The sticky question of costs
What about the costs of a nation on the toke?
Recent studies by Rand contend that legalization in California would do two things:
- Make pot incredibly cheap to make (literally pennies for a joint).
- Increase demand substantially, possibly dramatically. Taxes would help determine prices and demand.
So what does this mean for possible costs to ourselves and to society?
Few reliable estimates exists on the societal costs of pot, says Joel Hay, a professor of pharmaceutical economics and policy in the University of Southern California's School of Pharmacy. Still, Hay is convinced that legalization would be a public-health disaster.
"It is more dangerous than either alcohol or tobacco (and in some ways combines the worst of both) and for those legal drugs the societal costs are more than 10 times the taxes raised," Hay wrote in an email. "And if government tried to raise the taxes enough to cover the societal costs that would further encourage narcotrafficking."
Miron rejected Hay's remarks, saying he "would disagree vigorously" about the societal costs of marijuana and the claim that it's more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco. "There is absolutely zero convincing evidence of that," he says.
Would more people smoking send more people into treatment, costing taxpayers and insurers money? It's hard to know. According to a 2010 Rand study of California, "it's unclear whether legalizing marijuana may increase or decrease drug treatment costs" in the state.
Why unclear? More than half of the 32,000 admissions for treatment of marijuana abuse in California in 2009 resulted from criminal-justice referrals, which would drop if legalization were approved, the researchers said. On the other hand, an increase in marijuana use could cause a spike in those who voluntarily seek treatment for marijuana abuse, the researchers said.
Somewhat ironically, it might all come down to booze again. "The overall consequences of marijuana legalization are largely going to depend on how marijuana legalization influences alcohol consumption and patterns of alcohol use," says Kilmer, of Rand's Drug Policy Research Center. "The bottom line is that the evidence is very mixed whether alcohol and marijuana are substitutes or complements" -- that is, whether people tend to use marijuana instead of alcohol or with alcohol, he says.
That's a key point, Kilmer says. "If folks move away from getting drunk and are more likely to get stoned . . . then overall traffic fatalities could go down," because drivers under the influence of alcohol are more likely to crash than those using pot, he says.
That's a huge financial plus for individuals and for society. On the other hand, drinking and smoking pot are a particularly lethal combination when a person gets behind the wheel, Kilmer says.
"Even a small increase in heavy drinking could outweigh any benefits of legalization," he wrote in a recent op-ed piece in The Wall Street Journal. "The scientific literature on this is inconclusive."
In any event, if you're looking for a financial savior, even supporters of legalization agree you shouldn't hold your breath (much less inhale). Any benefits would take time.
"Legalizing marijuana is not something that can generate revenues today or tomorrow or even in a year," says NORML's Gieringer. "It really is something that requires changing federal law and, in the end, probably requires changing international treaties. Fixing all of that stuff is a long, drawn-out process."
