Harvard Study: $7.7 Billion spent on National Marijuana Law Enforcement

Lets see:

$7.7 billion divided by $24,000 (the cost of tuition for the University of North Texas), and you get 320,833 people that could have gone to college with the money our government pisses away every year and that's just the war on mary jane, not counting the billions we spend on Colombia.



Pubdate: Thu, 2 Jun 2005
Source: Forbes Com (US Web)
Copyright: 2005 Forbes Inc.
Website: http://www.forbes.com/breakingnews/
Author: Quentin Hardy, Manager of the Silicon Valley Bureau, Forbes
Cited: The report, "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition"


MILTON FRIEDMAN: LEGALIZE IT!

SAN FRANCISCO, CA - A founding father of the Reagan Revolution has put his
John Hancock on a pro-pot report.

Milton Friedman leads a list of more than 500 economists from around the
U.S. who today will publicly endorse a Harvard University economist's
report on the costs of marijuana prohibition and the potential revenue
gains from the U.S. government instead legalizing it and taxing its sale.
Ending prohibition enforcement would save $7.7 billion in combined state
and federal spending, the report says, while taxation would yield up to
$6.2 billion a year.

The report, "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition,"
(available at www.prohibitioncosts.org) was written by Jeffrey A. Miron, a
professor at Harvard , and largely paid for by the Marijuana Policy Project
(MPP), a Washington, D.C., group advocating the review and liberalization
of marijuana laws.

At times the report uses some debatable assumptions: For instance, Miron
assumes a single figure for every type of arrest, for example, but the
average pot bust is likely cheaper than bringing in a murder or kidnapping
suspect. Friedman and other economists, however, say the overall work is
some of the best yet done on the costs of the war on marijuana.

At 92, Friedman is revered as one of the great champions of free-market
capitalism during the years of U.S. rivalry with Communism. He is also
passionate about the need to legalize marijuana, among other drugs, for
both financial and moral reasons.

"There is no logical basis for the prohibition of marijuana," the economist
says, "$7.7 billion is a lot of money, but that is one of the lesser evils.
Our failure to successfully enforce these laws is responsible for the
deaths of thousands of people in Colombia. I haven't even included the harm
to young people. It's absolutely disgraceful to think of picking up a
22-year-old for smoking pot. More disgraceful is the denial of marijuana
for medical purposes."

Securing the signatures of Friedman, along with economists from Cornell,
Stanford and Yale universities, among others, is a coup for the MPP, a
group largely interested in widening and publicizing debate over the
usefulness of laws against pot.

If the laws change, large beneficiaries might include large agricultural
groups like Archer Daniels Midland and ConAgra Foods as potential growers
or distributors and liquor businesses like Constellation Brands and Allied
Domecq, which understand the distribution of intoxicants. Surprisingly,
Home Depot and other home gardening centers would not particularly benefit,
according to the report, which projects that few people would grow their
own marijuana, the same way few people distill whiskey at home. Canada's
large-scale domestic marijuana growing industry (see "Inside Dope")
suggests otherwise, however.

The report will likely not sway all minds. The White House Office of Drug
Control Policy recently published an analysis of marijuana incarceration
that states that "most people in prison for marijuana are violent
criminals, repeat offenders, traffickers or all of the above." The office
declined to comment on the marijuana economics study, however, without
first analyzing the study's methodology.

Friedman's advocacy on the issue is limited--the nonagenarian prefers to
write these days on the need for school choice, calling U.S. literacy
levels "absolutely criminal...only sustained because of the power of the
teachers' unions." Yet his thinking on legalizing drugs extends well past
any MPP debate or the kind of liberalization favored by most advocates.

"I've long been in favor of legalizing all drugs," he says, but not because
of the standard libertarian arguments for unrestricted personal freedom.
"Look at the factual consequences: The harm done and the corruption created
by these laws...the costs are one of the lesser evils."

