HISTORY SUGGESTS OTHERWISE

Once more The Gazette offers an editorial supporting medical
marijuana, (Sept. 16) arguing "an above-ground, regulated, taxed,
store-front trade is better than a trade regulated to the black
market or neighborhood basements." Inference: we must accept either
one or the other.

If we adopt your logic, accepting the first (regulated, taxed drug
trade) presumably would help us avoid the damaging effects of the
latter (illegal drug trade).

History suggests otherwise. Legalized gambling, for example, did not
reduce illegal gambling in the U.S.; rather, it has increased it.
(MacCoun and Reuter, 2001)

This is especially so in sports gambling, most of which is illegal.
Legal gambling is regulated, and taxed and illegal gambling is not.
Legal gambling sets the stage for illegal gambling; it does not
eliminate it.

Your own paper offers evidence undermining your logic (page A6, Sept.
16): Illegal drug use in the U.S. rose nine percent last year, to the
highest levels seen in a decade "fueled by a sharp increase in
marijuana use." The Director of Office of National Drug Control Policy
was disappointed but not surprised given "eroding attitudes" toward
drugs "...and the growing number of states approving medicinal marijuana."

Even the U.S. government then, acknowledges that accepting a regulated
drug trade - as you've endorsed - not only fails to eliminate or
reduce harm caused by the unregulated drug trade, it often facilitates
and encourages greater illegal use of the same drug.

As you've often reminded us, there is tax revenue gained from such
trade, just as there are from gambling and alcohol sales. I'm not
comfortable reducing the issue to mere economics. But even if we do
so, with alcohol and tobacco taxed and regulated, the tax benefits to
the public are far overshadowed by the harmful consequences of their
use.

Alcohol-related costs total over $185 billion while producing an
estimated $14.5 billion in tax revenue; similarly, tobacco use costs
over $200 billion but only $25 billion is collected in taxes.

Thus the costs of legal alcohol are more than 12 times the total tax
revenue collected, and the costs of legal tobacco are about 8 times
the tax revenue collected (MacCoun and Reuter).

If we make it solely about tax revenue for our seemingly insatiable
government, one might legalize cocaine, methamphetamine and
prostitution as well.

Hopefully, folks will first consider the character of the community we
want to live in and look at the full consequences and costs, intended
and otherwise, of our choices.

Mark Garrard

Colorado Springs