Totally Baked is the hilarious, totally offbeat, cannabis comedy in the tradition of Half-Baked, guaranteed to give you the munchies. Totally Baked spoofs the legalization of Marijuana with an uproariously funny tone guaranteed to please audiences.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Should smoking marijuana be a medical option?
Should smoking marijuana be a medical option?
2009
Rocky Hoveland of Greensboro suffers pain from spine, neck and back injuries.
For a long time, he took prescription painkillers. But the drugs often left him dazed, if not null and void.
Then about 10 years ago, he began using marijuana to treat the pain. He found that it didn't eradicate the pain, but it made it more manageable.
"It keeps me from being in that haze of wanting to sleep all day or feeling hung over all day," he said. The prescription medications "were making me lay down, and I ain't one to lay around."
Hoveland and others like him are pushing for North Carolina to legalize cannabis for medical purposes. And they have become part of a national trend.
In November, Michigan became the 13th state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes. That popular-vote referendum was just the most recent decision in a long-running debate: whether it should be legal for people to use, grow and sell marijuana for medicinal purposes.
On one side: sick, suffering patients, many of
whom are dying. For at least some of them, cannabis eases symptoms of illness or side effects of treatment.
On the other: a federal government that believes marijuana's benefits are too few and its side effects too risky for the drug to be legalized, even to the highly restricted level of cocaine.
Billy, a Davidson County man who didn't want his full name used , once took the prescription painkiller Dilaudid every day after lingering neck and wrist injuries, experiencing some of the same side effects as Hoveland.
Dilaudid "didn't do much" for the pain, he said. "And I got hateful. My family didn't want to be around me."
Marijuana has helped him, too, he said. "Now I'm up and around, hiking and fishing," he said. "Marijuana focuses my mind away from the pain. I'm still hurting, but it's not that important anymore."
Proponents of legalization in North Carolina are ramping up their efforts.Representatives of the nonprofit N.C. Cannabis Patient Network have toured the state this winter, meeting with politicians, clergy and medical professionals and airing programs on local public-access TV stations.
On May 2, proponents are scheduled to march in Raleigh on behalf of legalization as part of a global one-day protest called the Million Marijuana March.
"We're looking forward to this becoming legal in this state so people can quit living in fear," said Jean Marlowe, the network's executive director. "We're returning dignity to these patients."Marlowe, who lives in Polk County, has used marijuana since 1991 to treat muscular dystrophy, rheumatoid arthritis, degenerative disk disease, muscle spasticity and fibromyalgia. She says the authorities leave her alone because she has a letter from her doctor saying she needs medical cannabis.
Before using marijuana, she said, the side effects of her various medications left her practically disabled."I spent my time throwing up, dizzy," she said. "I couldn't cognize. I couldn't balance my checkbook. I spent my life in a chair, in the corner, with a trash can."
State Rep. Earl Jones, D-Guilford, introduced a bill in the 2008 legislative session to create a study commission to look at legalizing marijuana for medical purposes in North Carolina. Jones plans to reintroduce his bill this year .
"I think the legislature will do the right thing once they see it will benefit the public and they have been educated," Jones said.
But the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration remains adamantly opposed to legalizing cannabis even for medical purposes. It continues to prosecute under federal law in some other states for growing and distributing the plants.l l l
The most comprehensive review of the possible medical benefits of marijuana remains a book-length report, "Marijuana and Medicine," published in 1999 by the Institute of Medicine . The institute is part of the National Academies, agencies that advise the government on medicine and other sciences.
That report, co-authored by a researcher at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, examined marijuana use with respect to five areas:
- Pain, particularly nerve pain experienced by patients with AIDS and other diseases.
- Nausea and vomiting, often experienced by chemotherapy patients.
- Wasting syndrome and loss of appetite, often experienced by AIDS and cancer patients.
- Neurological symptoms, including muscle spasticity and multiple sclerosis.
- Glaucoma, excessive pressure in the fluid inside the eye. The condition can cause blindness.
It also found that smoking treats symptoms such as pain and nausea more quickly and effectively than taking the medicine by mouth.
The report raised concerns about the long-term health effects of smoking marijuana, which, like tobacco, is associated with an increased risk of cancer. Such long-term risks probably don't matter for patients who already are dying, the report noted.
A synthetic form of marijuana's most active ingredient, THC, is available by prescription under the trade name Marinol. But it takes longer to work than inhaled marijuana smoke.Also, taking cannabis by mouth can get patients "higher" than smoked cannabis - which many patients don't want. When THC is eaten, the liver, which smoking bypasses, breaks the psychoactive elements down into even more potent chemicals.
Another problem with synthetic oral cannabis is that it contains only a few active ingredients, while smoked marijuana contains more than 60.
The combination of those ingredients, not just one, may provide the most medical benefit, says Dr. Wilkie Wilson, director of the DukeLEARN neurological-research program at Duke University, who notes that drug companies are researching that question.
"What you need is something, maybe like an aspirator or an inhaler, that can deliver the drug better than a pill would," said Dr. Steven R. Childers, a professor of physiology and pharmacology at Wake Forest University's Bowman Gray School of Medicine. Childers co-wrote the 1999 Institute of Medicine report.
Wilson, co-author of "Buzzed: The Straight Facts About the Most Used and Abused Drugs from Alcohol to Ecstasy," says some patients prefer smoking because it gives them greater control over their dosage - they can choose to stop, or continue, at any time depending on how much relief they're getting.***
Childers says the 1999 report's general conclusions remain accurate. Researchers have made some incremental advances, particularly in whether cannabis can ease some symptoms of multiple sclerosis. The nonprofit National Multiple Sclerosis Society is paying for a 10-year study, which began in March.
Also, Swiss researchers found in 2006 that cannabis taken orally can ease muscle spasticity in people with spinal-cord injuries. And after promising findings in rats and mice, Israeli researchers plan human trials to determine whether cannabis may slow or halt memory loss in people with Alzheimer's disease. But U.S. government-sponsored studies since 1999 have been few and far between. The government grows little marijuana for research and tightly restricts its use. Currently, of 768 drug-related studies sponsored by the National Institute for Drug Abuse and registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/, two pertain to medicinal marijuana.
Besides the possible direct benefits to patients, what are the arguments for legalizing medicinal cannabis?
For one thing, it may help patients for whom other drugs are ineffective or cause intolerable side effects. Its own side effects are relatively minor, the long-term cancer risk aside.
Cannabis is safer than many drugs now on the market. There has never been a documented death attributable to marijuana overdose, Wilson says.
And legalization would bring about standardized dosages and quality, aiding both treatment and research.
Critics argue that the drug is psychologically habit-forming. It can be, but it is less so than alcohol, tobacco and such drugs as heroin, the institute report found.
Some research subjects have reported unpleasant feelings or sensations after taking the drug. And some do not like the "high" that comes with taking the drug. That condition also can make it dangerous to drive or perform other skilled tasks and can hurt judgment and short-term memory.Wilson points out that these ill effects are particularly dangerous in young people, whose growing brains must absorb not only academic knowledge but also social skills.
There is some evidence the drug can hamper the immune system in some patients.
And marijuana is considered a "gateway" drug - one that could lead to use of more potent and dangerous illegal drugs. The 1999 report found little evidence to support that claim on a pharmacological basis. It also observed that alcohol and tobacco are more widely used gateway drugs, particularly among younger people.
For those reasons and others, federal law classifies marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, the most restricted type. Such drugs are defined as having no currently accepted medical use in the U.S., a high potential for abuse, and no accepted safe approaches for use even under medical supervision.
Another Schedule I drug is LSD.Proponents of medicinal marijuana want it reclassified at least as a Schedule II drug, the most restrictive category for addictive drugs with recognized medical uses. Examples include codeine, the active ingredient in many cough medicines, and the painkiller Dilaudid.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration maintains that marijuana's risks are too great, and its medical benefits too few, to legalize it. Even in some of the 13 states that have legalized medicinal marijuana, DEA agents still arrest people on federal drug charges.
And the government can prosecute doctors who prescribe marijuana. To avoid arrest, doctors often give their patients letters stating that the patient needs marijuana, rather than a prescription.
Proponents of medicinal marijuana also argue that regulating the drug should be a state and local matter, not a federal one.
In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a case called Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government had the right to regulate marijuana even within a single state, as opposed to in interstate commerce.But a more recent Supreme Court decision suggests that the days of such overarching federal regulation might be numbered.
On Dec. 1, the court refused to hear an appeal from the city of Garden Grove, Calif. That city was defying a state court's order to return marijuana it had seized from a man who had won dismissal of drug charges after he provided a statement from his doctor that he needed marijuana.Proponents hope that these incremental steps will lead to a day on which no one need fear legal punishment for using medicinal cannabis.
"I'd like us to be united in compassion," Marlowe said. "Living in fear of the government is not what we want for people who are sick and dying."Wilson says marijuana should be legally distributed through pharmacies just as other drugs are.
"We control amphetamines - my God, we give them to kids for attention-deficit disorder," Wilson said. "Just treat (marijuana) like any other regulated pharmaceutical. I don't see any reason not to do that. I just don't see the reason."
After her tour of the state, Marlowe said she is more hopeful than ever about legal medical marijuana."I can smell the finish line," she said. "I'm not going to be a criminal much longer."
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Medical Marijuana: Yes, There's an App for That
Apple has approved the imaginatively named
Cannabis, a new $1.99 iPhone/iPod touch application by Los
Angeles-based Activists Justifying the Natural Agriculture of Ganja
(AJNAG), which operates the AJNAG.com
website and iMedicalCannabis.org database.
Cannabis is designed to help legal marijuana users quickly
locate the nearest medical Cannabis collectives, cooperatives,
doctors, clinics, attorneys, organizations, and other patient services
in the thirteen states that have passed medical marijuana
(Cannabis) legislation: Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii,
Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode
Island, Vermont, and Washington. (California, Colorado, New Mexico, and
Rhode Island are currently the only states authorizing "dispensaries"
to sell medical Cannabis.)
Seven other US states - Illinois, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and North Carolina - are currently
considering medical marijuana bills in their state legislatures, and
South Dakota is reviewing several petitions in interest of medical
marijuana legalization.
Cannabis the iPhone
app has a map-style interface that displays medical marijuana
resources where legal as well as "coffee shops" in places outside the
US, such as Amsterdam, the Netherlands, where Cannabis can be
legally used.
For every "Cannabis" purchase, AJNAG.com will donate 50¢ to a
non-profit Cannabis reform fund, which will be set up once the
application reaches 1000 subscriptions. The non-profit organization
will unite with the many Cannabis organizations to raise money
for grassroots media campaigning. The company's mission is to put the
power of Cannabis change in your pocket while you enjoy "the
most sticky and potent iPhone application available."
Cannabis Features
- Locate Medical Cannabis Collectives and Cooperatives
- Locate Doctors and Clinics
- Locate Attorneys and Organizations
- Search by City
- Search by Zip
- Bookmark Listings
- Add Listings to Contacts
- Lookup Addresses, Phone Numbers, and websites for a 1000+
listings - Directory is Tended by Patient ID Center
Cannabis is compatible with both iPhone and iPod touch, and requires
iPhone OS 3.0 or later.
Another medical marijuana app available from the App Store is Onaga
Design'sCalifornian
Herbal Caregivers (CHC) app, which sells for 99¢ and lists
more than 700 medical marijuana sources in California.
Research Findings on Medical Marijuana
Research Findings on
Medicinal Properties of
Marijuana
by Kevin B.
Zeese, Esq.
President,
Common Sense for Drug Policy
I. Background to the Medical Marijuana Debate
With the passage of initiatives in California
and Arizona the debate about the medical utility of marijuana is
in the spotlight once again. On December 30, 1996, the federal
government announced that it intends to use their authority to
stop doctors from recommending or prescribing marijuana to their
patients and is planning a public relations campaign to
demonstrate marijuana has no medical value.
The memorandum describing their policy stated
that: a practitioner's action of recommending or prescribing
Schedule I substances is not consistent with the public interest'
(as that phrase is used in the federal Controlled Substances Act)
and will lead to administrative action by the Drug Enforcement
Administration to revoke the practitioner's registration."
Further if a physician does not have a bona fide doctor
patient relationship when recommending or prescribing marijuana
they will face criminal prosecution.
In addition to threatening doctors for giving
medical advice to their patients the Clinton Administration is
undertaking a public-relations offensive" which will include
a campaign to discredit the notion that smoking marijuana has
medicinal benefits." In their December 30 memorandum, the
Administration described a public relations effort with medical
associations and the public reenforcing the
messagethat marijuana has no medical value. On
December 29, 1996 retired General Barry McCaffrey, the nation's
drug czar, claimed in a column syndicated by the Scripps-Howard
News Service that No clinical evidence demonstrates that smoked
marijuana is good medicine." He has consistently described
medical marijuana as Cheech and Chong medicine."
