial sellers would be.” (Stroup 132) There are no victims in the crime of drug use in the home. American citizens should be allowed to consume marijuana legally.
The regulation of marijuana as a taxable good would generate billions of dollars annually, but not only from marijuana smokers. Taxing marijuana in a similar manner to alcohol would generate six point two billion dollars annually (Miron 2). In addition to that, using hemp to produce paper would also eliminate the unnecessary destruction of trees. The farming and cultivation of hemp plants could allow us to export paper or produce more wood products.
After decriminalization, how does the government produce the marijuana to be taxed? The most beneficial circumstance would be if the government allowed private organizations to produce mass quantities of the good. Allowing the production and sale of marijuana would yield many benefits to our industry. Allowing commercial distribution of marijuana would create jobs for American citizens. If the government allows private organizations to produce marijuana they can tax the sale in a similar form to tobacco or alcohol. The government should maintain a thirty percent tax on all retail sales of marijuana. The divisions of taxes for alcohol sales are; twenty percent of sales go to local/state governments and ten percent towards federal government (Miron 9). A similar system in place for marijuana would yield an estimated six billion dollars a year in profit (Miron 2).
The government allowing private organizations to produce marijuana would also eliminate the black market currently in place. Many would consider this market to be the sole reason for violence related to marijuana. NORML also supports the development of a legally controlled market for marijuana, where consumers could buy marijuana for personal use from a safe, legal source. This model is generally called “legalization.” The black market in marijuana, and the attendant problems of crime and violence associated with an uncontrolled and unregulated black market, could be eliminated, as was the case when alcohol prohibition was ended in 1933, by providing consumers with an alternative legal market (Stroup 132).The elimination of the black market for marijuana would provide proper distribution of the good. Consumers would not have to purchase their goods from unsafe and illegitimate sources.
There are those who oppose the decriminalization of marijuana for use by the general public. Many contenders of decriminalization claim that distributing marijuana would have a tremendously negative impact on society. Damon Linker proclaims that legalizing marijuana would lead to “rampant drug use among youth” and that “…the pleasure derived from smoking marijuana is a hollow pleasure that leaves a feeling of emptiness in the user’s soul…” (Linker 185) The decriminalization of marijuana will make the drug more readily available to youths. Although the term “rampant” may be an exaggeration, there is likely to be an increase in marijuana use by teenagers. But, are the teens likely to use marijuana going to be users whether the drug is legal or not? According to Don Feder, “In1998, 60 percent of juvenile arrestees in the District of Columbia tested positive for pot.” (Feder 191) Does this prove that people prone to marijuana uses are commonly associated with crimes of other nature?
…Lowry reverses cause and effect Teens don’t get into trouble using marijuana, he insists. Troubled youth are attracted to the weed, it
being one more way to rebel. But parent after parent has told me: “My kid was normal (studious, well-behaved) until he started smoking
pot. Then his personality changed overnight. Analyzing data collected from 1994 to 1996, the National Household Surveys on Drug Abuse
found a direct relationship between marijuana use and “delinquent/depressive behavior.” Of those who used marijuana one to 11 times in
the previous year, 7 percent were on probation, compared to 20 percent who used it weekly (Feder 191).
Now one must consider that marijuana can have many psychological effects on a person after short or long term usage. There are many mental disorders that the use of marijuana is accused of contributing to. In Feder’s report he states that, marijuana users’ behaviors included; running away from home, physically attacking people, and thoughts of suicide (Feder 191). Regular use of marijuana may lead to many side effects but the individual is going to make their choice whether the drug is legal or not. Although prohibitory laws are in effect, marijuana is still readily available in most cities. Boaz states, “In 1988 fifty-four percent of high school seniors admitted to having tried illicit drugs; eighty-eight percent said it was fairly easy or very easy to obtain marijuana; and fifty-four percent said the same about *******.” (Boaz 163) The groups who oppose marijuana legalization argue that there would be increased drug usage among youths and traumatic effects on society.
Some may argue that the undesirable results from the legalization of marijuana would be numerous, but are the costs are prohibition actually worth preventing the use of this drug? For many years the government has spent billions of dollars to prevent the trafficking and use of marijuana. The War on Drugs is the longest war in American history.
Marijuana prohibition is unique among American criminal laws. No other law is both enforced so widely and harshly and yet deemed unnecessary by such a substantial portion of the populace.
Police make about 700,000 arrests per year for marijuana offenses. That’s almost the same number as are arrested each year for *******,
******, m&thamphetamine, and all other illicit drugs combined. Roughly 600,000 or 87 percent, of marijuana arrests are for nothing
more than possession of small amounts. Millions of Americans have never been arrested or convicted of any criminal offense except this.
