Genesis 1:29 - And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

In case there is any doubt in your mind, the Christian Science Monitor really really doesn’t want anyone to consider regulating the third-most popular recreational substance in America.  In 2009 they were warning us that letting cancer patients puff a doobie to ease the pain and nausea of chemotherapy leads to the inexorable decline of Western Civilization in “A federal misstep with medical marijuana?” and “Legalize Marijuana? Not so fast!”   In 2010, their fears are realized as California seeks to tax and regulate marijuana, so just three weeks ago they penned “Marijuana legalization? A White House rebuttal, finally” where they praise drug czar Gil Kerlikowske’s ability to regurgitate the same tired old lies with a straight face.

Now they have another editorial posted, “Benefits from a marijuana tax? California is dreaming.”  In it they trot out Rosalie Pacula’s testimony that challenged the $1.4 billion tax benefits estimated in Assemblyman Tom Ammiano’s legalization bill by the California Board of Equalization.  Never mind that they’re opposing the citizen’s initiative to regulate marijuana, not Ammiano’s bill.  Reefer madness is fungible.

One of the highly questionable assumptions is that a legal market can sustain a proposed $50-an-ounce tax on marijuana. The black market can easily undercut that tax, siphoning sales away from legal distributors and eroding tax revenues.

In the citizen’s initiative, local governments are to decide whether they wish to allow cannabis sales and whether they wish to tax that.  It would certainly be less tax revenue than the statewide $50/ounce proposed under the Ammiano bill.

But so what?  Is there an amount of tax revenues earned where the Christian Science Monitor would support regulation of a $15 billion dollar illicit market?  Probably not.

I’ve argued before about this, but I’ll say it again: whatever tax revenue is earned by regulating cannabis will be greater than what we’re earning now – zero! – and even greater when you consider the savings in law enforcement.  But, a-ha, the CSM has thought about that and decided that even though it would raise money, the costs of regulation would exceed the revenues.

America’s experience with alcohol and tobacco shows that health, lost productivity, and law enforcement costs far exceed tax revenues. These industries have not managed to keep their products from young people. A legal pot-smoking age of 21 would similarly fail to keep this drug away from youth.

Alcohol and tobacco are deadly and addictive.  Of course these substances have severe health costs!  Of course alcohol that gets you hung over leads to lost productivity!  Of course alcohol that leads to violence and drunk driving exacts a toll in law enforcement costs!  So what does this have to do with non-toxic herbal cannabis?  Or is the CSM arguing that we need to return to Alcohol Prohibition and add Tobacco Prohibition as well, since they cost society so much?

Why are the arguments against regulating the third-most popular substance not arguments for prohibiting the first- and second-most popular substances?

The cost of cannabis smoking, whatever it is, is being borne by our society now, and we’re adding on the enormous costs of criminal prohibition, which generates more law enforcement costs than regulation possibly could and enriches violent criminal in the process.  2.3 million Californians are smoking pot now, 73 years of prohibition have done nothing to stop them, the only question now is whether the market is regulated or not.

We’ve seen what happens when it is unregulated: 85% of teens consistently tell us that it is “easy” to get marijuana.  Nobody knows the purity and potency of that marijuana.  The guy who gets the teens the marijuana might have hard drugs for sale, too.  The marijuana costs so much that it’s profitable for the teens to deal it themselves to cover their cost of use.

Does the CSM argue that more than 85% of teens will find it “easy” to get marijuana when a local government requires a regulated store with a licensed clerk to check that teen for ID?  And since they depended on Pacula’s testimony that the price of cannabis would plummet, doesn’t that mean the profit motive for teens to deal pot plummets, too?

And then there are the costs that will be incurred with increased use – and legalization will drive use.

These costs relate to treatment of dependency (over a third of self-reported users of marijuana in the past year are dependent), missed and tardy work, drugged driving accidents, and increased crime.

