Green Gold

“To make [one] covet a thing, it is only necessary to make the thing difficult to obtain,” wrote Mark Twain in The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, an American classic. The Bush administration’s approach to marijuana makes one thing clear: it did not heed Sawyer’s advice.

Drugs are often a taboo subject. Very few are willing to approve of their use when they are being consumed illegally. The issue of recreational and medicinal drug use has divided liberals and conservatives just as healthcare did. Until recently, the law has been on the side of conservative America. Federal drug laws have prevented all drug use even when states have made drugs like marijuana legal.

Lately, however, there have been a series of developments putting those laws to the test. With a new administration in the White House, there has been a considerable change in how marijuana users, particularly those using the drug for medical purposes, have been viewed by Washington.

The Obama administration has taken a different approach than that of its predecessor, outlining looser federal guidelines regarding the drug’s prosecution in a mid-October memo released by the Justice Department. It represents a significant departure from the to-the-letter drug law enforcement which characterized Bush’s administration, which vigorously went after users of the drug regardless of compliance with state laws. Bush’s administration, which was staunchly anti-drug, used surprise tactics to up the ante when it came to busts as part of an broader strategy designed to wipe out the sale, distribution, and consumption of unregulated drugs and curb the violence and crime linked to the drug trafficking. These recent developments have eased tensions between federal and state governments, as the drug remains legal for many purposes in several states despite its status as illegal under federal law. In effect, the federal government is moving towards leaving the decision of enforcement entirely up to the states.

Despite the Obama’s promise to reduce penalties and restrictions for marijuana use, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) continues to promise strict enforcement of drug laws. The agency, which ruled that there is not yet any scientific evidence justifying the use of marijuana, stated its position as extracted from a London Times article. “Legalisation of marijuana, no matter how it begins, will come at the expense of our children and public safety. It will create dependency and treatment issued,”  would “open the door to use of other drugs, impaired health, delinquent behaviours and drugged drivers.”

On the other side of the battle, California has reliably had some of the most relaxed drug laws in the country. Its relaxed policies on marijuana usage has set an example for the 13 other states that have legalized use of the drug in some form or another. As a CNN article points out, patients in the thirteen states where medical marijuana is legal only have to  answer to local authorities. Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington all allow some use of marijuana, though generally with more strict regulations than California.

Behind the push for marijuana legalizations are mostly economic incentives, proponents touting the immense advantages of its legalization. Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron, as cited in the London Times estimates that legislation bringing about full-scale legalization of marijuana would pad state and federal government pockets with about $7 billion annually in tax revenue. And, even more could be earned from regulatory measures intent on preventing abuse of the drug.

It’s no secret that California is financially desperate. It most recently faced a $24 million deficit, inflated by the larger economic downturn which has affected every state in the country.  Even Governor Schwarzenegger, acknowledged the need to find creative ways to fill the massive budget holes. No wonder so many medical marijuana dispensaries are springing up in California: they’re a gold mine. Although they are legally not supposed to turn a profit, that is not always the case.

Dispensaries are all over the place in the decidedly drug-friendly state. According to the previously cited London Times article, there are 2,100 dispensaries in California. They outnumber “all the Starbucks, McDonald’s and 7-Eleven outlets in the state put together.” One such example is the Harborside Health Care Centre, opened in 2006 by one Stephen DeAngelo. With his “cannabusiness”, this “ganja-preneur” has 77 people on his payroll, with 30,000 patients registered to acquire marijuana. A testament to the greenback-making power of marijuana is his yearly profit figures, a staggering $20 million.

There is the question, however, of where the drugs holding these “cannabusinesses” together are coming from. Sara Simpson, the acting assistant chief California’s Justice Department’s Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement states her concerns in a San Jose Mercury News article that behind the supply of much of the marijuana entering the nation are Mexican drug cartels. She says they are growing it on public lands out of sight. She also voices concern about the violence that arises from the clashes with armed guards. She doesn’t expect that cartels would respond in any meaningful way to increased regulation.

State and federal boards continue to lead hearing on the merits of drug legalization, with both proponents and opponents citing the benefits and pitfalls of a full-scale legalization of marijuana. Acknowledging the drug’s role in stimulating the economy is suicide would be political suicide. Governor Schwarzenegger has refused to even say the word “marijuana” in the context of tax revenue and budget shortfalls. But while the tax revenue from legally sold marijuana is undeniable, politicians often say that the negative social effects of drug use and sale⎯the negative externalities as economists call them⎯outweigh any potential gains.

Proponents counter that a number of unwanted effects will come from harsh crackdowns. Many of those directly effected by such harsh sentences are still serving out their Regan-era terms. Most everyone is in one way or another acquainted with the “Just Say No” program propagated by Nancy Regan, wife to ex-President Ronald Regan, whose administration pushed what was by far the toughest drug sentencing laws in presidential history in an effort to eradicate drug use. Many of the laws directed against users of marijuana were indiscriminate in proscribing sentences for defendants. Normally penalties for the sale of illicit drugs are much more severe than for purchasing drugs. The thinking is that by eliminating pieces from the supply chain, it will become more difficult and expensive for purchasers to find drugs. But Reagan introduced strict penalties for buying drugs as well, giving buyers some of the same prison sentences as sellers.

Based on my analysis, it seems the only the logical decision is to legalize marijuana, regulate its use through taxation, and in the process lift the heavy burden that drug enforcement places on law enforcement agencies nationwide. More money goes to the people, less of remains in the hands of those with not so altruistic intentions, and as result we experience a drop in unnecessary violence. Everybody wins.

Imagine a world where the United States was more concerned with the prevention of drug addiction through treatment and awareness programs that would combat the ill social effects that come from intoxication by many of the drugs that are currently legal. Certainly there are a few European experiments such as the Netherlands, which engages in a policy of gezellig, a practice of tolerance that goes a long way in relieving the law-enforcement headaches that many countries like the United States in particular face in policing the drug. Perhaps there needs to emerge a general social consciousness and awareness mirroring like that of France, Italy, and Spain, where the encouragement of moderation de-stigmatizes the use of a particular drug. Detaching the stigma would of course not arrest all use of the drug, but rather it would take away the risk element many young adults seek.

No related posts.