Not that a man of his years expects reason to triumph. Any added revenues
from taxing legal marijuana would almost certainly be more than spent, by
this or any other Congress.

"Deficits are the only thing that keeps this Congress from spending more"
says Friedman. "Republicans are no different from Democrats. Spending is
the easiest way to buy votes." A sober assessment indeed.


Associated links: http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/mironreport.html
Cited: Marijuana Policy Project http://www.mpp.org
Cited: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/news/press05/051805.html
Referenced: Inside Dope http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1667/a03.html
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/people/Milton+Friedman

With this particular issue, I think this guy is jumping the gun a bit. It must first be seen as medically beneficial by the majority of states, so that a small amount is decriminalized should someone be caught with it on their person. Before that happens, doctors must be allowed to prescribe it to patients without losing their medical license.
Figures aside, you can't just start screaming "Legalize it!" from the rooftops, there has to be more strategy than that.
If he thinks this will fix the country's economic problems, that's great...perhaps it will help, but he's fighting a moral battle in a mostly Conservative nation. Good luck. I think we should worry about all the medicaid benefits we are doling out to the "poor" and to the tobacco users.

[Ash]

Drug enforcement works! I can never get any marijuana no matter how hard I try.

[Hubb]

Bwahahahahahhahahahahaha at ash

DAmn man ....you have any WEED dood?

Originally Posted by tragicallyunhip

Not to beat the same ol' horse, but why did no one have to prove the medicinal benefits of alcohol, caffeine, or nicotine?

Good question. They are still classified as drugs...maybe it has to do something with the era in which they were introduced. Why also is pot treated less criminally in European countries?
Very good point you make there.
The alcohol issue had its day in court with prohibition. But the profit exceeded the health risks. As far as caffeine and nicotine, you got me stumped. It really makes no sense that a cancer patient is advised not to have these things during treatment, yet we hear that the effects of pot curb the nausea and stimulate the appetite, yet if a doc prescribes it in a state that frowns upon it, he loses his license. I guess it really boils down to the fact that the government associates it with "stoners" or street thugs. And that's really too bad...but I still think this guy is skipping over some very crucial steps that must be taken first before a petition like this can successfully be pushed.
=)

It think this groundbreaking study that would compel more taxpayer's to wonder if there is a cheaper way of regulating marijuana. MPP should invest alot more of their money into universities to carry out studies like this.

Originally Posted by Leary

It think this groundbreaking study that would compel more taxpayer's to wonder if there is a cheaper way of regulating marijuana. MPP should invest alot more of their money into universities to carry out studies like this.

Definitely. Hey, I'm all for legalizing it! Since the individual states take a lot of pride in which universities they house, it would be wonderful if they paid attention and at least decriminalized, say under two ounces of it for those who don't have a prescription, and for those who do, they can have more. I know 2 oz. is not much, but hey. It would be a huge breakthrough for the pot smokers, nonetheless. No more getting arrested for having a joint or a nug on you. A ticket, perhaps, but no jail time.
I don't have all the answers, but I've thought about this pretty hard before. We've got enough sex offenders and rapists and murderers out on parole because the prison facilities just don't have the room, so why not remove the pot smokers from the equation?
Then go federal with the issue, especially since they are providing most of the funds that go to the universities. Well, and also the alums. Can't leave them out.

Originally Posted by tragicallyunhip

Not to beat the same ol' horse, but why did no one have to prove the medicinal benefits of alcohol, caffeine, or nicotine?

You don't have to prove anything if most of the world uses of those drugs.