Will legalization drive use?  There are already 2.3 million Californians using cannabis now, so how many more are sitting there in California not toking now but rarin’ to go once it is regulated?  And why are they waiting, when they live in a state where they can pay a doctor to get a medical card and possess up to and over eight ounces, rather than the one ounce they’d be allowed under regulation?

And this notion that one-third of tokers are “dependent” must be examined.  The Institute of Medicine concluded that only 9% of cannabis users are clinically “dependent”.  The CSM is relying on Pacula’s testimony that cites a 2004 study by Compton et al that declared 35% of tokers to meet the DSM-IV criteria for “marijuana dependence”.  Let’s look at those criteria:

A. Has the individual experienced the following?

1. Tolerance—discovering less effect with same amount (needing more to become intoxicated)
2. Withdrawal (characteristic withdrawal associated with type of drug)
3. Using more or for longer periods than intended
4. Desire to or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use
5. Considerable time spent in obtaining or using the substance or recovering from its effects
6. Important social, work, or recreational activities given up or reduced because of use
7. Continued use despite knowledge of problems caused by or aggravated by use

B. Have these positive items been present during the same 12-month period?

Apologies beforehand to Jeff Foxworthy, but…

1. If you don’t get as giggly off of just one puff like you did when you first toked…
2. If feel like you’d like to smoke a joint when you don’t have one…
3. If you ever lost track of time when you got high…
4. If you don’t really want to stop smoking pot…
5. If it’s hard for you to score a dimebag because the damn stuff’s illegal…
6. If you lost a job because they tested your pee…
7. And you think you ought to be able to smoke pot even if others want to punish you for it…

…then you might be a “marijuana dependent”.  How can we ever accurately measure whether someone is “marijuana dependent” when these criteria are exacerbated by its illegality?

Also, the notion that marijuana use leads to missed and tardy work and driving accidents makes a great argument for prohibiting alcohol, doesn’t it?  And how exactly does crime increase when 2.3 million Californians will suddenly no longer be criminals?  Is anyone really terrified that the guy who smokes a joint at home now illegally is going to become a raving criminal when he can smoke a joint at home legally?  Who are these

The prohibitionists are desperate and their arguments are beginning to reflect that.  RAND’s Rosalie Pacula’s testimony actually celebrates that prohibition keeps the price of marijuana high, 400% higher than its production cost, because that high price helps curb the demand from teens.  That’s the high price that provides 60% of the income for the murderous drug syndicates that have tortured, beheaded, acid-bathed, massacred, and executed 18,000 people in Mexico in three years.  How many dead Mexicans does it take to keep pot out of kids hands?  Because after 18,000 and prohibition-inflated prices, 85% of them still find it easy to get pot.

While it is fun for me (like a cat batting about a shocked and injured mouse) to keep tearing down these prohibitionists’ arguments, it is crucial to remember the central point they are arguing in support of: fining, arresting, and locking up people, taking away their property and their children, costing them their housing and their jobs, and giving them a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives because they choose to grow, dry, and smoke a non-toxic herb that relieves pain, spasticity, and seizures, a plant that enhances senses, improves appetite, and makes its users slightly euphoric and passive.  Regardless of tax revenues, medical utility, and potential for harm, we must ask the Christian Science Monitor… what’s so Christian about locking people up over something God gave to them “for meat“?

The Christian Science Monitor’s editorial board is weighing in on the increasingly popular issue of marijuana legalization with an editorial they call “Legalize marijuana? Not so fast.” and a veritable who’s-who parade of reefer mad prohibitionists:

A harmless drug? Supporters of legalization often claim that no one has died of a pot overdose, and that it has beneficial effects in alleviating suffering from certain diseases.

True, marijuana cannot directly kill its user in the way that alcohol or a drug like heroin can. And activists claim that it may ease symptoms for certain patients – though it has not been endorsed by the major medical associations representing those patients, and the Food and Drug Administration disputes its value.