The purpose of this compilation is to provide
policy makers, health professionals and the public with the
published literature and reports filed with the Food and Drug
Administration that demonstrates that doctors have a basis for
recommending marijuana as a medicine to their patients.
II. The Long History of Marijuana as Medicine
Marijuana has long been recognized as having
medical properties. Indeed its medical use predates recorded
history. The earliest written reference is to be found in the
fifteenth century B.C., Chinese Pharmacopeia, the Ry-Ya. Between
1840 and 1900, more than 100 articles on the therapeutic use of
cannabis were published in medical journals. The federal
government in its 1974 report Marihuana and Health states:
The modern phase of therapeutic use of cannabis
began about 140 years ago when O'Shaughnessy reported on its
effectiveness as an analgesic and anticonvulsant. At about the
same time Moreau de Tours described its use in melancholia and
other psychiatric illnesses. Those who saw favorable results
observed that cannabis produced sleep, enhanced appetite and did
not cause physical addiction.
The 1975 report of the federal government began
its discussion of medical marijuana by stating Cannabis is one of
the most ancient healing drugs." The report further noted:
One should not, however, summarily dismiss the possibility of
therapeutic usefulness simply because the plant is the subject of
current sociopolitical controversy."
The list of medical uses of cannabis from historical
references includes:
Anorexia Asthma Nausea
Pain Peptic Ulcer Alcoholism
Glaucoma Epilepsy Depression
Migraine Anxiety Inflammation
Hypertension Insomnia Cancer
Interestingly, relief of many of the symptoms
marijuana was used for in these illnesses are many of the same
symptoms that have been proven in modern research. This should
not be surprising unless we want to assume that all of the
experience of thousands of years did not have some factual basis.
III. Modern Research Findings on Medical Marijuana
As can see from this compilation there has been
a tidal wave of published research demonstrating marijuana's
medical usefulness. Indeed, it is stated in the research studies
conducted by various states under FDA protocol that the research
being conducted was in the final phase of approval by the FDA.
When the federal government stopped research on the medical use
of marijuana in 1992 the drug had nearly completed the
requirements for new drug approval.
Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey's assertion in his
Scripps-Howard News Service column that No clinical evidence
demonstrates that smoked marijuana is good medicine" is
inconsistent with the facts. Whether this is an intentional
deception, as part of the federal government's stated public
relations offensive against medical marijuana, or whether it is
based on ignorance does not matter. The reality is General
McCaffrey's statements are not consistent with the facts.
The research reprinted in this compilation
includes randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies,
research using a variety of objective and subjective measurements
and a range of research protocols. Doctors have a sound basis on
which to recommend marijuana for use by their patients. Indeed,
physicians are well aware of the medical value of marijuana. One
study, a scientific survey of oncologists found that almost one
half (48 percent) of the cancer specialists responding would
prescribe marijuana to some of their patients if it were legal.
In fact, over 44 percent reported having recommended the illegal
use of marijuana for the control of nausea and vomiting.
This publication addresses research that has
been published in three areas: cancer, glaucoma and muscle
spasticity. All of the materials herein were published after
1970. The materials enclosed are either published in peer review
journals, government publications or are reports submitted to the
federal government by state agencies.
A. Published Research Studies
There have been several studies which have been
published which focus on the medical value of smoked marijuana
and cancer therapy. These include:
- Vinciguerra et al., Inhalation Marijuana
as an Antiemetic for Cancer Chemotherapy," The
New York State Journal of Medicine, pgs., 525-527,
October 1988 involved 56 patients who had no improvement
with standard antiemetics. When treated with marijuana 78
percent demonstrated a positive response. No serious
negative side effects were seen. - Chang et al., Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol
as an Antiemetic in Cancer Patients Receiving High Dose
Methotrexate," Annals of Internal Medicine,
Volume 91, Number 6, pg. 819-824, December 1979 is a
randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial of THC
and smoked marijuana which found a 72 percent reduction
in nausea and vomiting. The research found that smoked
THC (marijuana) was more reliable than oral THC. - Foltin, R.W., Brady, J.V. and Fischman,
M.W. 1986. Behavioral analysis of marijuana effects on
food intake in humans. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and
Behavior. 25: 577-582 and Foltin, R.W. et al., 1988
Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Food Intake and Body
Weight of Humans Living in a Residential
Laboratory," Appetite 11:1-14; Greenberg, et
al. 1976 Effects of Marijuana use on Body Weight and
Caloric Intake in Humans," Psychopharmacology
49: 79-84. All demonstrate that marijuana increases
appetite and food intake. - Doblin et al., Marijuana as Antiemetic
Medicine: A Survey of Oncologists' Experiences and
Attitudes," Journal of Clinical Oncology,
Vol. 9, No. 7, July 1991. A random survey of clinical
oncologists found that 44 percent of respondents report
recommending the (illegal) use of marijuana for the
control of emesis and 48 percent would prescribe
marijuana to some patients if it were legal. - Sallan, S.E., Zinberg, N.E. and Frei, D.,
Antiemetic Effect of Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in
Patients Receiving Cancer Chemotherapy," New
England Journal of Medicine, 293(16): 795-797 (1975).
The researchers conducting this study of THC noticed that
some patients were dropping out of the research and
choosing to use marijuana from the street instead. They
followed up on these patients. In their conclusion they
reported on the marijuana patients and stated that
natural marijuana was more successful than synthetic THC
for some patients.
The cancer research is relevant to marijuana as
a useful therapy for AIDS patients. The same symptoms are needed
to be controlled among AIDS patients: appetite, nausea and
vomiting. There have been recent reports of AIDS and marijuana in
the literature. A study with THC found relief of nausea and
significant weight gain in 70 percent of patients. However,
one-fifth of the patients did not like the psychoactive effective
of synthetic THC, indicating marijuana is likely to be preferred
by AIDS patients. This is consistent with a survey of people with
AIDS conducted by a researcher in Hawaii in 1996. The survey
found that 98.4 percent of AIDS patients were aware of the
medical value of marijuana and 36.9 percent had used it as a
antiemetic. Of those that had used is 80 percent preferred it
over prescription drugs including synthetic THC. A study being
conducted in Australia of HIV patients found that those who use
marijuana had a better quality of life. In particular, those that
were HIV positive for over ten years found marijuana to be
critical. One patient told the researcher that he considered
marijuana to his savior."
Regarding glaucoma, there have been published
studies which consistently show that marijuana is effective in
lowering intraocular eye pressure. Heightened intraocular eye
pressure is the cause of glaucoma. Thus published evidence
indicates marijuana preserves the vision of people with glaucoma.
Finally, regarding the control of muscle spasm
there is published literature demonstrating marijuana to be
effective in controlling convulsions. The control of muscle spasm
is important to patients with multiple sclerosis, epilepsy,
spinal cord injury, paraplegia and quadriplegia.
B. State Health Department Studies
In addition to the published research there
have been a series of six studies conducted by state health
departments under research protocols approved by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.The focus of these studies, conducted by
six state health agencies was the use of marijuana as an
anti-emetic for cancer patients. The studies, conducted in
California, Georgia, New Mexico, New York, Michigan and
Tennessee, compared marijuana to antiemetics available by
prescription, including the synthetic THC pill, Marinol.
Marijuana was found to be an effective and safe antiemetic in
each of the studies and more effective than other drugs for many
patients.
New Mexico: This study involved 250
patients.The study compared marijuana to THC capsules. The
research protocol was approved by the FDA in 1978. In order to
participate in the research the patient had to be referred by a
physician and had to have failed on at least three other
antiemetics. Patients were permitted to choose marijuana or the
THC pill. Both objective (e.g., frequency of vomiting,
amount of vomiting, muscle biofeedback, blood samples and patient
observation) and subjective measures were made to determine the
effectiveness of the drug.
The study concluded that marijuana was not only
an effective antiemetic but also far superior to the best
available conventional drug, Compazine, and clearly superior to
synthetic THC pill." The study found that [m]ore than ninety
percent of the patients who received marijuana . . . reported
significant or total relief from nausea and vomiting." The
study found no major adverse side effects. Only three patients
reported adverse reactions, none of these reactions involved
marijuana alone. The 1984 report concluded . . . the data
accumulated over all five years of the program's operation do
show that marijuana smoked resulted in a higher percentage of
success than does THC ingested."
Michigan: The Michigan research compared
marijuana to Torecan. It involved 165 patients. Upon admission to
the program patients were randomized into control groups with
some randomized on the conventional antiemetic Torecan and the
remainder randomized to marijuana. When failure on the initial
randomized drug occurred, patients could elect to crossover to
the alternate therapy. This procedure allowed the Michigan
Department of Health to evaluate how well patients responded to
both drugs and allowed patients to register their preference.
The Michigan study reported 71.1 percent of the
patients who received marijuana reported no emesis to moderate
nausea. Ninety percent of the patients receiving marijuana
elected to remain on marijuana. Only 8 of 83 patients randomized
to marijuana chose to alter their mode of antiemetic therapy.
This was almost the inverse of patients randomized to Torecan,
there more than 90 percent - 22 out of 23 patients - elected to
discontinue use of Torecan and switched to marijuana.
Very few serious side effects were found
related to marijuana use. The most common side effect was
increased appetite - reported by 32.3 percent of patients - this
was a positive effect. The most common negative effects were
sleepiness, reported by 21 patients and sore throat, reported by
13 patients.
Tennessee: This study involved an
evaluation of 27 patients. The patients had all failed on other
forms of antiemetic therapy including oral THC. The study found
an overall success rate of 90.4 percent for marijuana inhalation
therapy. In comparison it found a 66.7 percent success rate for
THC capsules. In the under 40 age group, the study found a 100
percent success rate for marijuana inhalation therapy.
The report concludes:
We found both marijuana smoking and THC
capsules to be effective anti-emetics. We found an approximate 23
percent higher success rate among those patients administered THC
capsules. We found no significant differences in success rates by
age group. We found that the major reason for smoking failure was
smoking intolerance; while the major reason for THC capsule
failure was nausea and vomiting so severe that patient could not
retain the capsule.
New York: In describing the purpose of
the marijuana research program the New York Department of Health
stated: [t]he program is a large-scale (Phase III) cooperative
clinical trial . . . ." The central question addressed is
[h]ow effective is inhalation marijuana in preventing nausea and
vomiting due to chemotherapy in patients . . . who have failed to
respond to previous antiemetic therapy?"
By 1985, the New York program had extended
marijuana therapy to 208 patients through 55 practitioners. Of
that, 199 patients were evaluated. These patients had received a
total of 6,044 NIDA-supplied marijuana cigarettes which were
provided to patients during 514 treatment episodes.
In percentage terms the results were stunning:
- North Shore Hospital reported marijuana
was effective at reducing emesis 92.9 percent of the
time; - Columbia Memorial Hospital reported
efficacy of 89.7 percent; - Upstate Medical Center, St. Joseph's
Hospital and Jamestown General Hospital reported 100
percent of the patients smoking marijuana gained
significant benefit.
The report concludes: Patient evaluations have
indicated that approximately ninety-three (93) percent of
marijuana inhalation treatment episodes are reported to be
effective' or highly effective' when compared to other
antiemetics." The New York study reports no serious adverse
side effects. No patient receiving marijuana required
hospitalization or any other form of medical intervention. See,
Evaluation of the Antiemetic Properties of Inhalation Marijuana
in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy Treatment," New
York Department of Health, Office of Public Health (Annual
Reports).
Georgia: The Georgia program evaluated
119 patients. It compared THC to standardized smoking of
marijuana and with patient-controlled smoking. To enter the
program a patient had to have failed on other antiemetics.
Patients were randomized to either patient-controlled smoking of
marijuana, standardized smoking of marijuana or THC pills.
The report found that both THC and marijuana
were effective in providing antiemetic relief for patients who
were previously unresponsive to antiemetics. The rate of success
was 73.1 percent. Patient controlled smoking of marijuana was
successful in 72.2 percent, standardized smoking was successful
in 65.4 percent and THC was effective in 76 percent of the cases.
In comparing the reasons for failure between marijuana and THC
the report found:
The primary reasons for failure of THC capsules
were due to either adverse reaction (6 out of 18) or failure to
improve nausea and vomiting (9 out of 18). The primary reason for
failure of smoking marijuana were due to smoking intolerance (6
out of 14) or failure to improve the nausea and vomiting (3 out
of 14).
California: California conducted a
series of studies from 1981 through 1989. Annual reports were
submitted to the FDA, state legislature and Governor. Each year
approximately 90 to 100 patients received marijuana. The
California research was described as a Phase III trial."