Enforcing marijuana laws costs an estimated $10—15 billion in direct costs alone… (Nadelmann 126)
Enforcing the prohibition of marijuana is an expensive operation to perform. The government would be able to reverse these figures and produce profit, if marijuana was decriminalized and regulated.
P.S. Thanks for reading (or hearing me out whatever you want to call it) but sorry about the jacked up text I copied it from Word. Why dont they just see things this way? (as if the medical benefits aren't enough)
I have a little something I wrote that has been collecting dust, not really sure who I aimed it at, just wanted to express my opiniion through a research paper. I figured there is only one language Big Brother speaks, so I figured I would speak his language. Money! So anyways here goes nothing and I didn't quite finish it but you'll get the idea.The Effects of the Decriminalization and Regulation of Marijuana
How much money would you spend each year to curtail the use of marijuana in the United States? Our government budgets just fewer than eight billion dollars every year for the enforcement of marijuana laws (Miron 2). But, this is only a small figure compared to what the government could generate from the regulation of marijuana. Regulating marijuana (selling it as a legal, taxable good) is estimated to produce an additional six billion dollars annually (Miron3)!
The government spends billions of tax dollars every year to enforce these laws against marijuana. The decriminalization of marijuana would relieve ten to fifteen billion dollars in direct cost from the tax budgets (Nadelmann 124). In addition to that, there would be a drastic budget cut for the War on Drugs amounting to billions annually. Marijuana should be decriminalized and regulated because of the economic benefits.
Decriminalization is the relief of laws prohibiting the use or possession of marijuana. The costs of keeping marijuana illegal are numerous. There must be funds provided to attempt prevention of the use of illegal substances, prevention of drug shipments into the United States, and the incarceration of drug offenders. After decriminalization, there would be billions saved on enforcement of these laws. According to the Miron report, “legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in gross
expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $5.3 billion of this savings would accrue local governments, while $2.4 billion would accrue to the federal government” (Miron 2). Although quite surprising, these numbers do not include the War on Drugs annual budget. While the War on Drugs does not release financial statistics of budget on individual drugs, the direct costs of marijuana enforcement are estimated to be around ten to fifteen billion dollars annually (Nadelmann 126).
The War on Drugs is a national campaign designed to curb drug use in the United States. Their main points of operation are intercepting foreign drug shipments, aiding foreign governments to prevent trafficking, and treatment and prevention of drug abuse (Goldberg xiii). Our government shares its budget with foreign governments to help with their own enforcement of drugs laws. The War on Drugs is a very costly operation to perform, the government budgeted $800 million dollars in 1990 for the use of armed forces, Coast Guard and Civil Air Patrols’ resources; for radars, ocean interdiction, and interception vehicles alone (Boaz 164). The enactment of these laws reduces supply of these drugs, resulting in increases in the price of the demanded drugs, therefore suppliers can yield more profit.
One reason for the failure of the War on Drugs is that it ignores the fact that prohibition sets up tremendous financial incentives for drug
dealers to supply the demand. Prohibition, at least initially, reduces the supply of the prohibited substance and thus raises the price. In
addition, a lark risk premium is added onto the price. One has to pay a painter more to paint the Golden Gate Bridge than to paint a house
because of the added danger. Similarly, drug dealers demand more money to sell ******* than to sell alcohol. Those who are willing to
accept the risk of arrest or murder will be handsomely-sometimes unbelievably-rewarded (Boaz 164).
After decriminalization, the arrest of users should cease, while arresting dealers and allowing commercial distribution. Users pose no real threats to society or law enforcement, why should they go to jail? Some of the people involved in the distribution of marijuana have violent histories. With no regulation on the sale of marijuana, many dealers feel ‘above the law’. The sale of large quantities of marijuana can sometimes end in violence. The arrest of dealers will prevent violent crimes related to drugs.
There is a tax law in place for marijuana presently, but discretion is not involved and many users feel they will be punished for admittedly owning marijuana. There are many cases where dealers are arrested, and the only charge they are convicted of is tax evasion. The arrest of dealers and distribution by the government or private organizations would end this chain of tax evasion.
The use of marijuana should be restricted to the home by an adult only. A person poses no threat to themselves or society while using marijuana in their home. Many would argue this to be the constitutional right of a person. Does the regulation of what substances a person is legally allowed to enter into their body infringe on their personal pursuit of happiness? According to Stroup, “…’decriminalization’, greatly reduces the harm caused by marijuana prohibition by protecting millions of consumers from the threat of criminal arrest and jail. It represents a cease fire in the war against marijuana smokers; smokers would no longer be arrested, although commercial sellers would be.” (Stroup 132) There are no victims in the crime of drug use in the home. American citizens should be allowed to consume marijuana legally.
The regulation of marijuana as a taxable good would generate billions of dollars annually, but not only from marijuana smokers. Taxing marijuana in a similar manner to alcohol would generate six point two billion dollars annually (Miron 2). In addition to that, using hemp to produce paper would also eliminate the unnecessary destruction of trees. The farming and cultivation of hemp plants could allow us to export paper or produce more wood products.