The AMA is in the back pocket of Big Pharma; they’re not going to endorse a product that cuts by at least half the need for opioids, benzodiazepenes, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.  There are plenty of major medical associations that endorse medical marijuana, including the American College of Physicians, the American Medical Student Association, and the American Nurses Association.  Also, the FDA doesn’t dispute marijuana’s value; it merely has never approved marijuana, and the government, through FDA, DEA, and NIDA, have opposed all efforts to actually put marijuana through the approval process, which we all know it would sail through.

Rosalie Pacula, codirector of the Rand Drug Policy Research Center, poses this question: “If pot is relatively harmless, why are we seeing more than 100,000 hospitalizations a year” for marijuana use?

Emergency-room admissions where marijuana is the primary substance involved increased by 164 percent from 1995 to 2002 – faster than for other drugs, according to the Drug Abuse Warning Network.

The way Rosalie puts it, you’d think 100,000 people were running into the ER and screaming, “Quick, doctor! I need help! I’ve taken marijuana and I think I’m going to die!” (in four years of doing this, I’ve only heard one such case…)

Click here to view the embedded video.

But the fact is that these DAWN statistics just survey the drugs people admit to using or what is detected in their body when they are admitted to the emergency room.  DAWN doesn’t measure the cause of why someone’s in the hospital. If you smoked a joint, went to a restaurant, sat down for dinner and had the server accidentally drop scalding hot coffee in your lap, and you went to the hospital for the burns, and when asked, admitted you had smoked a joint that day, cha-ching, that’s a “marijuana [as] the primary substance involved” in that admission.  You might as well say iPods are harmful, because the number of people admitted to hospitals that own an iPod has skyrocketed since 1995.

Research results over the past decade link frequent marijuana use to several serious mental health problems, with youth particularly at risk. And the British Lung Foundation finds that smoking three to four joints is the equivalent of 20 tobacco cigarettes.

Worldwide rates of schizophrenia have remained constant for decades, with little variation between countries with greater cannabis use or lesser cannabis use.  Many people with mental health issues are using cannabis to self-medicate; it is not the source of their mental illness.  And the British Lung Foundation hasn’t been following Dr. Donald Tashkin’s and others’ work showing marijuana use, even chronic, long-term use, doesn’t lead to increased incidence of head, neck, or lung cancers, or to emphysema or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (fair warning: we do get more wheezing and bronchitis – so buy a vaporizer!).

While marijuana is not addictive in the way that a drug like crack-cocaine is, heavy use can lead to dependence – defined by the same criteria as for other drugs. About half of those who use pot daily become dependent for some period of time, writes Kevin Sabet, in the 2006 book, “Pot Politics” – and 1 in 10 people in the US who have ever used marijuana become dependent at some time (about the same rate as alcohol). Dr. Sabet was a drug policy adviser in the past two presidential administrations.

You ever watch an alcoholic and speed addict try to kick those two drugs cold turkey?  I have; it was my father and I was twelve.  I’m still waiting to see the sweaty pale marijuana “addict” picking hallucinatory bugs off his skin, vomiting uncontrollably, wracked with pain, unable to sleep, screaming punctuated by sobbing, because he can’t smoke a bowl.  No reefer madness line personally angers me more than the trumped-up scaremongering about “marijuana dependence.”

Can marijuana users become “dependent”?  Sure, just like people can develop an unhealthy dependence on gambling, sex, shopping, hoarding, sugar, fat, and the internet.  However, that dependence rate is 9% (less than 1 in 10) for cannabis and 15% for alcohol (not “about the same rate”) and 32% for tobacco, and, according to the Institute of Medicine: “CONCLUSION: A distinctive marijuana withdrawal syndrome has been identified, but it is mild and short lived. The syndrome includes restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, insomnia, sleep disturbance, nausea, and cramping.”  Where Kevin gets the figure for half of us daily smokers being “dependent” I can’t say.