[Chris Allen]

Originally Posted by Luxe

With this particular issue, I think this guy is jumping the gun a bit. It must first be seen as medically beneficial by the majority of states, so that a small amount is decriminalized should someone be caught with it on their person. Before that happens, doctors must be allowed to prescribe it to patients without losing their medical license.
Figures aside, you can't just start screaming "Legalize it!" from the rooftops, there has to be more strategy than that.
If he thinks this will fix the country's economic problems, that's great...perhaps it will help, but he's fighting a moral battle in a mostly Conservative nation. Good luck. I think we should worry about all the medicaid benefits we are doling out to the "poor" and to the tobacco users.

i think what milton has to say is a very legitimate point, if we stop wasting money on punishing those who get caught with it, grow it or smoke it, then there will be billions of more dollars available in the government - thats it. it doesnt need to be accepted medically - its not that harmful of a substance compared to acohol- and that wasnt proven medically helpful before it was legallized - and they never decrimed alcohol before they made it legal. they just changed the law and that was that. why shouldnt they do it for pot?? sure they will have to regulate pot use but so what, thats just some paper work.

alcohol had the same stigma as pot does during alcohol's prohibition, it was illegal but lots of people still did it and made it reguardless. it caused lots of problems due to prohibition and now that alcohol is legal, there is LESS criminal activty surrounding it. this would happen with weed too IMO.

Well the avg. cost per taxpayer to rid America of marijuana is $26.00 (and the marijuana crusade makes up most of the DEA budget), so we should try and match that amount in donations to www.MPP.org or give whatever you can. The more we give, the more studies they can do and then we win.

Originally Posted by unreal

i think what milton has to say is a very legitimate point, if we stop wasting money on punishing those who get caught with it, grow it or smoke it, then there will be billions of more dollars available in the government - thats it. it doesnt need to be accepted medically - its not that harmful of a substance compared to acohol- and that wasnt proven medically helpful before it was legallized - and they never decrimed alcohol before they made it legal. they just changed the law and that was that. why shouldnt they do it for pot?? sure they will have to regulate pot use but so what, thats just some paper work.

alcohol had the same stigma as pot does during alcohol's prohibition, it was illegal but lots of people still did it and made it reguardless. it caused lots of problems due to prohibition and now that alcohol is legal, there is LESS criminal activty surrounding it. this would happen with weed too IMO.

Hey listen buddy. Don't get all superior on me.
You make good points, babe...but let me remind you that my point of view is based on things you have said during our countless discussions about this. And now you are saying that it doesn't need to be accepted medically? Are you kidding? This is completely 180 degrees from your analysis of the situation a month ago.

Originally Posted by Leary

Well the avg. cost per taxpayer to rid America of marijuana is $26.00 (and the marijuana crusade makes up most of the DEA budget), so we should try and match that amount in donations to www.MPP.org or give whatever you can. The more we give, the more studies they can do and then we win.

We've been wanting to donate to NORML for a while now, but we haven't had the money to get our free T-shirt...you know, spent most of our spare change on buying grams.

(pysch)

[Chris Allen]

Originally Posted by Luxe

Hey listen buddy. Don't get all superior on me.
You make good points, babe...but let me remind you that my point of view is based on things you have said during our countless discussions about this. And now you are saying that it doesn't need to be accepted medically? Are you kidding? This is completely 180 degrees from your analysis of the situation a month ago.

yes it should be accepted medically, but... it would just be a hell of a lot easier on lots of people if it were just legalized. yes, legalization is probly pretty far off, so in the mean time the feds DO need to stop being bitches and let doctor's and states decide what is best for those who are suffering from disease and ailments.

Originally Posted by Luxe

We've been wanting to donate to NORML for a while now, but we haven't had the money to get our free T-shirt...you know, spent most of our spare change on buying grams.

(pysch)

NORML is a good brand name. However, if you want a group that funds exhaustive studies by big name universities and fights tooth and nail to get legislation passed at the state and federal levels, MPP is your man.

Originally Posted by Leary

NORML is a good brand name. However, if you want a group that funds exhaustive studies by big name universities and fights tooth and nail to get legislation passed at the state and federal levels, MPP is your man.

Awesome. Learn something new every day!
We received a letter in the mail around Jan. or Feb. from the office of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (generically signed of course) which basically stated that the decriminalization/legalization of pot would never happen as long as she had a say. Unreal signed an online petition but attached a personal letter as well, so I think that's where the response came from.