Latest

Confusion abounds following last week's release of a RAND study on the ramifications of legal marijuana in California. In particular, RAND's discussion of rock-bottom prices has growers panicking and the suggestion that use could increase dramatically has opponents chomping at the bit. But, as Pete Guither helpfully explains, the whole thing is just a bunch of wild speculation.

Just look what passes for scientific analysis at RAND when it comes to marijuana legalization:

However, a simple calculation suggests that, if someone believes that marijuana is causally responsible for many crashes that involve marijuana using drivers, legalization’s effect on crashes could be a first-order concern for them. [...]

There is no empirical evidence concerning an elasticity of fatal accident rates with respect to marijuana price, prevalence, or quantity consumed, and, as we have underscored repeatedly, there is enormous uncertainty concerning how legalization might affect those outcomes.

However, 50- or 100-percent increases in use cannot be ruled out; nor can the possibility that marijuana-involved traffic crashes would increase proportionally with use. So it would be hard to dismiss out of hand worries that marijuana legalization could increase traffic fatalities by at least 60 per year…

Nor can we entirely rule out the possibility that legalizing marijuana could somehow cause the earth to stop spinning on its axis, resulting in the incineration of a hundred nations, while others are left buried beneath sheets of ice.

I'm exaggerating, but the point is that when RAND says legalization might double marijuana use and lower the ounce price to $38, they're just babbling because the media is stupid enough to listen. Even RAND admits that their analysis is subject to so many intangible variables as to render futile any effort to quantify legalization's practical impact. The problem is that they went ahead and proceeded to announce various arbitrary computations that sound provocative and mean absolutely nothing.

So, for what it's worth, let's just establish a couple principles that might help sort out some of the confusion here:

1. Marijuana will never cost $38 per ounce in California as long as it remains illegal everywhere else and sells for up to $500. Prop 215 didn't reduce prices by 80% and neither will Prop 19.

2. Marijuana is already way too available in California for any policy change to dramatically impact rates of use. No one is sitting around in Los Angeles waiting for legalization so that they can find a way to buy some weed.

3. If marijuana were a significant cause of traffic fatalities, California's highways would already be stained with blood. See point #2.

Update: Dave Borden has convinced me that I've been at least somewhat unfair to RAND, insofar as a big part of my frustration here results from the way the media presented the research. It's true that the study's authors were careful to explain that there remains considerable uncertainty about the practical impact of legalization. There are issues that I think could have been handled much better, but I wouldn't want to set a standard that prohibits inquiry, simply because so much remains unclear.

[image:1 align:right caption:true]Via NORML, check out these comments from a medical marijuana businessman who opposes Prop 19:

"I'll give you two reasons," Craig said. "One is big tobacco. Did you know that Phillip Morris just bought 400 acres of land up in Northern California? The minute marijuana becomes legal, they'll mass produce and flood the market. And of course, they'll add the same toxins they put in regular cigarettes to get you addicted, and very little THC, so you'll have to buy more... In short, they're going to ruin weed." He gestured around his beloved shop, with every flavor of every strain, in its purist form, selling for at-cost prices. "I like the way things are now."

I'll bet he does. But while you're making money and having a great time, thousands and thousands of people are being arrested. Conspiracy theories about Phillip Morris don't even begin to justify the war on marijuana, and anyone who advances such mindless speculation – while simultaneously lining their own pockets – is a first-rate jackass.

He even tries to bring children into the debate:

"Two, legalization will mean more fifteen-year-old kids smoking pot. Smoking pot mellows you out, makes you lazy. When you're twenty-one, twenty-five, you can make your own decisions. But California doesn't need its fifteen-year-olds lazier than they already are."

Seriously? Well, let me ask you something, sir. Does your dispensary sell marijuana to 15-year-olds? Do your customers resell your product to young teenagers? I imagine you would insist that this isn't the case, and I can't fathom why you think things would be any different if regulated marijuana retailers were allowed to serve all adults instead of just those with a doctor's recommendation.

Let's not forget: Prop 19 is about so much more than just how marijuana will be grown and distributed. It's about stopping the arrest and persecution of marijuana consumers and reducing the violence and chaos of prohibition. Concerns about how it might affect the market are understandable, but people were nervous about Prop 215 as well, and it's clearly become a miracle for patients and a huge step forward for reform in general.

The bottom line is that anyone who currently sells marijuana in California, medical or otherwise, should be thrilled with the prospect of dramatically reducing arrests for marijuana possession and the vicious consequences that go along with it. All other concerns are secondary to ensuring the freedom of adults to enjoy cannabis without fear of arrest, and Prop 19 will do exactly that. Those who object, those who would fight to continue the war, are enemies of justice. Patients should never purchase medicine from anyone who lobbies to continue the disease of prohibition.