The study protocol preferred THC pills by
making it much easier for patients to enter that portion of the
study. Patients who received marijuana had to be over 15 years of
age (the THC pill patients had to be over 5 years of age); had to
be marijuana experienced, use the drug on an in-patient basis
(patients could only use marijuana in the hospital and not take
the medicine home) and had to be receiving rarely used and severe
forms of chemotherapy. Thus, the design of the study did not
favor marijuana.
Even with this built in bias against marijuana,
the study consistently found marijuana to be an effective
antiemetic. In 1981 the California Research Advisory Panel
reported: Over 74 percent of the cancer patients treated in the
program have reported that marijuana is more effective in
relieving their nausea and vomiting than any other drug they have
tried." In 1982, a 78.9 percent effectiveness rate was found
for smoked marijuana. By 1983 the report was conclusory in its
findings stating:
The California Program also has met its
research objectives. Marijuana has been shown to be effective for
many cancer chemotherapy patients, safe dosage levels have been
established and a dosage regimen which minimizes undesirable side
effects has been devised and tested.
The California Research Advisory Panel
continued to review data on marijuana until 1989 with similar
results.
C. Studies of Marijuana Constituents
In addition to research on smoked marijuana
there has been a host of research on constituents of marijuana.
This research is relevant in measuring the effectiveness of
marijuana.
The drug for which there has been the most
research is the THC pill. This pill contains pure
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in sesame seed oil. This substance
is now scheduled in Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act.
When the drug was rescheduled the Food and Drug Administration
acknowledged: The effects of pure THC are essentially similar to
those of cannabis containing THC in equivalent amounts."
Thus, the federal government has acknowledged that THC, which is
available as a medicine, adequately emulates the effectiveness to
marijuana. In fact, the research described above shows that
marijuana is in fact a more effective medicine than the THC pill.
The research which compares marijuana to the
THC pill found that patients preferred marijuana to THC and that
marijuana was more effective at treating symptoms. State studies
in Michigan and New Mexico found that most patients who tried THC
chose to use marijuana instead. The most common reasons for this
choice was because THC was more psychoactive, erratic and
unpredictable. Patients found they had more control and a quicker
response with smoked marijuana than with oral THC. Patients found
it difficult to swallow the pill when they were nauseous.
Patients were also able to limit their use of marijuana to only
the amount needed when it was smoked. For many cancer and AIDS
patients this can involve smoking a very small quantity of the
drug. With the THC pill the patient must ingest the whole pill
and therefore cannot control the dose.
The Chang study published in The Annals of
Internal Medicine found that marijuana was more consistent
than the oral THC pill. As they note this was consistent with the
observations of Sallan and his colleagues in their study
published in The New England Journal of Medicine, Alfred
Chang et al. stated:
Sallan and his co-workers considered inadequate
drug absorption as a possible contributing factor to the lack of
antiemetic response seen in some patients. We concur, since THC
plasma concentrations appeared to be causally related to an
antiemetic response in our study. To avoid this problem, we
switched patients to the inhalation route of drug administration
when vomiting occurred. Inhaled marijuana results in the same
psychological effects as orally administered THC. In our patient
populations, smoked THC was more reliable than oral THC in
achieving therapeutic blood concentrations.
A final reason why marijuana cigarettes are
superior to the THC pill is because it is not only delta-9-THC
which provides positive medical effects. The bibliography
includes research involving other components of marijuana,
including various cannabinoids and delta-8-THC. This research
indicates that it is not only delta-9-THC which has beneficial
medical effects but other components of marijuana. Smoking
marijuana provides the patient with the benefits of the
combination of marijuana's active ingredients as opposed to the
effects of only THC.
IV. State Laws Provide an Avenue to Resolve The Medical
Marijuana Problem
There is strong scientific evidence that
marijuana is a safe and effective medicine. The voters in
California and Arizona have recognized this at the ballot box. It
is time for the federal government to help resolve this problem
rather than threaten doctors with sanctions for providing medical
advice to their patients and denying seriously ill patients
access to a much needed medicine.
The California and Arizona initiatives, as well
as state laws in two dozen states, provide an opportunity to
resolve the medical marijuana problem. Research on the safety and
effectiveness of marijuana is in its final phase. All that is
needed is late-Phase III research. These are broad-based research
studies which result in large numbers of patients receiving
marijuana.
The federal government, in its policy
announcement of December 30, stated that it wanted to ensure the
integrity of the drug approval process. Part of their plan to do
so includes reviewing the research and seeking to fill gaps in
research with new research.
Combining the Food and Drug Administration's
need for late-Phase III research before they approve marijuana as
a medicine, with the decision of voters in California and Arizona
to make marijuana medically available, will satisfy two needs. It
can make marijuana available to large numbers of people under a
research umbrella. (In the early 1980s nearly 1,000 patients a
year were using marijuana medically under federally approved
research programs. In fact, one year California requested one
million medical marijuana cigarettes from the FDA.) In addition,
it could finally resolve the medical marijuana problem and make
marijuana available as a medicine by prescription.
The Food and Drug Administration should contact
the health departments of Arizona, California and other states
which have expressed interest in medical marijuana and ask them
to participate in the final Phase III studies needed to complete
the new drug application process. Getting results from this
research should take less than one year. If they are consistent
with previous research it should result in marijuana becoming a
prescription drug under Schedule II of the Controlled Substances
Act. Such a process will restore the integrity of the medical
scientific process of drug approval which has been undermined by
the use of medical marijuana as a political tool by those
favoring expanded drug war policies.
By taking a constructive approach, rather than
a confrontational one, the federal government avoids conflict
with state law, does not intrude on the doctor-patient
relationship and ensures that, in the end, marijuana is only made
available as a prescription medicine to the seriously ill.
Arizona and California have presented an opportunity to resolve
an issue that is long overdue for resolution.
Bibliography
Overviews of Marijuana's Safety and
Effectiveness
Beaconsfield, D., Ginsburg, J., and Rainsbury,
R. (1973). Therapeutic potential of marihuana. New Eng. J.
Medicine 289, 1315.
Therapeutic Aspects. 1974. Marijuana and
Health, Fourth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress, Nat'l
Institute on Drug Abuse, 134-143.
Therapeutic Aspects. 1975. Marijuana and
Health, Fifth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress, Nat'l
Institute on Drug Abuse, 117-132.
Bhargave, H. (1978). Potential therapeutic
application of naturally occurring and synthetic cannabinoids. Gen.
Pharmac., 9, 195-213.
Ungerleider, J. (1979). Marijuana as a good
medicine: Its uses against disease. Lecture delivered to UCLA
Center for the Health Sciences, August 21, 1979.
Zinberg, N. (1979). On cannabis and health.
J. Psychedelic Drugs, 11, 135-144.
AMA Council on Scientific Affairs. (1980).
Marihuana reexamined: Pulmonary risks and therapeutic potentials.
Conn. Medicine, 44, 521-523. Cohen, S. (1980). Therapeutic
aspects. Nat'l Inst. Drug Abuse. Res. Mono. Ser., No. 31,
199-216.
Council on Scientific Affairs. (1981).
Marijuana: Its health hazards and therapeutic potentials. JAMA,
246, 1823-1827.
DuQuesne, J. (1981). Cannabis and the Rule of
Law. Lancet, Sept. 12, 1981, 581.
Rose, M. (1981). Cannabis and the rule of law. Lancet,
July 18, 1981.
Therapeutic potential and medical uses of
marijuana. (1982). In Marijuana and Health, Inst. of
Medicine, 139-155.
Schurr, A. (1985). Marijuana: Much ado about
THC. Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 80 C, 1-7.
Ungerleider, J. and Andrysiak, T. (1985).
Therapeutic issues of marijuana and THC., Int'l J. Addictions,
20, 691-699.
Grinspoon, L. and Bakalar, J., (1995).
Marihuana as Medicine, A Plea for Reconsideration, JAMA,
273: 1875-1876.
Medical Marijuana and Nausea, Vomiting and
Appetite
Hollister, L (1970) Hunger and appetite after
single doses of marihuana, alcohol and dextroamphetamine. Clin.
Pharmacol. and Therapeutics, 12, 44-49.
Sallan, S.E., Zinberg, N.E., Ferei, E., III,
(1975), Antiemetic effect of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in
patients receiving cancer chemotherapy. N. Eng. J.Med.,
293, 795-797.
Greenberg, I., Kuehnle, J., Mendelson,J.H. and
Bernstein, J.G. 1976. Effects of marihuana use on body weight and
caloric intake in human. Journal of Psychopharmacology
(Berlin) 49: 79-84.
Harris, L. (1976). Analgesic and antitumor
potential of the cannabinoids. In Therapeutic Potential of
Marijuana. (Cohen and Stillman, eds., 299-309.
Harris, L. Munson, A. and Carchman, R. (1976).
Antitumor properties of
cannabinoids. In The Pharmacology of
Marihuana (Braude and Szara, eds.), 749-762.
Chang, A. et al. (1979).
Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol as an antiemetic in cancer patients
receiving high-dose methotrexate. Annals of Internal Medicine,
91, 819-824.
Sallan, S.E., Cronin, C. Zelen, M., Zinberg,
N.E. (1980). Antiemetics in patients receiving chemotherapy for
cancer. A randomized comparison of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol
and prochlorperazine. N. Engl. J. Med., 302: 135-8.
California State Reports, Therapeutic Cannabis
Program, Annual Report to the Governor and Legislature,
California Research Advisory Panel (1980-1986).
Bateman, D.C., Rawlins, M. (1982). Therapeutic
potential of cannabinoids. Br. Med. J., 284, 1211-1212.
Cannabinoids for nausea, (1981). Lancet,
Jan. 31, 1981, 255-256.
Frytek, S., Moertel, C.G., (1981), Management
of nausea and vomiting in the cancer patient, JAMA, 245,
394-396.
Neidhart, J., Gagen, M., Wilson, H. and Young,
D. (1981). Comparative trial of the antiemetic effects of THC and
haloperidol. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 21, 385-425.
Michigan Department of Public Health Marijuana
Therapeutic Research Project,
Trial A 1980-81," Department of Social
Oncology, Evaluation Unit, Michigan Cancer Foundation (March 18,
1982).
Ungerleider, J., Andrysiak, T., Fairbanks, L.,
Goodnight, J., Sama, G. and Jamison, K. (1982). Cancer
chemotherapy and marijuana.
Ungerleider, J., Andrysiak, T., Fairbanks, L.,
Goodnight, J., Sama, G. and Jamison, K. (1982). Cannabis and
cancer chemotherapy: A comparison of oral delta-9-THC and
prochlorperazine. Cancer, 50, 636-645.
Sensky, T., Baldwin, A., and Pettingale, K.
(1983). Cannabinoids as antiemetics. Br. Med. J. , 286,
802.
Kutner, Michael H., Evaluation of the Use of
Both Marijuana and THC in Cancer Patients for the Relief of
Nausea and Vomiting Associated with Cancer Chemotherapy After
Failure of Conventional Anti-Emetic Therapy: Efficacy and
Toxicity" as prepared for the Composite State Board of
Medical Examiners, Georgia Department of Health, by physicians
and researchers at Emory University, Atlanta, (January 20, 1983).
Annual Report: Evaluation of Marijuana and
Tetrahydrocannabinol in the Treatment of Nausea and/or Vomiting
Associated with Cancer Therapy Unresponsive to Conventional
Anti-Emetic Therapy: Efficacy and Toxicity," Board of
Pharmacy, State of Tennessee, July 1983.
The Lynn Pierson Therapeutic Research
Program," the Behavioral Health Sciences Division, Health
and Environment Department, March 1983 and 1984.
Foltin, R.W., Brady, J.V. and Fischman, M.W.
1986. Behavioral analysis of marijuana effects on food intake in
humans. Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior. 25:
577-582.
Foltin, R.W. et al., 1988 Effects of Smoked
Marijuana on Food Intake and Body Weight of Humans Living in a
Residential Laboratory," Appetite 11:1-14
Vinciguerra, V., Moore, T., Brennab, E.,
Inhalation marijuana as an antiemetic for cancer chemotherapy,
(Oct. 1988) N.Y. State J. Medicine, 525-527.
T.F. Plasse, R.W. Gorter, S.H. Krasnow, et al.,
1991. Recent clinical experience with dronabinol. Pharmacology,
Bichemistry and Behavior 40: 695-700.
Doblin, R., Kleiman, M., Marijuana as
antiemetic medicine: A survey of oncologists' experiences and
attitudes, (1991), J. Clin. Oncology, 9:7, 1314-1319.
