The $42 billion budget deficit ($24.3 billion expected for next fiscal year) California has found itself in is forcing politicians to reevaluate the programs and policies that shape our budget. One area warranting serious scrutiny is the state's criminal justice system. The Department of Corrections has been following an upward trend of expenditures for the past five years. In 2008, the criminal justice system cost the state approximately $13 billion, nearly a $7 billion increase since 2003, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office.
Gov. Schwarzenegger has proposed revisions in sentencing and parole guidelines to deal with prison overcrowding. While these revisions are being deliberated, the cost of incarceration for non-violent drug offenses has become an oft-debated area for reform. The legalization of marijuana is no longer an absurd suggestion made by extreme liberals or shaggy-haired hippies, but a legitimate option proposed and supported by a variety of politicians and economists in California.
A 2005 report by Jeffrey A. Miron, an economics professor at Harvard University, found that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition, $5.3 billion of which would accrue to state and local governments.
Miron's report, entitled The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition, also estimated that marijuana decriminalization would yield tax revenues of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Following Miron's report, 500 economists signed an open letter to the president and Congress in support of a public debate over the pros and cons of marijuana legalization.
"You have some very conservative people suggesting that we should legalize marijuana," said Marjorie Cohn, a criminal law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the president of the National Lawyers Guild. "The drug trade revolves around violence, extortion and the black market. If you make it legal, you take those things away."
In January, San Diego County Counsel petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case opposing implementation of state laws on medical marijuana use. State law requires the county to issue legal identification cards to medical marijuana patients, and the county sought a definitive opinion on whether it should be forced to implement something that was illegal under federal law. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court chose not to hear the appeal for a second time, after state trial and appellate courts ruled against the county.
"I am disappointed the Court did not take our case, but I am respectful of the Court's decision," said Supervisor Dianne Jacobs in a statement. "We were seeking a definitive ruling, in writing, that would resolve the conflict between state and federal law. In my opinion, there remains a gray area that will continue to pose challenges for law enforcement and users."
The "gray area" between state and federal laws, as well as medical and recreational marijuana users, poses challenges for law enforcement at a point when municipal and county resources are stretched thin and officers have difficulty enforcing marijuana laws alongside more serious offenses. Arrests for marijuana possession have surged in California in recent years, up 13 percent in 2007 to 74,119 arrests, according to the state Criminal Justice Statistics Center. It costs the state approximately $170 million annually for arrests, prosecutions and incarceration of offenders. Supporters of legalizing marijuana say it will not only eliminate the money spent on prohibition, but also bring in tax revenues.
"I think that people who have committed non-violent drug offenses don't belong in prison," Cohn said. "They belong in education and treatment programs, and we do have a system for that, but I think it needs to be extended."
Professor Alex Crite of Thomas Jefferson School of Law believes that, for the past 40 years, the policy on drugs has been ineffective, and that the combination of California's economic problems and a broader rethinking of the war on drugs has led to a more serious discussion of marijuana legalization. In theory, the legalization of marijuana would remove arrests for trafficking and possession, and therefore, according to Crite and other proponents, save prosecutorial, judicial and detention expenses.
In February, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano put forth a piece of legislation that included a system of taxing and regulating marijuana similar to that of alcohol and tobacco, as analyzed in Miron's report. The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act would set up a wholesale and retail marijuana sales regulation program that would include special fees to fund drug abuse prevention programs.
In 2007, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that almost two million Californians admitted to having used marijuana in the past month. Daily users of the substance constitute 20 percent of the state's pot-smoking population, or approximately 400,000 Californians. For many of these individuals, this is the first time they have ranked in the top 20 percent of their class.
In addition, public opinion has shifted in recent years towards a more tolerant acceptance of the substance. A February 2009 Rasmussen poll found that 40 percent of Americans supported legalizing the drug, with 46 percent opposed and 14 percent unsure. California voters support legalization with a 54 percent majority.
