Monday, October 15, 2007

Ever Wonder?


How much the U.S. spends on the eradication of a plant? Whether you approve, eschew, or even partake, $42 billion is a lot of money. Do you feel safer yet?

The War on Pot: America's $42 Billion Annual Boondoggle
By Rob Kampia, AlterNet
Posted on October 9, 2007

What would you buy if you had an extra $42 billion to spend every year? What might our government buy if it suddenly had that much money dropped onto its lap every year?

For one thing, it might pay for the entire $7 billion annual increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program that President Bush is threatening to veto because of its cost -- and there'd still be $35 billion left over.

Or perhaps you'd hire 880,000 schoolteachers at the average U.S. teacher salary of $47,602 per year.

Or give every one of our current teachers a 30 percent raise (at a cost of $15 billion, according to the American Federation of Teachers) and use what's left to take a $27 billion whack out of the federal deficit.

Or use all $42 billion for a massive tax cut that would put an extra $140 in the pockets of every person in the country -- $560 for a family of four.

The mind reels at the ways such a massive sum of money could be put to use.

Why $42 billion? Because that's what our current marijuana laws cost American taxpayers each year, according to a new study by researcher Jon Gettman, Ph.D. -- $10.7 billion in direct law enforcement costs, and $31.1 billion in lost tax revenues. And that may be an underestimate, at least on the law enforcement side, since Gettman made his calculations before the FBI released its latest arrest statistics in late September. The new FBI stats show an all-time record 829,627 marijuana arrests in 2006, 43,000 more than in 2005.

That's like arresting every man, woman and child in the state of North Dakota plus every man, woman, and child in Des Moines, Iowa on marijuana charges ... every year. Arrests for marijuana possession -- not sales or trafficking, just possession -- totaled 738,916. By comparison, there were 611,523 arrests last year for all violent crimes combined.

Basing his calculations mainly on U.S. government statistics, Gettman concludes that marijuana in the U.S. is a $113 billion dollar business. That's a huge chunk of economic activity that is unregulated and untaxed because it's almost entirely off the books.

Of course, the cost of our marijuana laws goes far beyond lost tax revenues and money spent on law enforcement. By consigning a very popular product -- one that's been used by about 100 million Americans, according to government surveys -- to the criminal underground, we've effectively cut legitimate businesspeople out of the market and handed a monopoly to criminals and gangs.

Strangely, government officials love to warn us that some unsavory characters profit off of marijuana sales, while ignoring the obvious: Our prohibitionist laws handed them the marijuana business in the first place, effectively giving marijuana dealers a $113 billion free ride.

All this might make some sense if marijuana were so terribly dangerous that it needed to be banned at all costs, but science long ago came to precisely the opposite conclusion. Compared to alcohol, for example, marijuana is astonishingly safe. For one thing, marijuana is much less addictive than alcohol, with just nine percent of users becoming dependent, as opposed to 15 percent for booze. And marijuana is much less toxic. Heavy drinking is well-documented to damage the brain and liver, and to increase the risk of many types of cancer. Marijuana, on the other hand, has never caused a medically documented overdose death, and scientists are still debating whether even heavy marijuana use causes any permanent harm at all. And then there's violence. Again, the scientific findings are overwhelming: Booze incites violence and aggression; marijuana doesn't.

Despite all that, we now arrest one American every 38 seconds on marijuana charges. And we do so at a staggering cost in law enforcement expenses, lost tax revenues, and staggering profits for criminal gangs.

The alternative is clear: Regulate marijuana just as we do beer, wine, and liquor. The only thing lacking is the political will.

Rob Kampia is executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project in Washington, DC.

11 comments:

Coffee Messiah said...

You know, along with billions spent on the middle east, not to mention all the other frivolous things the government spends our tax money on, we should not have such a sad state of education compared to other countries, we should not have to go without affordable health care, we should not have anyone homeless, going without basic food stuffs, etc, etc, etc.

Been boggling my mind since "way back when!"

Cheers!

BBC said...

I think that Willie Nelson would agree with you. I'm not sure what to think, it's just a big mess. But I'm not against making it legal and taxing it.

Taradharma said...

but annie...we can't start makin sense NOW....

Tree said...

We need more people to speak out against this so-called war against drugs and turn the tide.

alan said...

In my youth, I had always thought it would be legal again by now. It's amazing how effective Hearst was at demonizing this back in the day!

That he lined his own pockets by doing so only adds to the irony!

alan

Paula said...

Should be legal, regulated, and taxed, same as booze. Pot is not in the same category as coke and heroin. Great post!

Troy said...

i'll take some mendocino green please

JoJo said...

It's ridiculous what they spend on trying to eradicate this natural plant.

My personal fave is BC Bud, but that's to be expected living here in Washington!!

Anne said...

holy shit!
that was the most insane spam bomb ever! it was so out-there, i almost saved it. (key word-almost)

O' Tim said...

Sorry I missed it.

I'll say again - until a "breathalizer" type test that can determine if someone is DUI of THC (NOT toked three days ago) is developed, there will never be the crucial turn of law enforcement support needed to change MJ laws.

And FTR, I'm pretty cheesed off by the whole medical MJ movement. Not that I don't have sympathy for those who truly benefit medically (and let's be honest about what that percentage might be), but trying to back-door recreational use in this way is just complicating things and setting the whole deal back. People need to stand up and say "I just like to toke like you like to have your appletinis, kay?"

Naomi said...

Arriving unfashionably late here, but love the post. I share the sentiments expressed, except I don't look forward to the day of paying tax on my marijuana!

Since my nearest corner store started selling liquor, there's rarely a time when there isn't some booze-smelly person in there buying more. And then heading back out onto the highway. My theory is that the stoned people tend to either stay home or drive verrry verrry cawwwtiously.