Abrams, D. 1995, Marijuana, the AIDS Wasting
Syndrome, and the U.S. Government (Response to Letter) New
England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 333 (10): 670-671.
Grinspoon, L, J, and Doblin, R. 1995.
Marijuana, the AIDS Wasting Syndrome, and the U.S. Government
(Letter to ed.) New England Journal of Medicine, Vol.
333(10): 670-671.
Wesner, B. 1996. The Medical Marijuana Issue
Among PWAs: Reports of Therapeutic Use and Attitudes Toward Legal
Reform. Drug Research Unit, Social Science Research Institute,
University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Medical Marijuana and Glaucoma
Hepler, R. and Frank, I., (1971). Marijuana
smoking and intraocular pressure. JAMA, 217, 1932.
Hepler, R., Frank, I. and Ungerleider, J.
(1972). Pupillary constriction after marijuana smoking. Am. J.
Ophthalmol., 74, 1185-1190.
Shapiro, D. (1974). The ocular manifestations
of the cannabinoids. Opthalmologica, 168, 366-369.
Hepler, R. and Petrus, R. (1976). Experiences
with administration of marijuana to glaucoma. In The
Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana. (Cohen and Stillman,
eds.), 63-75.
Perez-Reyes, M., Wagner, D., Wall, M. and
Davis, K. (1976). Intravenous administration of cannabinoids and
intraocular pressure. In The Pharmacology of Marihuana
(Braude and Szara, eds.), 829-832.
Goldberg, I., Kass, M. and Becker, B.
(1978-1979). Marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma. Sightsaving
Review, Winter issue, 147-154.
Crawford, W., and Merritt, J. (1979). Effects
of tetrahydrocannabinol on arterial and intraocular hypertension.
Int'l J. Clin. Pharmacol. and Biopharm. 17, 191-196.
Merritt, J., Crawford, W., Alexander, P.,
Anduze, A. and Gelbart, S. (1980). Effect of marihuana on
intraocular and blood pressure in glaucoma.Ophthalmology,
87, 222-228.
Merritt, J., McKinnon, S., Armstrong, J.,
Hatem, G. and Reid, L. (1980). Oral delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol
in heterogenous glaucomas. Annals of Ophthalmology, 12,
No. 8.
Zimmerman, T. (1980). Efficacy in glaucoma
treatment-the potential of marijuana. Annals of Ophthalmology,
449-450.
Green, L., (1984) Marijuana effects on
intraocular pressure, Applied, Pharmacology in the Medical
Treatment of Glaucomas, (S.M. Drance, ed.), 507-526.
Merritt, J., et al. (1981). Effects of topical
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on intraocular pressure in dogs. Glaucoma,
Jan./Feb., 13-16.
Merritt, J., Perry, D., Russell, D. and Jones,
B. (1981). Topical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and aqueous
dynamics in glaucoma. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 21, 467S-471S.
Merritt, J., Olsen J., Armstrong, J. and
McKinnon, S. (1981). Topical delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in
hypertensive glaucomas. J. Phar. Pharmacol., 33, 40-41.
Merritt, J. (1982). Glaucoma, hypertension, and
marijuana. J. Nat'l Med. Ass'n., 74, 715-716.
Merritt, J., Cook, C. and Davis, K. (1982).
Orthostatic hypotension after delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol
marihuana inhalation. Ophthalmic Res., 14, 124-128.
Merritt, J. et al. (1982). Topical
delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol as a potential glaucoma agent. Glaucoma,
4 253-255.
Merritt, J. (1984). Outpatient cannabinoid
therapy for heterogenous glaucomas: Guidelines for institution
and maintenance of therapy. Marijuana 84: Proceedings of the
Oxford Symposium on Cannabis, 681-683.
Merritt, J., Shrewsbury, R., Locklear F.,
Demby, K. and Wittle, G. (1986), Effects of
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and vehicle constituents on
intraocular pressure in normotensive dogs. Research
Communication in Substances of Abuse, 7, 29-35.
Medical Marijuana, Muscle Spasm and Convulsion
Carlini, E., Leite, J., Tannhauser, M. and
Berardi, A. (1973). Cannabidiol and cannabis sativa extract
protect mice and rats against convulsive agents. J. Pharm.
Pharmac., 25, 664-665.
Karler, R., Cely, W., and Turkanis, S. (1973).
The anticonvulsant activity of cannabidiol and cannabinol. Life
Sciences, 13, 1527-1531.
Dunn, M. and Davis, R., (1974). The perceived
effects of marijuana on spinal cord injured males, Paraplegia,
12, 175.
Turkanis, S., Cely, W., Olsen, D. and Karler,
R. (1974). Anticonvulsant properties of cannabinol. Res. Comm.
Chem. Path. Pharmacol., 8, 231-246.
Consroe, P., Wood, G., and Buchsbaum, H.
(1975). Anticonvulsant nature of marijuana smoking. JAMA,
234, 306-307.
Karler, R. and Turkanis, S. 1976. The
antiepileptic potential of the cannabinoids. In The
Therapeutic Potential of Marijuana, (Cohen and Stillman,
eds.), 383-396.
Feeney, D.M., Marihuana and epilepsy:
paradoxical anticonvulsant and convulsant effects, Marijuana
Biological Effects: Analysis, Metabolism, Cellular Responses,
Reproduction and the Brain, (Nahas, GG., Paxton, M., Bruade,
J.C., Hardillier, and Harvey, D.J. eds.) Pergamon Press, Oxford,
England, 643-657.
Petro, D., (1980), Marihuana as a therapeutic
agent for muscle spasm of spasticity, Psychosomatics, 21:
81, 85.
Cunha, J., et al. (1980). Chronic
administration of cannabidiol to health volunteers and epileptic
patients. Pharmacology, 21, 175-185.
Petro, D., Ellenberger, C., Jr., (1981).
Treatment of human spasticity with delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol,
J. Clin. Pharmacol., 21:413S-416S.
Clifford, D.B.. 1983. Tetrahydrocannabinol for
tremor in multiple sclerosis. Annals of Neurology. 13:
669-671.
Sandyk, R., Consroe, P., Stern, L., Snider, S.,
(1986). Effects of cannabidiol in Huntington's Disease, Neurology,
36:331.
Hanigan, W.C., Destree,R. and Truong, X.T.,
(Feb., 1986), The effect of delta-9- tetrahydrocannabinol on
human spasticity, Clin. Pharmacol. Ther., 198. Truong,
X.T.,
Hanigan, W.C., (Feb. 1986). Effect of
delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol on EMG measurements in human
spasticity. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther., 232.
Cannabis, (1986) Therapeutic Claims in
Multiple Sclerosis, Int'l Federation of Multiple Sclerosis
Societies, 226.
Ames, F. and Cridland, S. (1986).
Anticonvulsant effects of cannabidiol. S. Afr. Med. J.,
69, 14.
Ungerleider, T. 1987.Delta 9 THC in treatment
of spasticity associated with marijuana. Advances in Alcohol
and Substance Abuse, 7: 39-51.
Meinck, H.M., Schonle, P.W., Conrad, B. 1989.
Effect of Cannabinoids on Spasticity and Ataxia in multiple
sclerosis. Journal of Neurology 236: 120-122.
Maurer, M., Henn, V., Dittrich A., Hoffamn, A.,
1990. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol shows antispastic and
analgesic effects in a single case double-blind trial. European
Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 240: 1-4.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Costs of Marijuana Prohibition: Economic Analysis
Download the complete report by Jeffrey A. Miron (requires Adobe® Reader®) • Print the report
The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition
June 2005
The Marijuana Policy Project provided funding for the research discussed in this report. Daniel Egan provided excellent research assistance.
Executive Summary
- Government prohibition of marijuana is the subject of ongoing debate.
- One issue in this debate is the effect of marijuana prohibition on government budgets. Prohibition entails direct enforcement costs and prevents taxation of marijuana production and sale.
- This report examines the budgetary implications of legalizing marijuana – taxing and regulating it like other goods – in all fifty states and at the federal level.
- The report estimates that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition. $5.3 billion of this savings would accrue to state and local governments, while $2.4 billion would accrue to the federal government.
- The report also estimates that marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.
- Whether marijuana legalization is a desirable policy depends on many factors other than the budgetary impacts discussed here. But these impacts should be included in a rational debate about marijuana policy.
I. Introduction
Government prohibition of marijuana is the subject of ongoing debate. Advocates believe prohibition reduces marijuana trafficking and use, thereby discouraging crime, improving productivity and increasing health. Critics believe prohibition has only modest effects on trafficking and use while causing many problems typically attributed to marijuana itself.
One issue in this debate is the effect of marijuana prohibition on government budgets. Prohibition entails direct enforcement costs, and prohibition prevents taxation of marijuana production and sale. If marijuana were legal, enforcement costs would be negligible and governments could levy taxes on the production and sale of marijuana. Thus, government expenditure would decline and tax revenue would increase.
This report estimates the savings in government expenditure and the gains in tax revenue that would result from replacing marijuana prohibition with a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods. The report is not an overall evaluation of marijuana prohibition; the magnitude of any budgetary impact does not by itself determine the wisdom of prohibition. But the costs required to enforce prohibition, and the transfers that occur because income in a prohibited sector is not taxed, are relevant to rational discussion of this policy.
The policy change considered in this report, marijuana legalization, is more substantial than marijuana decriminalization, which means repealing criminal penalties against possession but retaining them against trafficking. The budgetary implications of legalization exceed those of decriminalization for three reasons.[1] First, legalization eliminates arrests for trafficking in addition to eliminating arrests for possession. Second, legalization saves prosecutorial, judicial, and incarceration expenses; these savings are minimal in the case of decriminalization. Third, legalization allows taxation of marijuana production and sale.
This report concludes that marijuana legalization would reduce government expenditure by $7.7 billion annually. Marijuana legalization would also generate tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. These budgetary impacts rely on a range of assumptions, but these probably bias the estimated expenditure reductions and tax revenues downward.
The remainder of the report proceeds as follows. Section II estimates state and local expenditure on marijuana prohibition. Section III estimates federal expenditure on marijuana prohibition. Section IV estimates the tax revenue that would accrue from legalized marijuana. Section V discusses caveats and implications.
II. State and Local Expenditure for Drug Prohibition Enforcement
The savings in state and local government expenditure that would result from marijuana legalization consists of three main components: the reduction in police resources from elimination of marijuana arrests; the reduction in prosecutorial and judicial resources from elimination of marijuana prosecutions; and the reduction in correctional resources from elimination of marijuana incarcerations.[2] There are other possible savings in government expenditure from legalization, but these are minor or difficult to estimate with existing data.[3] The omission of these items biases the estimated savings downward.
To estimate the state savings in criminal justice resources, this report uses the following procedure. It estimates the percentage of arrests in a state for marijuana violations and multiplies this by the budget for police. It estimates the percentage of prosecutions in a state for marijuana violations and multiplies this by the budget for prosecutors and judges. It estimates the percentage of incarcerations in a state for marijuana violations and multiplies this by the budget for prisons. It then sums these components to estimate the overall reduction in government expenditure. Under plausible assumptions, this procedure yields a reasonable estimate of the cost savings from marijuana legalization.[4]
The Police Budget Due to Marijuana Prohibition
The first cost of marijuana prohibition is the portion of state police budgets devoted to marijuana arrests.
Table 1 calculates the fraction of arrests in each state due to marijuana prohibition. Column 1 gives the total number of arrests for the year 2000.[5] Column 2 gives the number of arrests for marijuana possession violations. Column 3 gives the number of arrests for marijuana sale/manufacturing violations. Columns 4 and 5 give the ratio of Column 2 to Column 1 and Column 3 to Column 1, respectively; these are the percentages of arrests for possession and sale/manufacture of marijuana, respectively.
The information in Columns 4 and 5 is what is required in the subsequent calculations, subject to one modification. Some arrests for marijuana violations, especially those for possession, occur because the arrestee is under suspicion for a non-drug crime but possesses marijuana that is discovered by police during a routine search. This means an arrest for marijuana possession is recorded, along with, or instead of, an arrest on the other charge. If marijuana possession were not a criminal offense, the suspects in such cases would still be arrested on the charge that led to the search, and police resources would be used to approximately the same extent as when marijuana possession is criminal.[6]
In determining which arrests represents a cost of marijuana prohibition, therefore, it is appropriate to count only those that are “stand-alone,” meaning those in which a marijuana violation rather than some other charge is the reason for the arrest. This issue arises mainly for possession rather than for trafficking. There are few hard data on the fraction of “stand-alone” possession arrests, but the information in Miron (2002) and Reuter, Hirschfield and Davies (2001) suggests it is between 33% and 85%.[7] To err on the conservative side, this report assumes that 50% of possession arrests are due solely to marijuana possession rather than being incidental to some other crime. Thus, the resources utilized in making these arrests would be available for other purposes if marijuana possession were legal. Column 6 of Table 1 therefore indicates the fraction of possession arrests attributable to marijuana prohibition, taking this adjustment into account.[8]
The first portion of Table 2 uses this information to calculate the police budget due to marijuana prohibition in each state. Column 1 gives the total expenditure in 2000 on police, by state. Column 2 gives the product of Column 1 with the sum of Columns 5 and 6 from Table 1. This is the amount spent on arrests for marijuana violations. For 2000, the amount is $1.71 billion.