After decriminalization, how does the government produce the marijuana to be taxed? The most beneficial circumstance would be if the government allowed private organizations to produce mass quantities of the good. Allowing the production and sale of marijuana would yield many benefits to our industry. Allowing commercial distribution of marijuana would create jobs for American citizens. If the government allows private organizations to produce marijuana they can tax the sale in a similar form to tobacco or alcohol. The government should maintain a thirty percent tax on all retail sales of marijuana. The divisions of taxes for alcohol sales are; twenty percent of sales go to local/state governments and ten percent towards federal government (Miron 9). A similar system in place for marijuana would yield an estimated six billion dollars a year in profit (Miron 2).
The government allowing private organizations to produce marijuana would also eliminate the black market currently in place. Many would consider this market to be the sole reason for violence related to marijuana. NORML also supports the development of a legally controlled market for marijuana, where consumers could buy marijuana for personal use from a safe, legal source. This model is generally called “legalization.” The black market in marijuana, and the attendant problems of crime and violence associated with an uncontrolled and unregulated black market, could be eliminated, as was the case when alcohol prohibition was ended in 1933, by providing consumers with an alternative legal market (Stroup 132).The elimination of the black market for marijuana would provide proper distribution of the good. Consumers would not have to purchase their goods from unsafe and illegitimate sources.
There are those who oppose the decriminalization of marijuana for use by the general public. Many contenders of decriminalization claim that distributing marijuana would have a tremendously negative impact on society. Damon Linker proclaims that legalizing marijuana would lead to “rampant drug use among youth” and that “…the pleasure derived from smoking marijuana is a hollow pleasure that leaves a feeling of emptiness in the user’s soul…” (Linker 185) The decriminalization of marijuana will make the drug more readily available to youths. Although the term “rampant” may be an exaggeration, there is likely to be an increase in marijuana use by teenagers. But, are the teens likely to use marijuana going to be users whether the drug is legal or not? According to Don Feder, “In1998, 60 percent of juvenile arrestees in the District of Columbia tested positive for pot.” (Feder 191) Does this prove that people prone to marijuana uses are commonly associated with crimes of other nature?
…Lowry reverses cause and effect Teens don’t get into trouble using marijuana, he insists. Troubled youth are attracted to the weed, it
being one more way to rebel. But parent after parent has told me: “My kid was normal (studious, well-behaved) until he started smoking
pot. Then his personality changed overnight. Analyzing data collected from 1994 to 1996, the National Household Surveys on Drug Abuse
found a direct relationship between marijuana use and “delinquent/depressive behavior.” Of those who used marijuana one to 11 times in
the previous year, 7 percent were on probation, compared to 20 percent who used it weekly (Feder 191).
Now one must consider that marijuana can have many psychological effects on a person after short or long term usage. There are many mental disorders that the use of marijuana is accused of contributing to. In Feder’s report he states that, marijuana users’ behaviors included; running away from home, physically attacking people, and thoughts of suicide (Feder 191). Regular use of marijuana may lead to many side effects but the individual is going to make their choice whether the drug is legal or not. Although prohibitory laws are in effect, marijuana is still readily available in most cities. Boaz states, “In 1988 fifty-four percent of high school seniors admitted to having tried illicit drugs; eighty-eight percent said it was fairly easy or very easy to obtain marijuana; and fifty-four percent said the same about *******.” (Boaz 163) The groups who oppose marijuana legalization argue that there would be increased drug usage among youths and traumatic effects on society.
Some may argue that the undesirable results from the legalization of marijuana would be numerous, but are the costs are prohibition actually worth preventing the use of this drug? For many years the government has spent billions of dollars to prevent the trafficking and use of marijuana. The War on Drugs is the longest war in American history.
Marijuana prohibition is unique among American criminal laws. No other law is both enforced so widely and harshly and yet deemed unnecessary by such a substantial portion of the populace.
Police make about 700,000 arrests per year for marijuana offenses. That’s almost the same number as are arrested each year for *******,
******, m&thamphetamine, and all other illicit drugs combined. Roughly 600,000 or 87 percent, of marijuana arrests are for nothing
more than possession of small amounts. Millions of Americans have never been arrested or convicted of any criminal offense except this.
Enforcing marijuana laws costs an estimated $10—15 billion in direct costs alone… (Nadelmann 126)
Enforcing the prohibition of marijuana is an expensive operation to perform. The government would be able to reverse these figures and produce profit, if marijuana was decriminalized and regulated.
P.S. Thanks for reading (or hearing me out whatever you want to call it) but sorry about the jacked up text I copied it from Word. Why dont they just see things this way? (as if the medical benefits aren't enough)
