If people don't care either way, they should be swayed by the massive cost savings by significantly reducing the scope of the war on drugs and the associated legal and penitentiary costs. I'm not opposed to taxing it like alcohol or perhaps cigarettes (especially as a non-user) but 25% seems a bit crazy. Of course it may still end up cheaper to buyers.
But if that's the cost of progress, fine. Two steps forward and one step back is still directionally correct.
The main issue here is that our medical care system is totally screwed. At the end of the day, if no one else can, the state has to pay for emergency care.
I voted for the marijuana bill, but the contra argument is pretty persuasive at least from a money standpoint. Marijuana use will probably at least double as a result of this bill. Unfortunately, this has a real cost to society. There's not a lot of quality data on the health effects of regular pot use, but what I've read says it's something of a mix of the effects of alcoholism and cigarette addiction. This is going to have a real dollar cost to the state unless we can fix our healthcare system before people who start taking up pot now that it's legal start getting cancer in 10-15 years.
Again, I voted for the bill, but I agree with the argument that it has hidden deferred costs.
> Marijuana use will probably at least double as a result of this bill. Unfortunately, this has a real cost to society. There's not a lot of quality data on the health effects of regular pot use, but what I've read says it's something of a mix of the effects of alcoholism and cigarette addiction. This is going to have a real dollar cost to the state unless we can fix our healthcare system before people who start taking up pot now that it's legal start getting cancer in 10-15 years.
There is a lot wrong with this bit here. First, I'm not sure where you are finding a figure that cannabis use will double post-legalization. The actual count of users of cannbis isn't fully accurate due to the illegal nature of using it and places that have purused legalization or decriminalization efforts have actually seen a falling trend in cannabis consumption.
Second, the effects of regular pot use ARE NOT like alcoholism or smoking. Cannabis does not have a physical addiction characteristic like alcohol or cigarettes, the method of operation on the body is completely different from alcohol and cigarettes, and research on the health effects of cannabis have been extremely limited due to the schedule I status of cannabis in the US. Granted there may be health issues associated with cannabis usage, but the problem is not well understood and will not be well understood so long as cannabis is schedule I and research on it restricted at the federal level.
Third, legalizing cannabis does have a real dollar cost as it relates to health care, but this isn't a sign to continue to keep cannabis illegal, but rather to fix the fundamental structural problems of health care in the US. Also, it is not clear that there is a causal relationship between some types of cancer and regular cannabis use, and amounts of cannabis consumed by regular users is highly variable. Further, combustion is not the only way to consume cannabis, so the association here with cannabis being a smoking type drug is quite wrong, and in fact many folks with smoke sensitivity do not consume cannabis this way at all.
I agree that like any legal change, there are costs associated with legalizing cannabis, but those costs are so much cheaper than what we have going on today in the US and in the countries where the war on drugs has resulted in tremendous violence and political instability.
> Cannabis does not have a physical addiction characteristic
The evidence for a link between Cannabis and increased risk of psychosis is increasing [1]. A patient with psychosis rarely recovers and is extremely costly to society over his lifetime (as well as a personal tragedy, of course). I'm in favour of legalisation but it is something to take into account.
I've seen the study regarding cannabis use and psychosis and it is interesting, but I just want to clarify that I meant there is no physical dependency mechanism for cannabis compared to other classes of drugs such as opioids.
"""Conclusions
Despite all of the uncertainties surrounding the cannabis-psychosis link... The evidence suggests that cannabis is associated with an increased risk of psychosis when it is used frequently. Whether cannabis can trigger a primary psychotic disorder that would not have otherwise occurred is unclear.
However, in most individuals who use cannabis, psychosis does not develop, which suggests that the increased risk must be related to other vulnerability factors (genetics, frequency, or age of onset of cannabis misuse)."""
I don't really want to deal with the schizophrenia article because frankly, the way it's used in the debate, it's hard to have a fair and honest conversation about it other than: "The science is weak because no one CAN know because it's fucking illegal to study." (er, this sounds like a dismissal of the article, please don't take it as such, it's not meant to be)
That having been said, I think that it is different than what the GP was referring to which is a chemical addictive property (like nicotine) rather than a long/short term side effect (smoking side effects, whether it be tar in your lungs or increased risk of schizophrenia)
[1] Sorry for the language, but the biggest joke of this entire debate is that Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug.
"There's not a lot of quality data on the health effects of regular pot use, but what I've read says it's something of a mix of the effects of alcoholism and cigarette addiction."
That's just wrong.
Alcohol kills tens of thousands of people through liver failure and various other adverse affects. Pot does not.
Alcohol is pretty far up the addiction scale. Pot is not (though it does have some addiction potential).
Alcohol withdrawal can actually kill you, which is worse than pretty much anything else I know. Pot withdrawal may disturb your sleep for a week, if you're a heavy user.
Tobacco kills an enormous amount of folks. Pot smoke is not nearly as toxic (AFAICT) and you don't have to smoke it anyway.
There is a lot of data on this, a quick search on your favourite engine will find it for you, it's not like pot was just discovered last week.
Obviously more people will try it if it is legal, but it's pretty ubiquitous now and most adults have already had the chance to sample and decide.
As for the "cost to society", I have to imagine that any damage from use (and there's not much evidence for it) would be countered by the decrease in real damage done by the War on Drugs.
I doubt that. How many people try cigarettes for the first time the day they turn 18 or alcohol at 21?
Anecdotally at least, people first try these substances when they want to, not when it's legal for them to do so. I can't imagine this being significantly different for marijuana - it's already so easy to obtain as an illegal substance.
Anecdotally, alcohol and cigarettes are substantially more widely exposed to minors than marijauna is. That will likely change when everyone's older brother can pick up a bag at the store.
Exactly. And I would further argue that the possibility is very high that it will actually decrease alcohol consumption, which as we all know is immeasurably harmful.
Marijuana is the one that is immeasurably harmful. The biggest benefit of legalization is that it will allow us to make good measurements of the effects.
"There's not a lot of quality data on the health effects of regular pot use, but what I've read says it's something of a mix of the effects of alcoholism and cigarette addiction."
It helps to actually read the quality data you're supposedly referring to.
But you see, we have much less evidence that legalization = saving money in the war on drugs. Increasing revenues by taxing something new is pretty damn clear cut.
It will be easier to convincingly make the argument that cutting back on the war on drugs is positive, after a few torchbearers lead the way. You don't have to convince me, I'm just speaking of the population at large.
Note that state law has no effect on the War on Drugs, which is a Federal effort. The feds have still been harassing marijuana growers/users that are in no violation of state or local law.
But if that's the cost of progress, fine. Two steps forward and one step back is still directionally correct.