The Judicial and Legal Budget Due to Marijuana Prohibition
The second main cost of marijuana prohibition is the portion of the prosecutorial and judicial budget devoted to marijuana prosecutions. A reasonable indicator of this percentage is the fraction of felony convictions in state courts for marijuana offenses. Data on this percentage are not available on a state-by-state basis, so this report uses the national percentage. Data on the percentage of possession convictions attributable to marijuana are also not available, so this report assumes it equals the percentage for trafficking convictions.
In 2000 the percent of felony convictions in state courts due to any type of trafficking violation was 22.0%.[9] Of this total, 2.7% was due to marijuana, 5.9% was due to other drugs, and 13.4% was unspecified. This report assumes that the fraction of marijuana convictions in the unspecified category equals the fraction for those in which a specific drug is given, or 31.4% [=2.7%/(2.7%+5.9%)]. The report also assumes that the percentage of possession convictions due to marijuana equals this same fraction. These assumptions jointly imply that the percentage of felony convictions due to marijuana equals the fraction of felony convictions due to any drug offense (34.6%) multiplied by the percentage of trafficking violations due to marijuana (31.4%). This yields 10.9% (=34.6%*31.4%).[10]
The second portion of Table 2 uses this information to calculate the judicial and legal budget due to marijuana prohibition. Column 3 gives the judicial and legal budget, by state. Column 4 gives the product of Column 3 and 10.9%, the percentage of felony convictions due to marijuana violations. This is the judicial and legal budget due to marijuana prosecutions. For 2000, the amount is $2.94 billion.
The Corrections Budget Due to Marijuana Prohibition
The third main cost of marijuana prohibition is the portion of the corrections budget devoted to incarcerating marijuana prisoners. A reasonable indicator of this portion is the fraction of prisoners incarcerated for marijuana offenses.
As with the percentage of prosecutions due to marijuana, state-by-state information on the percentage of prisoners incarcerated for marijuana offenses is not available. Appropriate data do exist for a few states, however, and this percentage is likely to be similar across states. This report therefore computes a population-weighted average based on the few states for which data exist; it then imposes this percentage on all states. This percentage is 1.0%, as documented in Appendix A.
The third portion of Table 2 calculates the corrections budget due to marijuana prohibition.[11] Column 5 gives the overall corrections budget, by state. Column 6 gives the product of Column 5 and 1.0%, the estimated fraction of prisoners incarcerated on marijuana charges. This is the corrections budget devoted to marijuana prisoners. For 2000, the amount is $484 million.
Overall State and Local Expenditure for Enforcement of Marijuana Prohibition
As shown at the bottom of Table 2, total state and local government expenditure for enforcement of marijuana prohibition was $5.1 billion for 2000. This is an overstatement of the savings in government expenditure that would result from legalization, however, for two reasons. First, under prohibition the police sometimes seize assets from those arrested for marijuana violations (financial accounts, cars, boats, land, houses, and the like), with the proceeds used to fund police and prosecutors.[12] Second, under prohibition some marijuana offenders pay fines, which partially offsets the expenditure required to arrest, convict and incarcerate these offenders. The calculations in Appendix B, however, show that this offsetting revenue has been at most $100 million per year in recent years at the state and local level. This implies a net savings of criminal justice resources from marijuana legalization of $5.0 billion in 2000. Adjusting for inflation implies savings of $5.3 billion in 2003.[13] [14] [15]
III. Federal Expenditure for Marijuana Prohibition Enforcement
This section estimates federal expenditure on marijuana prohibition enforcement. There are no data available on expenditure for marijuana interdiction per se; existing data report expenditure on interdiction of all drugs, without separately identifying expenditure aimed at marijuana versus other drugs. It is nevertheless possible to estimate the portion due to marijuana prohibition using the following procedure:
- Estimate federal expenditure for all drug interdiction;
- Estimate the fraction of this expenditure due to marijuana interdiction based on the fraction of federal prosecutions for marijuana;
- Multiply the first estimate by the second estimate.
This provides a reasonable estimate of federal expenditure for marijuana interdiction so long as this expenditure is roughly proportional to the variable being used to determine the fraction of total interdiction devoted to marijuana.[16]
Table 3 displays federal expenditure for drug interdiction. This was $13.6 billion in 2002 (Miron 2003b), and it is the figure that applies for all drugs.[17] [18] [19] To determine expenditure for marijuana interdiction, it is necessary to adjust for the fraction of federal expenditure devoted to marijuana as opposed to other drugs.
Table 3 next shows possible indicators of the relative magnitude of marijuana interdiction as compared to other-drug interdiction. These indicators include use rates, arrest rates, and felony convictions for marijuana versus other drugs. For the purposes here, the most appropriate indicator is the percentage of DEA arrests or convictions for marijuana as opposed to other drugs.[20]
The data therefore indicate that $2.6 billion is a reasonable estimate of the federal government expenditure to enforce marijuana prohibition in 2002.
As with state and local revenue, this figure must be adjusted downward by the revenue from seizures and fines. Appendix B indicates that this amount has been at most $214.2 million in recent years, implying a net savings of about $2.39 million. Adjusting for inflation implies federal expenditure for enforcement of marijuana prohibition of $2.4 billion in 2003.[21]
IV. The Tax Revenue from Legalized Marijuana
In addition to reducing government expenditure, marijuana legalization would produce tax revenue from the legal production and sale of marijuana. To estimate this revenue, this report employs the following procedure. First, it estimates current expenditure on marijuana at the national level. Second, it estimates the expenditure likely to occur under legalization. Third, it estimates the tax revenue that would result from this expenditure based on assumptions about the kinds of taxes that would apply to legalized marijuana. Fourth, it provides illustrative calculations of the portion of the revenue that would accrue to each state.
Expenditure on Marijuana under Current Prohibition
The first step in determining the tax revenue under legalization is to estimate current expenditure on marijuana. ONDCP (2001a, Table 1, p.3) estimates that in 2000 U.S. residents spent $10.5 billion on marijuana. This estimate relies on a range of assumptions about the marijuana market, and modification of these assumptions might produce a higher or lower estimate. There is no obvious reason, however, why alternative assumptions would imply a dramatically different estimate of current expenditure on marijuana. This report therefore uses the $10.5 billion figure as the starting point for the revenue estimates presented below.
Expenditure on Marijuana under Legalization
The second step in estimating the tax revenue that would occur under legalization is to determine how expenditure on marijuana would change as the result of legalization. A simple framework in which to consider various assumptions is the standard supply and demand model. To use this model to assess legalization’s impact on marijuana expenditure, it is necessary to state what effect legalization would have on the demand and supply curves for marijuana.
This report assumes there would be no change in the demand for marijuana.[22] This assumption likely errs in the direction of understating the tax revenue from legalized marijuana, since the penalties for possession potentially deter some persons from consuming. But any increase in demand from legalization would plausibly come from casual users, whose marijuana use would likely be modest. Any increase in use might also come from decreased consumption of alcohol, tobacco or other goods, so increased tax revenue from legal marijuana would be partially offset by decreased tax revenue from other goods. And there might be a forbidden fruit effect from prohibition that tends to offset the demand decreasing effects of penalties for possession. Thus, the assumption of no change in demand is plausible, and it likely biases the estimated tax revenue downward.
Under the assumption that demand does not shift due to legalization, any change in the quantity and price would result from changes in supply conditions. There are two main effects that would operate (Miron 2003a). On the one hand, marijuana suppliers in a legal market would not incur the costs imposed by prohibition, such as the threat of arrest, incarceration, fines, asset seizure, and the like. This means, other things equal, that costs and therefore prices would be lower under legalization. On the other hand, marijuana suppliers in a legal market would bear the costs of tax and regulatory policies that apply to legal goods but that black market suppliers normally avoid.[23] This implies an offset to the cost reductions resulting from legalization. Further, changes in competition and advertising under legalization can potentially yield higher prices than under prohibition.
It is thus an empirical question as to how prices under legalization would compare to prices under current prohibition. The best evidence available on this question comes from comparisons of marijuana prices between the U.S. and the Netherlands. Although marijuana is still technically illegal in the Netherlands, the degree of enforcement is substantially below that in the U.S., and the sale of marijuana in coffee shops is officially tolerated. The regime thus approximates de facto legalization. Existing data suggest that retail prices in the Netherlands are roughly 50-100 percent of U.S. prices.[24] [25]
The effect of any price decline that occurs due to legalization depends on the elasticity of demand for marijuana. Evidence on this elasticity is limited because appropriate data on marijuana price and consumption are not readily available. Existing estimates, however, suggest an elasticity of at least -0.5 and plausibly more than -1.0 (Nisbet and Vakil 1972).[26] [27]
If the price decline under legalization is minimal, then expenditure will not change regardless of the demand elasticity. If the price decline is noticeable but the demand elasticity is greater than or equal to 1.0 in absolute value, then expenditure will remain constant or increase. If the price decline is noticeable and the demand elasticity is less than one, then expenditure will decline. Since the decline in price is unlikely to exceed 50% and the demand elasticity is likely at least -0.5, the plausible decline in expenditure is approximately 25%. Given the estimate of $10.5 billion in expenditure on marijuana under current prohibition, this implies expenditure under legalization of about $7.9 billion.[28]
Tax Revenue from Legalized Marijuana
To estimate the tax revenue that would result from marijuana legalization, it is necessary to assume a particular tax rate. This report considers two assumptions that plausibly bracket the range of reasonable possibilities.
The first assumption is that tax policy treats legalized marijuana identically to other goods. In that case tax revenue as a fraction of expenditure would be approximately 30%, implying tax revenue from legalized marijuana of $2.4 billion.[29] The amount of revenue would be lower if substantial home production occurred under legalization.[30] The evidence suggests, however, that the magnitude of such production would be minimal. In particular, alcohol production switched mostly from the black market to the licit market after repeal of Alcohol Prohibition in 1933.
The second assumption is that tax policy treats legalized marijuana similarly to alcohol or tobacco, imposing a “sin tax” in excess of any tax applicable to other goods.[31] Imposing a high sin tax can force a market underground, thereby reducing rather than increasing tax revenue. Existing evidence, however, suggests that relatively high rates of sin taxation are possible without generating a black market. For example, cigarette taxes in many European countries account for 75–85 percent of the price (US Department of Health and Human Services 2000).
One benchmark, therefore, is to assume that an excise tax on legalized marijuana doubles the price. If general taxation accounts for 30% of the price, this additional tax would then make tax revenue account for 80% of the price. This doubling of the price, given an elasticity of -0.5, would cause roughly a 50% increase in expenditure, implying total expenditure on marijuana would be $11.85 billion (=$7.9 x 1.5). Tax revenue would equal 80% of this total, or $9.5 billion. This includes any standard taxation applied to marijuana income as well as the sin tax on marijuana sales.
The $9.5 billion figure is not necessarily attainable given the characteristics of marijuana production, however. Small scale, efficient production is possible and occurs widely now, so the imposition of a substantial tax wedge might encourage a substantial fraction of the market to remain underground. The assumption of a constant demand elasticity in response to a price change of this magnitude is also debatable; more plausibly, the elasticity would increase as the price rose, implying a larger decline in consumption and thus less revenue from excise taxation. The $9.5 figure should therefore be considered an upper bound.
These calculations nevertheless indicate the potential for substantial revenue from marijuana taxation. A more modest excise tax, such as one that raises the price 50%, would produce revenue on legalized marijuana of $6.2 billion per year.
Distribution of the Marijuana Tax Revenue
The estimates of tax revenue discussed so far indicate the total amount that could be collected summing over all levels of government. In practice this total would be divided between state and federal governments. It is therefore useful to estimate how much revenue would accrue to each state, and to state governments versus the federal government, under plausible assumptions.
Table 4a indicates the tax revenue that would accrue to each state and to the federal government under the assumption that each state collected revenue equal to 10% of the income generated by legalized marijuana and the federal government collected income equal to 20%. This is approximately what occurs now for the economy overall, except that the ratio of tax revenues to income varies across states from the 10% figure assumed here. The table indicates that under these assumptions, the federal government would collect $1.6 billion in additional revenue while on average each state would collect $16 million in additional tax revenue.
