Latest

I'm not sure I understand what Mark Kleiman means by this:

California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano has introduced a bill to legalize cannabis in California. The bill quite sensibly recognizes that California can't have a legal market while the drug remains banned under federal law…

Why not? California has a legal market for medical marijuana, which remains illegal under federal law. There has been federal interference, but the vast majority of dispensaries in California remain in operation. Patients can generally obtain medicine legally and conveniently, despite anything and everything DEA has done to undermine California law.

I'm sure the DEA would like us to think that we can't legalize marijuana, and that might go a long way towards explaining why they keep doing these ridiculous raids that everyone hates. But there is no reason that California or any other state can't legalize marijuana as long as the votes add up. Sure, the feds will likely show up and makes a mess here and there, but in case nobody noticed, those actions consistently lead to greater public support for changing marijuana laws.

If we've learned anything from what's been happening in California for the past decade, it is that the federal government can't even come close to stamping out marijuana reform at the state level. Imagine this:

1) California voters pass ballot initiative creating regulated marijuana sales.
2) Shops begin opening in LA, San Francisco.
3) DEA raids high-profile operations, big headlines, big protests.
4) Federal charges brought against defendants. First jury trial ends in surprise acquittal.  
5) Number of new businesses opening exceeds number of raids being conducted.
6) Voters in Nevada, Oregon pass ballot initiatives creating regulated marijuana sales...

Is any of this impossible?

I enjoyed this dizzying attempt by Mark Kleiman to quantify the actual potential revenue that could be generated by legalizing marijuana in California. It's a fun exercise, but you can only get so far down this path before becoming overwhelmed by hypotheticals. For example, Kleiman bases his calculations on the estimated population of marijuana users in the state (I'm sure some people who don't live in California would buy pot there).

There are many things we can't account for, such as the percentage of users who develop a sudden interest in gardening once marijuana becomes legal to cultivate for personal use. Regardless, the bottom line is that legalizing and taxing marijuana will generate plenty of taxable income. Of course it will. There are ways in which it won't pay out the way we'd hope, but also other ways in which it will create unexpected financial benefits. Not ruining people's lives for possessing it is a huge bonus by itself. Imagine trying to calculate the economic harm collectively suffered by people who've been arrested for small amounts of pot and couldn’t get jobs, etc.

Leaving aside all the other powerful reasons for changing marijuana laws, I'm sure the people of California could devise a marijuana policy that makes vastly more economic sense than the current one.