NORML likes to point out that marijuana accounts for the majority of illicit drug traffic from Mexico. End the illicit trafficking, and you end the violence. But that volume gives a false impression of marijuana’s role in crime and violence, says Jonathan Caulkins, a professor at Carnegie Mellon and a drug-policy adviser in the US and Australia.

It’s the dollars that count, and the big earners – cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin – play a much larger role in crime and violence. In recent years, Mexico has become a major cocaine route to the US. That’s what’s fanning the violence, according to Dr. Caulkins, so legalizing marijuana is unlikely to quiet Mexico’s drug war.

Jonathan wants you to think we’re measuring volume of drugs coming across the border and that the bulkiness of marijuana compared to coke, meth, and heroin is how we’re measuring how legalized marijuana would hurt the traffickers.  However, we know it’s the dollars that count, and that’s how we’ve measured marijuana’s economic impact to the cartels.  But we’re just reporting what former drug czar John “Unicorn” Walters told USA Today: “[marijuana] now earns cartels about $8.5 billion or about 61 percent of their annual estimated income of $13.8 billion. Cocaine sales earn the cartels about $3.9 billion, and methamphetamine about $1 billion.”

You don’t think cutting a business down to 40 cents on every dollar received is going to lead to a lot less of that business?  Yes, there will still be cocaine, meth, and heroin routes to fight over, but there will be fewer cartels fighting over them with less money to do so.

Neither are America’s prisons stuffed with users who happened to get caught with a few joints … Only 0.7 percent of inmates in state and federal prisons are in for marijuana possession (0.3 percent counting first-time offenders only, according to a 2002 US Justice Department survey). In federal prisons, the median amount of marijuana for those convicted of possession is 115 pounds – 156,000 marijuana cigarettes.

Well, since we do imprison about 2.1 million people, the most overall and per-capita in the world, you’re admitting that 0.7%, or about 15,000 people are in prison for possessing marijuana.  When we include jails, our estimates come up to about 40,000.

But this all supposes that the only harm from marijuana prohibition is incarceration.  What of the costs to society for:

• lost productivity due to workers’ time off to deal with marijuana charges involving a joint;
• underemployment due to skilled workers who smoke a joint avoiding urine screens and unemployment compensation for those who fail them;
• social services costs for probation officers, drug testing, child protective services, and other government costs to deal we wouldn’t incur for someone caught drinking a beer in their home;
• wasted potential of college students forced to drop out by losing their student aid for a joint;
• moving costs when a person smoking a joint is kicked out of housing;
• health care costs for treatments and pharmaceuticals that could be replaced by smoking a joint;
• police costs to enforce the prohibition and deal with the ancillary crime and violence issues brought about by prohibition?

The black market can easily undercut a $50 tax and shrink that expected revenue stream. Just look at the huge trade in illegal cigarettes in Canada to see how taxing can spur a black market (about 30 percent of tobacco bought in Canada is illegal).

A government could attempt to eliminate the black market altogether by making marijuana incredibly cheap (Dr. Pacula at the RAND Organization says today’s black market price is about four times what it would be if pot were completely legalized). But then use would skyrocket and teens (though barred) could buy it with their lunch money.

Currently an average price for an ounce of weed is $300.  Rosalie says that pot would be $75 an ounce if it were completely legal.  So if we add the tax to the price, we’re looking at a $125 ounce of legal weed.  To undercut that, the black market would have to sell pot at a 58% discount from its current price.  How many businesses can survive by cutting the price of their product by almost 60%?  Not only does the price drop hurt the dealers, but also most adult consumers will prefer buying legal, pure, potency-labeled cannabis vs. illegal cannabis of questionable quality if the prices are nearly the same.  So the dealers would have to severely undercut the legal price in order to make any sales to a much smaller customer base (only 1 in 8 monthly smokers are minors).

