Are Politicians Finally Catching Up to Public Attitudes About Marijuana?

By TChris, Section Crime Policy
Posted on Thu May 07, 2009 at 05:37:24 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The recession and its impact on state tax revenues and budgeting may be the excuse that politicians need to shift their public positions from "just say no" to "just tax the smokers." California's Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger this week called for "a large-scale study" to assess the potential impact of legalizing and taxing the recreational use of marijuana in the state.

“I think it’s time for a debate,” he said. “I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues; I’m always for an open debate on it. And I think we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs. What effect did it have on those countries?”

A rational political debate is long overdue. The public is much more accepting of the medical and recreational use of marijuana than the legislators who represent them. Most legislators (particularly those who have served several terms) are stuck in the 1980's mindset that nobody ever won an election by being soft on crime. Whatever merit that assumption about voter attitudes retains as to violent and property crimes, it does not reflect the growing public acceptance (or at least tolerance) of recreational marijuana use. [more ...]

The evolving acceptance of marijuana consumption is illustrated by the difference in media attention given to the "youthful indiscretions" of our most recent presidents. When he reluctantly admitted during the 1992 campaign that he "experimented with marijuana a time or two" while studying in England, Bill Clinton felt compelled to add that he "didn't like it, and didn't inhale, and never tried it again." The New York Times and Washington Post nonetheless made Clinton's drug experimentation a front page story.

Contrast that coverage with the domestic media's relative inattention to George's Bush's "strong hint" that he smoked weed in his younger days. Even more glaring is the public's reaction to Barack Obama's admission that as a high school student, he used not just marijuana, but cocaine. While it's probably true (as a Washington Post story suggested) that Americans love redemption stories, it's also true that voters are a whole lot less excited about the perceived evils of illicit drug use than they used to be. This video, after all, wasn't a serious issue in Gov. Schwarzenegger's election campaign. Kids who grew up making fun of "Reefer Madness" are now adults who don't see the point of imprisoning people for sharing the indulgences of our three most recent presidents.

Most rational politicians understand (and many privately agree with) the public's changing viewpoint, but until now they have rarely had the courage to stand up in public and advocate the decriminalization or legalization of marijuana. Faced with a choice between higher taxes or shrinking services to balance state budgets, today's voters are even more inclined to consider legalizing marijuana. This is particularly true in California:

A Field Poll from April showed 56 percent of the state’s registered voters in support of legalizing and taxing marijuana for recreational use to fill some of the budget deficit.

The "legalize and tax" strategy -- or at least a "decriminalize and don't jail" approach to marijuana -- is gaining its most rapid momentum in blue states like California. Its success is uncertain given that legalization under state law can't override the federal prohibition against marijuana distribution. How many marijuana growers would be willing to sell their product openly, much less declare their income on tax returns, knowing that they might be subject to federal prosecution?

The immediate prospects for federal legalization (or even decriminalization) appear dim. President Obama recently rejected the notion that legalizing marijuana "is a good strategy to grow our economy." But states are the laboratories for democracy, and if state politicians (and newspaper editorialists) begin to support the "legalize and tax" strategy, the Democratic majorities in Congress (while we still have them) may be inclined to listen. The time has never been riper for a dramatic change in the criminal justice system's approach to marijuana use.

< NJ Supreme Court Tosses Local Laws Restricting Residency of Sex Offenders | The Case Against Jeffrey Rosen >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Are Politicians Finally Catching Up to Public Attitudes About Marijuana? | 12 comments (12 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Apparently Gov. Schwartzenneger (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Thu May 07, 2009 at 06:02:06 PM EST

didn't mention his idea on making MJ legal and taxing it when he was in San Diego yesterday. County Supervisor Diane Jacobs appeared with the Governor. She sd.: I'm agin it. Gateway drug, etc.

I continue (none / 0) (#2)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 08, 2009 at 09:10:10 AM EST

to cling to the hope that economics will drive this debate into serious territory where logic and justice can not.

: for example (none / 0) (#3)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 08, 2009 at 10:08:47 AM EST

California could run out of money as soon as July, the Legislature's chief budget analyst warned Thursday, as a new poll showed voters poised to reject five budget-related measures on the May 19 ballot.
If the propositions do not pass, the state could find itself as much as $23 billion short of the money it needs to pay its bills over the next year, according to a new forecast by Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor. The poll, from the Public Policy Institute of California, found that even as voter interest in the ballot measures rises, all are trailing except the sixth one -- Proposition 1F, which would bar pay hikes for lawmakers in deficit years. ...
Adding to the fiscal woes, the Obama administration is threatening to pull $6.8 billion in stimulus funds from California in a dispute over an earlier state budget cut.
"The Legislature is going to need to act promptly," said state Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer. "We have a fairly short window to get a lot done."
On Thursday, the administration advised law enforcement officials that it was preparing plans to commute the sentences of 38,000 state prison inmates, including all illegal immigrants. It also is considering closing some prisons and sending inmates to county jails, according to a copy of the proposal obtained by The Times.
Under the plan, 19,000 illegal immigrants -- 11% of state prisoners -- would be turned over to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency after having their sentences commuted. An additional 19,000 "relatively low-risk offenders" would have their sentences commuted as well.
Earlier in the week, the administration warned local officials that it may raid their budgets for $2 billion and close firehouses.