Opponents of legalization argue that, because statistics regarding the consumption and selling of marijuana are uncertain, legalization should not be viewed as a guaranteed way to relieve California of its debt, and may, in fact, lead to more costs.
"Legalization has been tried before and failed miserably," says the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's website. "Alaska's experiment with Legalization in the 1970s led to the state's teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. This led Alaska's residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990." The Dutch have found success, but the Kingdom of the Netherlands doesn't have a Bakersfield.
Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, believes legalization would reduce the seriousness of the drug's consequences, especially on young people. "Of the more than 2 million people who abuse the drug for the first time every year, two-thirds are between 12 and 17 years of age," Volkow said in a 2005 report. "Numerous deleterious health consequences are associated with [marijuana's] short- and long-term use, including the possibility of becoming [psychologically] addicted."
Opponents also cite studies that call marijuana a "gateway drug" as a cause for concern. A study published in the January 2003 Journal of the American Medical Association found that, compared with teens who never smoke marijuana, a boy or girl who smokes marijuana before age 17 is more than twice as likely to abuse opioids, three times as likely to abuse cocaine or other stimulants, and nearly four times as likely to abuse hallucinogens later in life.
Other studies remain inconclusive on the long-term effects of marijuana use, and there are limited studies on the impact of legalization on use. An analysis published in the American Academy of Pediatrics journal in June 2004 reported higher baseline use in states where marijuana had been decriminalized in any degree, as is the case in California for medical users. It also pointed out that law enforcement may face new challenges in enforcing a marijuana ban for minors but not adults, posing challenges similar to that of underage drinking.
One thing is clear: Marijuana legalization will continue to remain a prominent topic of discussions on prison overcrowding, budget constraints and drug enforcement. California, as a state with a burgeoning budget deficit and as one of the first states to legalize medical marijuana use, will be at the forefront of the debate.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: San Diego News Network
Author: Frances Nanadiego and Gina Giacopuzzi
Contact: San Diego News Network
Copyright: 2009 San Diego News Network
Website: Legalize Marijuana to Save California? Maybe...
Gov. Schwarzenegger has proposed revisions in sentencing and parole guidelines to deal with prison overcrowding. While these revisions are being deliberated, the cost of incarceration for non-violent drug offenses has become an oft-debated area for reform. The legalization of marijuana is no longer an absurd suggestion made by extreme liberals or shaggy-haired hippies, but a legitimate option proposed and supported by a variety of politicians and economists in California.
A 2005 report by Jeffrey A. Miron, an economics professor at Harvard University, found that legalizing marijuana would save $7.7 billion per year in government expenditure on enforcement of prohibition, $5.3 billion of which would accrue to state and local governments.
Miron's report, entitled The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition, also estimated that marijuana decriminalization would yield tax revenues of $2.4 billion annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol and tobacco. Following Miron's report, 500 economists signed an open letter to the president and Congress in support of a public debate over the pros and cons of marijuana legalization.
"You have some very conservative people suggesting that we should legalize marijuana," said Marjorie Cohn, a criminal law professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the president of the National Lawyers Guild. "The drug trade revolves around violence, extortion and the black market. If you make it legal, you take those things away."
In January, San Diego County Counsel petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its case opposing implementation of state laws on medical marijuana use. State law requires the county to issue legal identification cards to medical marijuana patients, and the county sought a definitive opinion on whether it should be forced to implement something that was illegal under federal law. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court chose not to hear the appeal for a second time, after state trial and appellate courts ruled against the county.
"I am disappointed the Court did not take our case, but I am respectful of the Court's decision," said Supervisor Dianne Jacobs in a statement. "We were seeking a definitive ruling, in writing, that would resolve the conflict between state and federal law. In my opinion, there remains a gray area that will continue to pose challenges for law enforcement and users."