But let’s say they do and sell an ounce for $100.  Does your kid have $100 in “lunch money”?  Suppose the dealer breaks it down to smaller quantities; do you think he adds a bit for every cut, like dealers do now?  I’d bet the $100 ounce becomes two $60 halfs, then four $35 quarters, then eight $20 eightths.  Does your kid have $20 in lunch money?

As America has learned with alcohol, taxes don’t begin to cover the costs to society of destroyed families, lost productivity, and ruined lives – and regulators still have not succeeded in keeping alcohol from underage drinkers.

So why aren’t you calling for a return to alcohol prohibition?  Oh, right, because we realized the costs of making it illegal were far greater.

Why legalize a third substance that produces ill effects, when the US has such a poor record in dealing with the two big “licits” – alcohol and tobacco?

Actually, the US has a great record in dealing with tobacco.  Youth tobacco use has fallen to the lowest levels ever recorded, and we didn’t have to arrest a single smoker to make it happen.  And that’s a drug that causes dependence in 32% of its users, causes more deaths than legal and illegal drugs, including alcohol, combined, and generally once addicted to becomes a lifelong habit.  Most marijuana smokers, even if they start as minors, cease smoking pot by age 30.

Do parents really want marijuana to become a normal part of society – and an expectation for their children?

Maybe parents thought they left peer pressure behind when they graduated from high school. But the push to legalize marijuana is like the peer pressure of the schoolyard. The arguments are perhaps timely, but they don’t stand up, and parents must now stand up to them.

Parents must make clear that marijuana is not a harmless drug – even if they personally may have emerged unscathed.

In other words, parents, ignore your own personal experience and the experience of your entire generation, ignore the facts and reason we’re presenting to you from peer-reviewed scientific literature, ignore the lessons of alcohol prohibition and recent tobacco prevention efforts, and regurgitate the Christian Science Monitor’s well-debunked reefer madness parroted from advisors paid by government agencies that would suffer severe funding cuts if marijuana were legal.

Should we tax pot? – Los Angeles Times
Now, as we’re desperately trying to reinvent the economy, should we consider marijuana?

We’ve dipped a toe in those waters already in California. Sales of medical marijuana are taxable — $11.4-million worth for 2005-2006, the most recent (though admittedly murky) figures available.

Marijuana is a huge component of the nation’s underground economy. A couple of years ago, the legalize-it forces estimated that the U.S. marijuana crop was worth $35 billion a year. California’s share of that was $13.8 billion.

If the number is even half that, any tax windfall, on top of money saved by not prosecuting marijuana crimes, would mean a bonanza, wouldn’t it?

Sacramento would be doing the backstroke in black ink. With all the new parks and health clinics, we’d have more ribbon-cuttings than a baby shower. Is this just a pipe dream?

Rosalie Pacula says that in all likelihood, yes. She’s a senior economist at the Rand Corp. and co-director of its drug policy research center. Here’s how she burst my bubble:

First, you have to consider that legalizing it would have its own costs. Recent research, Pacula says, shows marijuana to be more addictive than was thought. Because marijuana is illegal, and because its users often smoke tobacco or use other drugs, teasing out marijuana’s health effects and associated costs is almost impossible. And more people would smoke it regularly if it were legal — Pacula estimates 60% to 70% of the population as opposed to 20% to 30% now — and the social costs would rise.

She takes issue with figures from Harvard’s Jeffrey Miron, among others, who says that billions spent on enforcing marijuana laws could all be saved by legalization. Rand’s research, Pacula says, finds that many marijuana arrests are collateral — say, part of DUI checks or curfew arrests — and many arrestees already have criminal records, meaning they might wind up behind bars for something else even if marijuana were legal.

Legalization also wouldn’t do away with pot-related crime entirely. There would likely be a black market, just as there is in other regulated substances, such as cigarettes and liquor. That means police and prosecution, which cost money.