These calculations ignore the fact that marijuana use rates differ across states, so application of identical policies would yield different amounts of revenue per capita. Wright (2002, Table A.4, p.82), for example, indicates that the percent of those 12 and over reporting marijuana use in the past month ranged in 1999-2000 from a low of 2.79% in Iowa to a high of 9.03% in Massachusetts. Table 4b therefore shows the breakdown of revenue by state under the assumption that tax revenue is proportional to state marijuana use rates. A third possibility, which cannot easily be examined with existing data, is that revenue by state differs depending on the distribution of marijuana production.
V. Summary
This report has estimated the budgetary implications of legalizing marijuana and taxing and regulating it like other goods. According to the calculations here, legalization would reduce government expenditure by $5.3 billion at the state and local level and by $2.4 billion at the federal level. In addition, marijuana legalization would generate tax revenue of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco.
References
Baicker, Katherine and Mireille Jacobson (2004), “Finders Keepers: Forfeiture Laws, Policing Incentives, and Local Budgets,” manuscript, Department of Economics, Dartmouth College.
Bates, Scott W. (2004), “The Economic Implications of Marijuana Legalization in Alaska,” Report for Alaskans For Rights & Revenues, Fairbanks, Alaska.
Caputo, Michael R. and Brian J. Ostrom (1994), “Potential Tax Revenue from a Regulated Marijuana Market: A Meaningful Revenue Source,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53, 475-490.
Clements, Kenneth W. and Mert Daryal (2001), “Marijuana Prices in Australia in 1990s,” manuscript, Economic Research Centre, Department of Economics, The University of Western Australia.
Durose, Matthew and Patrick A. Langan (2003), Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2000, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justices Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ 198821.
Easton, Stephen T. (2004), “Marijuana Growth in British Columbia,” Public Policy Sources, Fraser Institute Occasional Paper #74.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (2002), Annual Report 2002, available at (http://annualreport.emcdda.eu.int/pdfs/2002_0458_EN.pdf).
Gettman, Jon B. and Stephen S. Fuller (2003), “Estimation of the Budgetary Costs of Marijuana Possession Arrests in the Commonwealth of Virginia,” Center for Regional Analysis, George Mason University.
Harrison, Lana D., Michael Backenheimer, and James A. Inciardi (1995), “Cannabis use in the United States: Implications for Policy,” in Peter Cohen and Arjan Sas, eds., Cannabisbeleid in Duitsland, Frankrijk en do Verenigde Staten, Amerstdamn: Centrum voor Drugsonderzoek, Universiteit van Amsterdamn, 231-236.
Lewis, Minchin (2004), Report on the Syracuse Police Department Activity for the Year Ended June 30, 2002, Department of Audit, City of Syracuse.
MacCoun, Robert and Peter Reuter (1997), “Interpreting Dutch Cannabis Policy: Reasoning by Analogy in the Legalization Debate,” Science, 278, 47-52.
Miron, Jeffrey A. (2002), “The Effect of Marijuana Decriminalization on the Budgets of Massachusetts Governments, With a Discussion of Decriminalization’s Effect on Marijuana Use,” Report to the Drug Policy Forum of Massachusetts, October.
Miron, Jeffrey A. (2003a), “Do Prohibitions Raise Prices? Evidence from the Markets for Cocaine and Heroin,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(3), 522-530.
Miron, Jeffrey A. (2003b), “A Critique of Estimates of the Economic Costs of Drug Abuse,” Report to the Drug Policy Alliance, July.
Miron, Jeffrey A. (2003c), “The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Legalization in Massachusetts,” Report to Change the Climate, August.
Murphy, Patrick, Lynn E. Davis, Timothy Liston, David Thaler, and Kathi Webb (2000), Improving Anti-Drug Budgeting: Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Nisbet, Charles T. and Firouz Vakil (1972), “Some Estimates of Price and Expenditure Elasticites of Demand for Marijuana Among U.C.L.A. Students,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 54, 473-475.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (1993), State and Local Spending on Drug Control Activities, Washington, D.C.: ONDCP
Office of National Drug Control Policy (2001a), What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (2001b), The Price of Illicit Drugs: 1981 through Second Quarter of 2000, Washington, D.C: Abt Associates.
Office of National Drug Control Policy (2002), National Drug Control Strategy, Washington, D.C.: ONDCP.
Pacula, Rosalie Liccardo, Michael Grossman, Frank J. Chaloupka, Patrick M. O’Malley, Lloyd D. Johnston, and Matthew C. Farrelly (2000), “Marijuana and Youth,” NBER WP #7703.
Reuter, Peter, Paul Hirschfield, and Curt Davies (2001), “Assessing the Crack-Down on Marijuana in Maryland,” manuscript, University of Maryland.
Schwer, R. Keith, Mary Riddel, and Jason Henderson (2002), “Fiscal Impact of Question 9: Potential State-Revenue Implications,” Center for Business and Economic Research, University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
US Department of Health and Humans Services (2000), Reducing Tobacco Use: A Report of the Surgeon General, Tobacco Taxation Fact Sheet. Accessed at
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/sgr_2000/factsheets/factsheets_taxation.htm.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2004), Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) Highlights – 2002, Washington, D.C.: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Statistics.
Wright, D. (2002), State Estimates of Substance Use from the 2000 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: Volume I, Findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 02-3731, NHSDA Series H-15), Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Statistics.
Table 1: Percentage of Arrests Due to Marijuana Prohibition |
||||||
|
Total Arrests |
MJ Possession |
MJ Sale/Man. |
Poss % |
S/M % |
Poss % /2 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
|
Alabama |
215587 |
11501 |
258 |
0.053 |
0.001 |
0.027 |
Alaska |
40181 |
1239 |
200 |
0.031 |
0.005 |
0.015 |
Arizona |
304142 |
16288 |
1233 |
0.054 |
0.004 |
0.027 |
Arkansas |
218521 |
6846 |
928 |
0.031 |
0.004 |
0.016 |
California |
1428248 |
50149 |
12338 |
0.035 |
0.009 |
0.018 |
Colorado |
282787 |
12067 |
604 |
0.043 |
0.002 |
0.021 |
Connecticut |
146992 |
6751 |
773 |
0.046 |
0.005 |
0.023 |
Delaware |
41515 |
2151 |
131 |
0.052 |
0.003 |
0.026 |
D.C.* |
4009 |
32 |
0 |
0.008 |
0.000 |
0.004 |
Florida* |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0.043 |
.006 |
0.022 |
Georgia |
429674 |
24321 |
4093 |
0.057 |
0.010 |
0.028 |
Hawaii |
64463 |
1110 |
167 |
0.017 |
0.003 |
0.009 |
Idaho |
76032 |
2949 |
219 |
0.039 |
0.003 |
0.019 |
Illinois* |
319920 |
0 |
0 |
0.043 |
0.006 |
0.000 |
Indiana |
270022 |
14484 |
1806 |
0.054 |
0.007 |
0.027 |
Iowa |
113394 |
6054 |
551 |
0.053 |
0.005 |
0.027 |
Kansas |
78285 |
3277 |
594 |
0.042 |
0.008 |
0.021 |
Kentucky* |
160899 |
10669 |
1188 |
0.066 |
0.007 |
0.033 |
Louisiana |
297098 |
14941 |
2526 |
0.050 |
0.009 |
0.025 |
Maine |
57203 |
3294 |
554 |
0.058 |
0.010 |
0.029 |
Maryland |
318056 |
17113 |
2711 |
0.054 |
0.009 |
0.027 |
Massachusetts |
160342 |
8975 |
1365 |
0.056 |
0.009 |
0.028 |
Michigan |
413174 |
14629 |
2050 |
0.035 |
0.005 |
0.018 |
Minnesota |
269010 |
9325 |
6782 |
0.035 |
0.025 |
0.017 |
Mississippi |
202007 |
9925 |
1054 |
0.049 |
0.005 |
0.025 |
Missouri |
322775 |
13202 |
1338 |
0.041 |
0.004 |
0.020 |
Montana |
30396 |
384 |
35 |
0.013 |
0.001 |
0.006 |
Nebraska |
97324 |
6787 |
326 |
0.070 |
0.003 |
0.035 |
Nevada |
148656 |
3828 |
933 |
0.026 |
0.006 |
0.013 |
New Hampshire |
50830 |
3706 |
550 |
0.073 |
0.011 |
0.036 |
New Jersey |
375049 |
20285 |
3058 |
0.054 |
0.008 |
0.027 |
New Mexico |
112829 |
2966 |
325 |
0.026 |
0.003 |
0.013 |
New York |
1295374 |
101739 |
11309 |
0.079 |
0.009 |
0.039 |
North Carolina |
523920 |
21179 |
2539 |
0.040 |
0.005 |
0.020 |
North Dakota |
27846 |
896 |
137 |
0.032 |
0.005 |
0.016 |
Ohio |
533364 |
25420 |
1863 |
0.048 |
0.003 |
0.024 |
Oklahoma |
166004 |
11198 |
1302 |
0.067 |
0.008 |
0.034 |
Oregon |
157748 |
6336 |
283 |
0.040 |
0.002 |
0.020 |
Pennsylvania |
493339 |
16471 |
5057 |
0.033 |
0.010 |
0.017 |
Rhode Island |
35733 |
2200 |
293 |
0.062 |
0.008 |
0.031 |
South Carolina |
216451 |
14348 |
2370 |
0.066 |
0.011 |
0.033 |
South Dakota |
41615 |
2449 |
153 |
0.059 |
0.004 |
0.029 |
Tennessee |
232486 |
12869 |
2586 |
0.055 |
0.011 |
0.028 |
Texas |
1074909 |
55509 |
1926 |
0.052 |
0.002 |
0.026 |
Utah |
125553 |
4192 |
311 |
0.033 |
0.002 |
0.017 |
Vermont |
17565 |
632 |
65 |
0.036 |
0.004 |
0.018 |
Virginia |
303203 |
13140 |
1443 |
0.043 |
0.005 |
0.022 |
Washington |
298474 |
13146 |
1329 |
0.044 |
0.004 |
0.022 |
West Virginia |
51452 |
2618 |
248 |
0.051 |
0.005 |
0.025 |
Wisconsin |
322877 |
45 |
16 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
0.000 |
Wyoming |
34243 |
1633 |
164 |
0.048 |
0.005 |
0.024 |
* Quoting http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/2000cb.pdf : “(3) No arrest data were provided for Washington, DC, and Florida. Limited arrest data were available for Illinois and Kentucky.”
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports accessed at http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/.
