THE SOLUTION: LET POT PAY NATIONAL DEFICIT

In the midst of an unprecedented economic crisis, the U.S. should look
to unconventional sources of income to improve its financial position,
to help relieve us from our disproportionate debt, and to create new
sources of labor to tackle the increasingly high unemployment rate.

That being said, the legalization of marijuana remains unparalleled in
its financial potential.

The amount of money the government loses annually through the
prohibition of marijuana, in its failed attempts to catch, prosecute,
incarcerate and publicize marijuana in a negative light, must be a
titanic number, a number that derives new meaning in a time of an
exceptional economic downturn. This money -- coupled with the
potential of tax revenue, competition among new businesses, and
employment that would result -- would not only allow a great amount of
governmental wealth to be saved but also an exceptional amount of
money to be generated and spread about.

But still, any effort to repeal the marijuana prohibition continues to
lay stagnant on the legislative floor.

Jeffrey A. Miron, a professor of economics at Harvard University and
author of several books on the matter, including "Drug War Crimes,"
published an academic paper called "The Budgetary Implications of
Marijuana Prohibition" in 2005 that systematically broke down
budgetary consequences of a failed prohibition policy and outlined the
superfluous cost of such an ineffective program.

This paper recently sparked an initiative from economics professors
around the country, each signing a petition declaring their support
for a lift of the current prohibition act. It includes over 500
professors and three Nobel Laureates, including Milton Friedman.

The conclusive end of the paper calls for a renewed debate, one that
is fair and impartial, concerning marijuana legalization. The act of
exchanging prohibition with taxation and regulation, Miron estimates,
would result in approximately $7.7 billion a year in state and federal
expenditures.

On top of this, Miron makes it clear that if marijuana were taxed
similarly to alcohol and tobacco, the lucrative potential from tax
revenue would reach estimates of $6.2 billion annually.

These are conservative estimates considering Miron's lack of
acknowledgment of the money creation from new jobs and the flourishing
of related industries, including the sale of devices such as bongs.
Regardless, a moderate approximation of lifting the prohibition of
marijuana still puts the projected revenue in excess of $15 billion.

Short-sighted critics may point out that a $15 billion splurge of
money will make only the slightest dent in the monstrous $1.2 trillion
deficit at stake in the U.S., but they are conveniently forgetting two
important points.

First, while this newly created wealth seems minor, let us remember
that $15 billion annually is not a small figure. This is enough, for
example, to make a substantial impact in educational pursuits such as
after-school programs and additional educational clubs and funding.
These will give students the opportunity to stay busy and have
alternatives to drug use while pragmatically acknowledging that
students who want to use drugs will get them, regardless of the law.

Second, once prohibition is retracted, the market will take care of
itself. Besides minor regulations in enforcing an age limitation,
making sure the marijuana is legitimate and taxed, or, in other words,
taking the same procedures with marijuana as with alcohol and
cigarettes, there is relatively no commitment from the government. It
can simply sit back, collecting highly proportionate tax revenue while
devoting little effort.

The economic potential of marijuana, as well as our recognition that
prohibition is a failed policy, the acceptance of the lucrative black
market of marijuana, and the continuously lost revenue from it, should
open doors for a renewed debate of lifting the marijuana
prohibition.

The marijuana argument cannot be won through social reform,
libertarian outrage or public support. The only motive strong enough
in the U.S. to spark real change, create real initiative, and get
policy makers to favor a controversial issue such as this is solely
through economic means and benefits.

In such devastating economic times, let's ensure that the government
doesn't interfere with our personal choices, specifically those
decisions that neither interfere with the harm principle nor have an
effect on those around us, while taking advantage of a successfully
profitable market that will keep on giving, with or without the
government's participation.