As to the tax benefit, that’s partly a function of the price point for legalized pot. If everyone could legally grow and consume dope, then the crop probably wouldn’t be worth $35 billion and the taxes wouldn’t be anything to write home about.

How many ways do you think we can debunk Pacula’s premise, which seems to be that arresting 872,721 Americans for marijuana-related offenses and eradicating hundreds of millions of marijuana plants every year is cheaper than not legalizing marijuana?  Did you find all seven?  Read on…

1) Marijuana is more addictive?  Please.  Increases in treatment admissions for marijuana “addiction” are due to increases of arrests for marijuana where pot smokers are sentenced to drug rehab.  Pot is no more addictive now than it was in the ’60s because THC is THC – the chemical has not changed.  More potent marijuana does not make it more addictive – the effects are the same, just less pot is used.  NIDA even rated marijuana about as addictive as caffeine.

2) There are plenty of marijuana users (like myself) who do not use tobacco or other drugs.  I might drink one alcoholic beverage per month, on average, and don’t even use aspirin, acetominophen, naproxen, nose spray, eye drops, or cold medicines.  The National Survey on Drug Use and Health tells me there were 19.8 million Americans who used some illicit drug in the past month.  Of those, 14.4 million used marijuana.  9.2 million used drugs other than marijuana.  If I’m figuring this right, that means there are 3.8 million who use both marijuana and other drugs.  Then there has to be 10.6 million monthly pot smokers who use no other drugs.

3) 70% of the population would smoke pot if it were legal?  Right now, the NSDUH figures say just 8% of the population use any illicit drug, with only 5.8% smoking pot monthly.  70% would smoke this “more addictive” legal pot, when only 28.6% smoke highly addictive legal tobacco and 51.1% drink highly addictive legal alcohol?

4) The social costs would rise?  What are those costs?  These nebulous assertions are often based on lost wages, productivity, crime, and health care costs that are associated with heroin, cocaine, or meth abuse, that end up lumping in marijuana as well under the umbrella term “drug abuse”.  It’s interesting to me that Pacula says it’s tough to “tease out” the costs of marijuana because its users use other drugs, but then in the same paragraph claims legalizing only marijuana would cause social costs to rise.

5) Some marijuana arrests are collateral to other arrests, true.  But most are collateral to what would normally be violations, like speeding, improper lane change, or broken taillight.  If some pot smokers might have been arrested anyway for curfew or DUI, then many more would’ve just gotten tickets instead of wasting a cop’s time with an arrest and booking.  Besides, if marijuana arrests have tripled over the past sixteen years, while both violent crime and property crime have declined, doesn’t that mean that you’ve had to arrest more people for nothing but marijuana?

6) There might indeed be a black market in marijuana when it is legal, just like the black market in cigarettes and liquor.  A 2000 study says that 3-4% of tobacco sales are black market.  Wouldn’t the enforcement costs on tobacco be much higher if 100% of its sales were black market like marijuana?  And we can look back to 75 years ago to determine whether the enforcement costs were higher on 100% black market sales of alcohol vs. whatever small percentage of black market booze sales may exist today.  Then you’d have to compare the enforcement costs on few remaining black market marijuana sales against the economic benefits and the tax revenue that would be generated by the white market marijuana sales.

7) As for the tax benefit, while everyone could legally grow their own, people like the writer and Rosalie Pacula have never actually tried to grow marijuana and must thnk you just drop a seed in some soil and forget about it.  People are allowed to brew their own beer, too, but they seem to be willing to buy beer commercially and pay higher-than-normal taxes on it.  Growing quality marijuana is a lot harder than home brewing beer.  Marijuana’s value in a legal market may be less without the risk costs of prohibition, but it won’t be worthless, either.  Suppose the price of an ounce dropped to 20% of current prices – say, from $300/oz. to $60/oz.  Even at just 20% of its current projected $35 billion in value, it would still be worth as much as wheat in this country, and the taxes on wheat are something we could write home about, huh?