Table 2: Expenditures Attributable to Marijuana Prohibition ($ in millions) |
||||||||
Police Budget |
Judicial Budget |
Corrections Budget |
Total |
|||||
State |
Total: |
MJ Prohib: |
Total |
MJ Prohib: |
Total |
MJ Prohib. |
Total |
MJ Prohib. |
Alabama |
656 |
18.28 |
262 |
28.56 |
404 |
4.04 |
1,322 |
51 |
Alaska |
177 |
3.61 |
130 |
14.17 |
175 |
1.75 |
482 |
20 |
Arizona |
1096 |
33.79 |
611 |
66.60 |
955 |
9.55 |
2,662 |
110 |
Arkansas |
351 |
6.99 |
156 |
17.00 |
328 |
3.28 |
835 |
27 |
California |
8703 |
227.97 |
6255 |
681.80 |
7170 |
71.70 |
22,128 |
981 |
Colorado |
830 |
19.48 |
329 |
35.86 |
820 |
8.20 |
1,979 |
64 |
Connecticut |
682 |
19.25 |
430 |
46.87 |
554 |
5.54 |
1,666 |
72 |
Delaware |
166 |
4.82 |
90 |
9.81 |
228 |
2.28 |
484 |
17 |
Florida |
3738 |
103.19 |
1396 |
152.16 |
3272 |
32.72 |
8,406 |
288 |
Georgia |
1279 |
48.38 |
525 |
57.23 |
1375 |
13.75 |
3,179 |
119 |
Hawaii |
222 |
2.49 |
180 |
19.62 |
153 |
1.53 |
555 |
24 |
Idaho |
207 |
4.61 |
102 |
11.12 |
191 |
1.91 |
500 |
18 |
Illinois |
3053 |
84.28 |
961 |
104.75 |
1763 |
17.63 |
5,777 |
207 |
Indiana |
843 |
28.25 |
325 |
35.43 |
727 |
7.27 |
1,895 |
71 |
Iowa |
426 |
13.44 |
253 |
27.58 |
298 |
2.98 |
977 |
44 |
Kansas |
430 |
12.26 |
206 |
22.45 |
349 |
3.49 |
985 |
38 |
Kentucky |
488 |
19.78 |
290 |
31.61 |
610 |
6.10 |
1,388 |
57 |
Louisiana |
829 |
27.89 |
359 |
39.13 |
780 |
7.80 |
1,968 |
75 |
Maine |
164 |
6.31 |
69 |
7.52 |
123 |
1.23 |
356 |
15 |
Maryland |
1120 |
39.68 |
489 |
53.30 |
1104 |
11.04 |
2,713 |
104 |
Massachusetts |
1479 |
53.98 |
628 |
68.45 |
795 |
7.95 |
2,902 |
130 |
Michigan |
1792 |
40.62 |
905 |
98.65 |
1853 |
18.53 |
4,550 |
158 |
Minnesotta |
874 |
37.18 |
442 |
48.18 |
591 |
5.91 |
1,907 |
91 |
Mississippi |
404 |
12.03 |
154 |
16.79 |
292 |
2.92 |
850 |
32 |
Missouri |
886 |
21.79 |
359 |
39.13 |
627 |
6.27 |
1,872 |
67 |
Montana |
136 |
1.02 |
66 |
7.19 |
125 |
1.25 |
327 |
9 |
Nebraska |
235 |
8.98 |
96 |
10.46 |
231 |
2.31 |
562 |
22 |
Nevada |
539 |
10.32 |
248 |
27.03 |
471 |
4.71 |
1,258 |
42 |
New Hampshire |
187 |
8.84 |
92 |
10.03 |
115 |
1.15 |
394 |
20 |
New Jersey |
2231 |
78.52 |
948 |
103.33 |
1480 |
14.80 |
4,659 |
197 |
New Mexico |
382 |
6.12 |
167 |
18.20 |
315 |
3.15 |
864 |
27.47 |
New York |
5717 |
274.42 |
2262 |
246.56 |
4392 |
43.92 |
12,371 |
564.90 |
North Carolina |
1318 |
33.03 |
470 |
51.23 |
1159 |
11.59 |
2,947 |
95.85 |
North Dakota |
68 |
1.43 |
55 |
6.00 |
40 |
0.40 |
163 |
7.82 |
Ohio |
2124 |
58.03 |
1158 |
126.22 |
1937 |
19.37 |
5,219 |
203.63 |
Oklahoma |
518 |
21.53 |
193 |
21.04 |
511 |
5.11 |
1,222 |
47.68 |
Oregon |
696 |
15.23 |
356 |
38.80 |
747 |
7.47 |
1,799 |
61.50 |
Pennsylvania |
2220 |
59.82 |
1067 |
116.30 |
2221 |
22.21 |
5,508 |
198.33 |
Rhode Island |
211 |
8.23 |
105 |
11.45 |
139 |
1.39 |
455 |
21.06 |
South Carolina |
653 |
28.79 |
179 |
19.51 |
559 |
5.59 |
1,391 |
53.89 |
South Dakota |
88 |
2.91 |
40 |
4.36 |
81 |
0.81 |
209 |
8.08 |
Tennessee |
940 |
36.47 |
399 |
43.49 |
604 |
6.04 |
1,943 |
86.00 |
Texas |
3204 |
88.47 |
1355 |
147.70 |
3755 |
37.55 |
8,314 |
273.71 |
Utah |
381 |
7.30 |
202 |
22.02 |
351 |
3.51 |
934 |
32.83 |
Vermont |
78 |
1.69 |
39 |
4.25 |
66 |
0.66 |
183 |
6.60 |
Virginia |
1176 |
31.08 |
513 |
55.92 |
1246 |
12.46 |
2,935 |
99.46 |
Washington |
1007 |
26.66 |
470 |
51.23 |
1053 |
10.53 |
2,530 |
88.42 |
West Virginia |
171 |
5.17 |
108 |
11.77 |
184 |
1.84 |
463 |
18.79 |
Wisconsin |
1124 |
0.13 |
440 |
47.96 |
1030 |
10.30 |
2,594 |
58.39 |
Wyoming |
99 |
2.83 |
50 |
5.45 |
98 |
0.98 |
247 |
9.26 |
56,398 |
1,707.41 |
26,984 |
2941.26 |
48447 |
484.47 |
131,829 |
5,133 |
|
Arrest Data: http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/collections/stats/crime/ |
Judicial Percent: Pastore and Maguire (2003), Table 5.42, p.444 |
Budget Data: http://www.census.gov/govs/www/state00.html |
Incarceration Percent: Pastore and Maguire (2003), Table 6.30, p.499 |
Table 3: Federal Expenditure on Marijuana Prohibition, 2002
1. |
Prohibition Enforcement, All Drugs |
$13.6 billion |
|
|
|||
2. |
Marijuana Use Rate, Past Year, 2002 |
11.0% |
|
3. |
Any Illicit Drug Use Rate, Past Year, 2002 |
14.9% |
|
4. |
Ratio |
74% |
|
5. |
Ratio × Line 1 |
$10.0 billion |
|
|
|||
6. |
Percent of All Drug Arrests for MJ, 2001 |
46.0% |
|
7. |
Line 6 × Line 1 |
$6.3 billion |
|
|
|||
8. |
Percent of All Trafficking Arrests for MJ, 2001 |
26% |
|
9. |
Line 8 × Line 1 |
$3.6 billion |
|
|
|||
10. |
Percent of DEA Drug Arrests for MJ, 2002 |
18.6% |
|
11. |
Line 10 × Line 1 |
$2.5 billion |
|
|
|||
12. |
Percent of DEA Drug Convictions for MJ, 2002 |
19.9% |
|
13. |
Line 12 × Line 1 |
$2.7 billion |
Sources:
Line 1: Miron (2003b, p.10).
Lines 2-3: SAMHSA, Office of Applied Statistics, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2002, http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/nhsda/2k2nsduh/Results/apph.htm#tabh.2.
Lines 6 and 8: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online, http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t429.pdf/
Line 10: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online, http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t440.pdf/
Line 12: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics Online, http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t538.pdf
Table 4a: State Marijuana Tax Revenue – Population Method |
|||
|
Population |
Proportion |
Tax Revenue |
Alabama |
4,447,100 |
0.016 |
12.6 |
Alaska |
626,932 |
0.002 |
1.8 |
Arizona |
5,130,632 |
0.018 |
14.6 |
Arkansas |
2,673,400 |
0.009 |
7.6 |
California |
33,871,648 |
0.120 |
96.3 |
Colorado |
4,301,261 |
0.015 |
12.2 |
Connecticut |
3,405,565 |
0.012 |
9.7 |
Delaware |
783,600 |
0.003 |
2.2 |
Dist. Columbia |
572,059 |
0.002 |
1.6 |
Florida |
15,982,378 |
0.057 |
45.4 |
Georgia |
8,186,453 |
0.029 |
23.3 |
Hawaii |
1,211,537 |
0.004 |
3.4 |
Idaho |
1,293,953 |
0.005 |
3.7 |
Illinois |
12,419,293 |
0.044 |
35.3 |
Indiana |
6,080,485 |
0.022 |
17.3 |
Iowa |
2,926,324 |
0.010 |
8.3 |
Kansas |
2,688,418 |
0.010 |
7.6 |
Kentucky |
4,041,769 |
0.014 |
11.5 |
Louisiana |
4,468,976 |
0.016 |
12.7 |
Maine |
1,274,923 |
0.005 |
3.6 |
Maryland |
5,296,486 |
0.019 |
15.1 |
Massachusetts |
6,349,097 |
0.023 |
18.0 |
Michigan |
9,938,444 |
0.035 |
28.3 |
Minnesota |
4,919,479 |
0.017 |
14.0 |
Mississippi |
2,844,658 |
0.010 |
8.1 |
Missouri |
5,595,211 |
0.020 |
15.9 |
Montana |
902,195 |
0.003 |
2.6 |
Nebraska |
1,711,263 |
0.006 |
4.9 |
Nevada |
1,998,257 |
0.007 |
5.7 |
New Hampshire |
1,235,786 |
0.004 |
3.5 |
New Jersey |
8,414,350 |
0.030 |
23.9 |
New Mexico |
1,819,046 |
0.006 |
5.2 |
New York |
18,976,457 |
0.067 |
53.9 |
North Carolina |
8,049,313 |
0.029 |
22.9 |
North Dakota |
642,200 |
0.002 |
1.8 |
Ohio |
11,353,140 |
0.040 |
32.3 |
Oklahoma |
3,450,654 |
0.012 |
9.8 |
Oregon |
3,421,399 |
0.012 |
9.7 |
Pennsylvania |
12,281,054 |
0.044 |
34.9 |
Rhode Island |
1,048,319 |
0.004 |
3.0 |
South Carolina |
4,012,012 |
0.014 |
11.4 |
South Dakota |
754,844 |
0.003 |
2.1 |
Tennessee |
5,689,283 |
0.020 |
16.2 |
Texas |
20,851,820 |
0.074 |
59.3 |
Utah |
2,233,169 |
0.008 |
6.3 |
Vermont |
608,827 |
0.002 |
1.7 |
Virginia |
7,078,515 |
0.025 |
20.1 |
Washington |
5,894,121 |
0.021 |
16.8 |
West Virginia |
1,808,344 |
0.006 |
5.1 |
Wisconsin |
5,363,675 |
0.019 |
15.2 |
Wyoming |
493,782 |
0.002 |
1.4 |
State Populations: http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-EST2003-ann-est.html
Table 4b: State Marijuana Tax Revenue – Consumption Method |
||||
|
Use Rate† |
User Population |
Use Proportion |
Tax Revenue |
Alabama |
0.044 |
193,449 |
0.011 |
8.9 |
Alaska |
0.098 |
61,251 |
0.004 |
2.8 |
Arizona |
0.055 |
284,237 |
0.016 |
13.0 |
Arkansas |
0.054 |
145,166 |
0.008 |
6.7 |
California |
0.068 |
2,296,498 |
0.132 |
105.4 |
Colorado |
0.089 |
383,672 |
0.022 |
17.6 |
Connecticut |
0.063 |
213,529 |
0.012 |
9.8 |
Delaware |
0.068 |
53,206 |
0.003 |
2.4 |
Dist. Columbia |
0.108 |
61,897 |
0.004 |
2.8 |
Florida |
0.066 |
1,051,640 |
0.060 |
48.2 |
Georgia |
0.051 |
420,784 |
0.024 |
19.3 |
Hawaii |
0.072 |
87,110 |
0.005 |
4.0 |
Idaho |
0.056 |
72,461 |
0.004 |
3.3 |
Illinois |
0.056 |
689,271 |
0.040 |
31.6 |
Indiana |
0.064 |
388,543 |
0.022 |
17.8 |
Iowa |
0.046 |
135,489 |
0.008 |
6.2 |
Kansas |
0.053 |
143,024 |
0.008 |
6.6 |
Kentucky |
0.055 |
221,489 |
0.013 |
10.2 |
Louisiana |
0.064 |
284,227 |
0.016 |
13.0 |
Maine |
0.069 |
88,352 |
0.005 |
4.1 |
Maryland |
0.057 |
302,959 |
0.017 |
13.9 |
Massachusetts |
0.063 |
401,263 |
0.023 |
18.4 |
Michigan |
0.071 |
705,630 |
0.040 |
32.4 |
Minnesota |
0.063 |
311,403 |
0.018 |
14.3 |
Mississippi |
0.050 |
142,802 |
0.008 |
6.6 |
Missouri |
0.061 |
339,070 |
0.019 |
15.6 |
Montana |
0.087 |
78,581 |
0.005 |
3.6 |
Nebraska |
0.064 |
109,179 |
0.006 |
5.0 |
Nevada |
0.086 |
172,450 |
0.010 |
7.9 |
New Hampshire |
0.099 |
121,725 |
0.007 |
5.6 |
New Jersey |
0.050 |
420,718 |
0.024 |
19.3 |
New Mexico |
0.059 |
106,596 |
0.006 |
4.9 |
New York |
0.075 |
1,427,030 |
0.082 |
65.5 |
North Carolina |
0.056 |
448,347 |
0.026 |
20.6 |
North Dakota |
0.056 |
35,771 |
0.002 |
1.6 |
Ohio |
0.067 |
759,525 |
0.044 |
34.8 |
Oklahoma |
0.052 |
180,469 |
0.010 |
8.3 |
Oregon |
0.090 |
306,557 |
0.018 |
14.1 |
Pennsylvania |
0.054 |
664,405 |
0.038 |
30.5 |
Rhode Island |
0.095 |
99,485 |
0.006 |
4.6 |
South Carolina |
0.050 |
198,996 |
0.011 |
9.1 |
South Dakota |
0.057 |
42,875 |
0.002 |
2.0 |
Tennessee |
0.047 |
266,827 |
0.015 |
12.2 |
Texas |
0.049 |
1,015,484 |
0.058 |
46.6 |
Utah |
0.046 |
102,502 |
0.006 |
4.7 |
Vermont |
0.100 |
61,126 |
0.004 |
2.8 |
Virginia |
0.064 |
455,149 |
0.026 |
20.9 |
Washington |
0.081 |
479,192 |
0.027 |
22.0 |
West Virginia |
0.050 |
90,056 |
0.005 |
4.1 |
Wisconsin |
0.054 |
291,784 |
0.017 |
13.4 |
Wyoming |
0.052 |
25,578 |
0.001 |
1.2 |
†Marijuana Use Rates: http://oas.samhsa.gov/2k2State/html/appA.htm#taba.1
Appendix A: Percentage of Corrections Population Incarcerated on Marijuana Charges
State-by-state data on the fraction of prisoners incarcerated on marijuana charges are not available, but data for a few states provide reasonable estimates of this fraction. This appendix displays the available information.