Nothing like an impersonal force (none / 0) (#4)
by SeeEmDee on Fri May 08, 2009 at 10:10:03 AM EST

to take the heat instead of a person.

Yes, the pols who know the score but were afraid of the drug prohibition screech-monkeys (who are joined at the hip with alcohol producers, Big Pharma and LE unions) are now able to point to the economy and say that it's either legalize and tax weed, or tax people higher than they are already. A 'sin tax' is just the ticket.

The screech-monkeys will rend their garments and wail and grind their teeth, predicting Doomsday ("dogs and cats, living together mass hysteria!") while anyone sane will quickly realize what a crock cannabis prohibition has been, and consider the rest of the DrugWar in need of retirement-without-pension.

: why do I think (none / 0) (#5)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 08, 2009 at 10:23:26 AM EST

the threat of commuting the sentences of all illegal aliens will wake these people up?

Taxing marijuana is a silly argument (none / 0) (#6)
by MyLeftMind on Fri May 08, 2009 at 11:53:05 AM EST

for legalization. Spending less on the drug war clearly saves money, but unless the law says you can smoke it but not grow it, it'll be planted everywhere. And if growing pot is regulated and monitored, the government overhead would exceed the tax revenues generated. It's not like alcohol, which is harder to make and easier to control and tax. Pot plants will be grown all over the country, from garages and backyards to national parks and open fields.

Not much opportunity to tax something if you can't control its production.

True enough... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Fri May 08, 2009 at 11:57:55 AM EST

gardens would prop up everywhere...but people are notoriously lazy and want instant gratification....it will sell on the marketplace subject to tax too.

We still sell a sh*tload of tomatos, even though its easy to grow your own tomatos...for example. And most home gardens won't be of the finest quality strains...its easy to grow, but not that easy to grow the best sh*t.


Sure, but how much tax revenue is generated (none / 0) (#8)
by MyLeftMind on Fri May 08, 2009 at 12:14:03 PM EST

from the guys selling tomatoes on the side of the road? Pot might be available through government regulated stores, but don't expect it to show up in your local supermarket. People will produce their own stash and share with others who do the same for them, especially if the price is high due to taxation. And many more will become dealers, since the government won't be on their butts so much. Most people I know who have smoked for twenty years or more don't sell it anyway, they grow their own and trade it or give it away because if you never sell, you won't get busted for dealing.

Anyhow, taxes can't begin to cover the cost of regulating the product and the long term health impact of a huge percentage of the population smoking pot. Oh wait, I forgot that pot prevents cancer...


In my heavy smoking circles.... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Fri May 08, 2009 at 12:22:08 PM EST

nobody grows...we all buy. I need to meet your friends:) I knew a few who tried...the quailty was subpar.

I tend to think even with a hefty tax, the price is coming down from current black market prices, considering the low cost of production. So buying from the store with a hefty tax is still a net gain for the user.

Regardless, the cost of regulating has gotta be miniscule by comparison to the cost of prohibiting. And as for the health impact, this is one of the safest intoxicants known to man, and I tend to think everybody who wants to smoke is already smoking.


yes (none / 0) (#10)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 08, 2009 at 12:55:57 PM EST

me too. I could grow tomatoes. they would even taste better. but I buy them because I am lazy.
I suspect most people would buy pot the same way they buy everything else.


: also (none / 0) (#11)
by Capt Howdy on Fri May 08, 2009 at 12:57:04 PM EST

unless you really know what you are doing its going to be way better if you buy it.

In 2001 CA alcohol tax revenues were (none / 0) (#12)
by JSN on Fri May 08, 2009 at 01:08:12 PM EST

$288 million and a CA legislator claims that MJ tax revenues will amount to $1.3 billion. I doubt that a tax on MJ will bring in more revenue than a tax on alcohol. In the case of alcohol it is a lot easier to control the source of supply as other have already noted. A much better economic argument is to determine the cost savings from reduced law enforcement, prosecution, supervision and incarceration.

OTOH I agree we are long past due for a general public discussion about developing a rational policy on drug abuse. We have had ample proof by demonstration that the criminal justice approach has been an expensive failure. We know from experience that there is a high relapse rate for both drug and alcohol abuse so the public health approach will mitigate but not solve the problem. My view is that mitigation is our best option.