The ongoing debate about marijuana legalization in the United States has often focused on the substance’s medicinal properties, widespread social acceptance or the relatively harmless effect it has on the body in comparison to alcohol or other drugs. But Californians pushing for the legalization of marijuana shift the focus of the debate to its economic benefits.

In an effort to relieve some of the state’s approximate $20 billion deficit, the California secretary of state approved a ballot measure March 23 that will legalize and tax marijuana after it receives the requisite 43,3971 needed to get on the ballot.

The measure would regulate marijuana much like alcohol is currently regulated. If the measure passes, retailers would be able to sell up to an ounce of marijuana to people age 21 or older, which the state would be allowed to tax. Smoking would be banned in public or in front of minors.

Departing from tactics used to promote a 1972 ballot measure to legalize marijuana that focused on its social acceptance, advocates of the measure point to its estimated $1.4 billion in potential revenue, as well as the reduced spending on law enforcement and prisons, according to a New York Times article published Friday.

But opponents of the bill argue this measure will incur social costs, such as tardiness or absenteeism from work, according to the article. Other opponents claim the bill will increase crimes associated with marijuana usage.

The Daily Orange asks the experts: Can legalizing marijuana be justified if used to generate tax revenue for state governments?

Meet the experts:

Don Dutkowsky, professor of economics in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs

“Local governments have to balance their operations budgets as opposed to federal government. Do you cut services? Do you raise taxes? Fifty states across the nation are looking for ways to balance their budgets in tough economic times. They can do this by legalizing marijuana and taxing it, increasing tax revenues to help their state budget deficit. There are parallels here to the repeal of prohibition as a way for governments to raise taxes.”

Jon Hanson, assistant professor of political science in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs

“I think it is very interesting that proponents of the measure are making arguments about money and finances, rather than rights. The real test is about the nature of the campaign they run, such as the amount of money they raise and just how organized they are in spreading their word and mobilizing support.”

 

Published on March 31, 2010 at 12:00 pm