State |
Year |
% Incarcerated for MJ Violation |
Population |
Pop % |
Weighted Share |
California |
2003 |
0.008 |
33,871,648 |
0.568 |
0.005 |
Georgia |
2000 |
0.014 |
8,186,453 |
0.137 |
0.002 |
Massachusetts |
2000 |
0.017 |
6,349,097 |
0.107 |
0.002 |
Michigan |
2001 |
0.006 |
9,938,444 |
0.167 |
0.001 |
New Hampshire |
2002 |
0.016 |
1,235,786 |
0.021 |
0.000 |
Total |
0.061 |
59,581,428 |
|||
Average: |
|
0.012 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted Average |
|
0.010 |
Sources:
New Hampshire: http://www.state.nh.us/doc/population.html.
California: http://www.corr.ca.gov/OffenderInfoServices/Reports/Annual/CensusArchive.asp.
Michigan: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/2001Stat_79881_7.pdf
Georgia: http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/pdf/inms03-12.pdf
Massachusetts: Miron (2002, pp.4-5).
Appendix B: Revenue Under Prohibition from Seizures and Fines
State-by-state data on fines and seizures are not available. There is sufficient information, however, to estimate an upper bound on the revenue from fines and seizures. There are also data on federal fines and seizures.
Seizures:
The two main sources of federal seizure revenue are the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. Customs Service. In 2002, the DEA made seizures totaling $438 million.[32] In 2001, the U.S. Customs Service seized property valued at $592 million.[33] These figures overstate revenue since some defendants recovered their seized property. The Customs seizures overstate revenue related to drugs because the figure includes seizures for all reasons, such as violation of gun laws, intellectual property laws, and the like. There may also be double-counting between the DEA seizures and the U.S. Customs seizures.
Summing together the two components yields $1,030 million (= $438+$592 million) as the seizure revenue that results from enforcement of drug laws. This figure must be adjusted downward, however, to separate out the portion due to violation of marijuana laws as opposed to other drug laws. As shown in Table 3, approximately 20% of the federal drug enforcement budget is attributable to marijuana, so it is reasonable to assume approximately 20% of the fines and seizures correspond to enforcement of marijuana laws.
Thus, seizure revenue at the federal level due to marijuana prosecutions is roughly $206.0 million annually.
State and local data on forfeiture revenue are not readily available for all states Baicker and Jacobson (2004), however, estimate using a sample of states that state forfeiture revenue per capita was roughly $1.14 during the 1994-2001 period. This implies aggregate state forfeiture revenue of $342 million. Deflating by 26%, the fraction of all drug trafficking arrests due to marijuana, implies that marijuana seizures yield $89 million to state governments.
Fines: In 2001, the total quantity of fines and restitutions ordered for drug offense cases in U.S. District Courts was just under $41 million.[34] Adjusting this by the 20% figure implies $8.2 million from marijuana cases. Assuming the ratio of state/local to federal fine revenue is similar to ratio of state/local to federal seizure revenue implies that state and local fines/restitution from marijuana cases is about $3.5 million.
Footnotes
[1] See, for example, the estimates in Miron (2002) versus those in Miron (2003c).
[2] This report addresses only the criminal justice costs of enforcing marijuana prohibition; it does not address any possible changes in prevention, education, or treatment expenses that might accompany marijuana legalization. The narrower approach is appropriate because the decision to prohibit marijuana is separate from the decision to subsidize prevention, education and treatment activities. Marijuana legalization might nevertheless cause some reduction in government expenditure for demand-side policies. For example, legalization would likely mean reduced criminal justice referrals of marijuana offenders to treatment; this category accounted for 58.1% of marijuana treatment referrals in 2002 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2004, Table 4, p.15)). Thus, the approach adopted here implies a conservative estimate of the reduction in government expenditure from marijuana legalization.
[3] For example, under current rules regarding parole and probation, a positive urine test for marijuana can send a parolee or probationer to prison, regardless of the original offense. These rules might change under legalization, implying additional reductions in government expenditure.
[4] The key assumption is that the technology is constant-returns to scale, so that average costs equal marginal costs. This equivalence is not necessarily accurate in the short-run or for very small communities but is likely a good approximation overall.
[5] This part of the report relies on data for 2000 since that is the last year for which complete information on arrests is available. After estimating expenditure for 2000, the report adjusts for inflation between 2000 and 2003.
[6] To the extent it takes additional resources to process an arrestee on multiple charges rather than on a single charge, there is still a net utilization of police resources in such cases due to prohibition. In addition, there is typically a lab test to determine the precise content of any drugs seized when there is an arrest on drugs charges, implying utilization of additional resources due to prohibition. A different issue is that in some cases, police stops for non-drug charges that discover drugs and produce an arrest on drugs charges might not have led to any arrest in the absence of the drug charge (e.g., because of insufficient evidence).
[7] Lewis (2004) reports that the fraction of stand-alone arrests on all drug charges in the city of Syracuse, NY was 90.5% in 2002.
[8] Gettman and Fuller (2003) obtain a similar estimate to that reported here for Virginia in 2001.
[9] The data on felony convictions are from Durose and Langan (2003, Table 1, p.2).
[10] The fraction of felony convictions for any type of drug is from Durose and Langan (2003, Table 1, p.2).
[11] This report excludes the capital outlays portion of the corrections budget, since the available data do not indicate the average rate of such expenditures. This biases the estimates downward.
[12] Most seized assets are ultimately forfeited.
[13] Inflation rate data are for the CPI - All Urban Consumers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data).
[14] The figure here for Massachusetts exceeds that in Miron (2003c) because this report assumes 50% of possession arrests are due to marijuana prohibition while the earlier report assumed 33%. The 50% figure is more appropriate here because the analysis covers all states rather than just Massachusetts.
[15] As a check, it is useful to compare the $5.1 billion figure provided here to that derived from an alternative methodology. ONDCP (1993) reports survey evidence on drug prohibition enforcement by state and local authorities for the years 1990/1991. Adjusting these data for inflation and the percent attributable to marijuana prohibition yields an estimate similar to that reported above.
[16] The approach utilized here differs from that employed in the case of state and local expenditure because of differences in the kinds of data available. Utilizing an approach that is similar to the extent possible yields an estimate of federal marijuana enforcement expenditure that is similar to the estimate provided in the text.
[17] This consists of expenditure in the following categories: DC Court Services and Offender Supervision ($86.4 million); Department of Defense ($1,008.5 million); Intelligence Community Management Account ($42.8 million); The Judiciary ($819.7 million); Department of Justice ($8,140.1 million); ONDCP ($533.3 million); Department of State ($832.6 million); Department of Transportation ($591.4 million); and Department of Treasury ($1,546.8 million). See ONDCP (2002), p.29-31.
[18] Murphy, Davis, Liston, Thaler and Webb (2000) examine the methods used by ONDCP to estimate this expenditure. They conclude that methodological problems render parts of the estimates biased, in some cases by substantial amounts. These issues do not imply major qualifications to the data considered here, however. Murphy et al. find that the anti-drug budgets of the Coast Guard and the Bureau of Prisons are accurate reflections of the resources expended while the reported expenditure of the Department of Defense probably underestimates its anti-drug budget. The overestimates that they identify occur for demand-side activities.
[19] The 2003 National Drug Control Strategy adopts a new methodology for estimating the federal drug control budget. This new methodology implies a substantial reduction in supply side expenditure (ONDCP (2002, pp.33-34)). For the purposes of this report, the old methodology is more appropriate. For example, the new approach excludes expenditures on incarceration of persons imprisoned for drug crimes.
[20] The percentage of prisoners whose primary offense was a marijuana charge would also be relevant, but data are not readily available. Since most convictions at the federal level result in prison terms, incarceration data would imply a similar result to that provided above.
[21] Inflation rate data are for the CPI - All Urban Consumers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data).
[22] To be explicit, the assumption is that there is no shift in the demand curve. If the supply curve shifts, there will be a change in the quantity demanded.
[23] The underlying assumption is that the marginal costs of evading tax and regulatory costs is zero for black market suppliers who are already conducting their activities in secret.
[24] MacCoun and Reuter (1997) report gram prices of $2.50-$12.50 in the Netherlands and $1.50 - $15.00 in the U.S. They speculate that the surprisingly high prices in the Netherlands might reflect enforcement aimed at large-scale trafficking. Harrison, Backenheimer, and Inciardi (1995) note that ONDCP data on drug prices in the U.S. are very similar to prices charged in Dutch coffeeshops. ONDCP (2001b) reports a price per gram for small-scale purchases of roughly $9 per gram in the second quarter of 2000, while EMCDDA (2002) suggests a price of 2-8 Euros per gram, which is roughly $6 on average. Various web sites that discuss the coffee shops in Amsterdam suggest prices of $5 - $11 per gram in recent years. These comparisons do not adjust for potency or other dimensions of quality.
[25] Clements and Daryal (2001) report marijuana prices for Australia that are similar to or higher than those in the United States. Since Australian marijuana policy is noticeably less strict than U.S. policy, this observation is consistent with the view that legalization would not produce a dramatic fall in price.
[26] The Nisbet and Vakil estimates that use survey data imply price elasticities of -0.365 or -0.51 in the log and linear specifications, respectively, while the purchase data imply price elasticities of -1.013 and -1.51. The estimates based on purchase data are plausibly more reliable. Moreover, as they note, these estimates are likely biased downward by standard simultaneous equations bias. Clemens and Daryal (1999) estimate a price elasticity of -0.5 for marijuana using Australian data. Estimates of the demand for “similar” goods (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, heroin, or tobacco) suggest similar elasticities.
[27] Pacula, Grossman, Chaloupka, O’Malley, Johnston and Farrelly (2000) summarize the literature on the relation between marijuana use and factors that can affect use, such as legal penalties. They conclude the evidence is mixed but overall indicates a moderate response of marijuana consumption to “price.” The papers summarized do not provide measures of the price elasticity. The results reported by Pacula et al. suggest an elasticity of marijuana participation between 0.0 and -0.5; this understates the total elasticity, which includes any change in consumption conditional on participation. The literature since Nisbet and Vakil is thus consistent with the elasticity estimate assumed above.
[28] Given the uncertainties involved in calculating the tax revenue from marijuana legalization and the possibility that declines in marijuana prices have offset general inflation since 2000, this report omits any adjustment of the tax revenue for inflation. Such an adjustment would make only a small difference in any case.
[29] In 2001, total government receipts divided by GDP equaled 29.7%. See the 2003 Economic Report of the President on-line, http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/pdf/2003_erp.pdf, Tables B-1 and B-92, pp. 276 and 373.
[30] Whether such production is illicit depends on the details of a legalization law. Plausibly, growing small amounts for personal use would not be subject to taxation or regulation, just as growing small amounts of vegetables or herbs is not subject to taxation or regulation.
[31] Schwer, Riddel and Henderson (2002) estimate the tax revenue from marijuana legalization in Nevada assuming “sin taxation.” Their estimates are not readily comparable to those presented here because they consider the situation in which one state legalizes marijuana while other states and the federal government prohibit marijuana. The same comment applies to Bates (2004), who estimates the tax revenue from marijuana legalization in Alaska. Easton (2004) estimates the tax revenue from marijuana legalization in Canada under the assumption of sin taxation. His estimates are comparable but modestly higher than those presented here, adjusted for the different size of the U.S. and Canadian economies. Caputo and Ostrom (1994) provide estimates for the overall economy that are similar to those obtained here.
[32] See http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t442.pdf.
[33] See http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t444.pdf.
[34] See http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/1995/pdf/t531.pdf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
