DON'T STICK WITH A FAILED SYSTEM

Prohibition Has Not Achieved Its Stated Objectives. Legalization
Would Be a Saner Way to Deal With Marijuana.

People on both sides of the marijuana legalization debate have strong
feelings about Proposition 19, the California ballot initiative that
promises to regulate, control and tax cannabis. But science and
empirical research have been given short shrift in the discussion.
That's unfortunate, because the U.S. government has actually funded
excellent research on the subject, and it suggests that several
widely held assumptions about cannabis legalization actually may be
inaccurate. When the total body of knowledge is considered, it's hard
to conclude that we should stick with the current system.

One important question is whether laws criminalizing marijuana have
effectively reduced supply and use. It would appear from available
data that they have not. Despite billions spent on anti-cannabis law
enforcement and a 30% increase in the number of arrests in California
since 2005, marijuana remains the most frequently used illegal drug.
Nationally, an estimated $10 billion is spent each year enforcing
marijuana laws, yet an ongoing study funded by the National Institute
on Drug Abuse has concluded that over the last 30 years, the drug has
remained "almost universally available to American 12th-graders,"
with 80% to 90% saying the drug is "very easy" or "fairly easy" to obtain.

On the health side of the equation, scientific consensus is that
while cannabis may pose some health risks, they are less serious than
those posed by alcohol and tobacco. The approach taken to regulating
these other harmful substances, however, hasn't been to criminalize
them but to regulate their distribution, to impose taxes on their
purchase and to educate the public about their risks. These measures
have been shown to be effective, as in the case of cigarette
consumption, which has dropped dramatically.

On the other hand, cannabis prohibition has not achieved its stated
objectives. As detailed in a report published last week by my
organization, the International Centre for Science in Drug Policy,
research funded by the U.S. government clearly demonstrates that even
as federal funding for anti-drug efforts has increased by more than
an inflation-adjusted 600% over the last several decades, marijuana's
potency has increased by 145% since 1990, and its price has declined 58%.

In this context, supporting Proposition 19 seems like a reasonable
position, and recent polls have suggested that almost half of decided
voters support the ballot initiative. However, there has emerged a
strong assumption in the debate that, though legalization will save
police time and raise tax revenue, this will come at the cost of
increasing rates of cannabis use.

This notion is based on a widely cited Rand Corp. report, which used
a theoretical model to conclude that rates of cannabis use will
increase if cannabis is legalized. Though the authors of this report
cautioned readers that there were "many limitations to our estimate's
precision and completeness" and that "uncertainties are so large that
altering just a few key assumptions or parameter values can
dramatically change the results," few seem to have read past the
headline that legalization is likely to increase cannabis use.

This may be the case, but it's not a certainty. In the Netherlands,
where marijuana has been sold in licensed "coffee shops" since the
1970s, about 20% of the adult population has used the drug at some
time in their lives. In the United States, where it is largely
illegal, 42% of the adult population has used marijuana.

Neither Rand's theoretical model nor other commentaries have
considered the potential benefits of the broad range of regulatory
tools that could be utilized if the marijuana market were legal. The
state could then license vendors, impose purchasing and sales
restrictions and require warning labels. Although these methods have
been scientifically proven effective in reducing tobacco and alcohol
use internationally, it is noteworthy that successful government
lobbying by the tobacco and alcohol industries has slowly eroded many
of these regulatory mechanisms in the United States.

A bill has been introduced in the California Legislature to create a
uniform statewide regulatory system under the California Department
of Alcoholic Beverage Control if Proposition 19 passes. Such a system
would allow, finally, for an evidence-based discussion of how to
optimize cannabis regulatory regimes so that the benefits of
regulation (including such things as tax revenue and reduced drug
market violence) can be maximized while rates of cannabis use and
related harms can be minimized.

Up to now, the fact that cannabis is illegal has meant that the
unregulated market has been largely controlled by organized-crime
groups, and the trade has sparked considerable violence, both in the
United States and in Mexico. Given the widespread availability and
use of cannabis despite aggressive criminal justice measures, there
is no doubt that a saner system can be created if marijuana is
strictly regulated rather than left in the hands of organized crime.