The "gray area" between state and federal laws, as well as medical and recreational marijuana users, poses challenges for law enforcement at a point when municipal and county resources are stretched thin and officers have difficulty enforcing marijuana laws alongside more serious offenses. Arrests for marijuana possession have surged in California in recent years, up 13 percent in 2007 to 74,119 arrests, according to the state Criminal Justice Statistics Center. It costs the state approximately $170 million annually for arrests, prosecutions and incarceration of offenders. Supporters of legalizing marijuana say it will not only eliminate the money spent on prohibition, but also bring in tax revenues.
"I think that people who have committed non-violent drug offenses don't belong in prison," Cohn said. "They belong in education and treatment programs, and we do have a system for that, but I think it needs to be extended."
Professor Alex Crite of Thomas Jefferson School of Law believes that, for the past 40 years, the policy on drugs has been ineffective, and that the combination of California's economic problems and a broader rethinking of the war on drugs has led to a more serious discussion of marijuana legalization. In theory, the legalization of marijuana would remove arrests for trafficking and possession, and therefore, according to Crite and other proponents, save prosecutorial, judicial and detention expenses.
In February, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano put forth a piece of legislation that included a system of taxing and regulating marijuana similar to that of alcohol and tobacco, as analyzed in Miron's report. The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act would set up a wholesale and retail marijuana sales regulation program that would include special fees to fund drug abuse prevention programs.
In 2007, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that almost two million Californians admitted to having used marijuana in the past month. Daily users of the substance constitute 20 percent of the state's pot-smoking population, or approximately 400,000 Californians. For many of these individuals, this is the first time they have ranked in the top 20 percent of their class.
In addition, public opinion has shifted in recent years towards a more tolerant acceptance of the substance. A February 2009 Rasmussen poll found that 40 percent of Americans supported legalizing the drug, with 46 percent opposed and 14 percent unsure. California voters support legalization with a 54 percent majority.
Opponents of legalization argue that, because statistics regarding the consumption and selling of marijuana are uncertain, legalization should not be viewed as a guaranteed way to relieve California of its debt, and may, in fact, lead to more costs.
"Legalization has been tried before and failed miserably," says the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's website. "Alaska's experiment with Legalization in the 1970s led to the state's teens using marijuana at more than twice the rate of other youths nationally. This led Alaska's residents to vote to re-criminalize marijuana in 1990." The Dutch have found success, but the Kingdom of the Netherlands doesn't have a Bakersfield.
Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, believes legalization would reduce the seriousness of the drug's consequences, especially on young people. "Of the more than 2 million people who abuse the drug for the first time every year, two-thirds are between 12 and 17 years of age," Volkow said in a 2005 report. "Numerous deleterious health consequences are associated with [marijuana's] short- and long-term use, including the possibility of becoming [psychologically] addicted."
Opponents also cite studies that call marijuana a "gateway drug" as a cause for concern. A study published in the January 2003 Journal of the American Medical Association found that, compared with teens who never smoke marijuana, a boy or girl who smokes marijuana before age 17 is more than twice as likely to abuse opioids, three times as likely to abuse cocaine or other stimulants, and nearly four times as likely to abuse hallucinogens later in life.
Other studies remain inconclusive on the long-term effects of marijuana use, and there are limited studies on the impact of legalization on use. An analysis published in the American Academy of Pediatrics journal in June 2004 reported higher baseline use in states where marijuana had been decriminalized in any degree, as is the case in California for medical users. It also pointed out that law enforcement may face new challenges in enforcing a marijuana ban for minors but not adults, posing challenges similar to that of underage drinking.
One thing is clear: Marijuana legalization will continue to remain a prominent topic of discussions on prison overcrowding, budget constraints and drug enforcement. California, as a state with a burgeoning budget deficit and as one of the first states to legalize medical marijuana use, will be at the forefront of the debate.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: San Diego News Network
Author: Frances Nanadiego and Gina Giacopuzzi
Contact: San Diego News Network
Copyright: 2009 San Diego News Network
Website: Legalize Marijuana to Save California? Maybe...
