COLLEGE PROFESSOR SAYS THERE MAY BE HOPE, THE FINANCIAL KIND, IN DOPE

College economics professor Carl Moody has endorsed a report
advocating the legalization of marijuana, which, according to research
done by a Harvard University professor, would create savings and tax
revenues resulting in a net gain of approximately $10 to $14 billion
annually.

Harvard economics professor Jeffrey Miron's report, published in June
2005, is called "The Budgetary Implications of Marijuana Prohibition,"
and has garnered the support of over 530 economists from colleges and
universities across the nation.

Focusing on federal budgets, Miron's report notes that "prohibition
entails direct enforcement costs and prevents taxation of marijuana
production and sale."

Moody decided to express his support for the matter because he has
long agreed with Miron's argument, despite the controversy surrounding
the issue.

"It just makes so much sense. I've done lots of research, never
published it, but I looked into it, and the cost of drug prohibition
is just enormous," Moody said in a phone interview. "It is
controversial, but look who else supports it. I'm with Nobel Laureate
winners. If [Nobel Laureate recipients Dr.] Milton Friedman and [Dr.]
Vernon Smith can take the heat, so can I. It's just so sensible, why
wouldn't people agree?"

According to the report, lifting prohibition and allowing for the
taxation of marijuana would save the government approximately $7.7
billion per year in enforcement costs. Of these savings, $5.3 billion
would be accumulated at the state and local levels from such
expenditures and $2.4 billion at the federal level.

In Virginia, the police, judicial and corrections budget combined is
$2,935 million, of which $99.46 million is attributed to expenditures
related to marijuana prohibition, the report says.

In addition to these savings, the report says that the tax revenue
gains would be considerable. Depending on the method of taxation,
anywhere between $2.4 billion (if marijuana were taxed like an
ordinary product) and $6.2 billion (if it were taxed like alcohol or
tobacco) would be accrued annually.

Many of the esteemed endorsers of the report, however, think that the
economics are only part of the problem about marijuana
prohibition.

"Look at the factual consequences: the harm done and the corruption
created by these laws," Friedman said in an interview with Forbes
magazine. "The costs are one of the lesser evils."

Although the report espouses the view that legalizing marijuana would
have many economic benefits, it acknowledges that the social impacts
and consequences of eradicating prohibition were not considered.

Moody, however, feels that the social impacts of lifting prohibition
would all be positive.

"It's an unnecessary infringement on rights as a person and the right
to do what you want with your body. It's not anybody else's body; it's
not the government's. I support [legalization] on philosophical
grounds," he said.

His support for the issue of legalization also stems from his view of
the negative impacts of prohibition on society and individual freedoms.

"Prohibition leads to empowerment of the law enforcement and police
side of government. We're not a police state, but if you stop people
from doing what they want it reduces freedom overall. [In situations
like this,] police are forced to go undercover or rely on snitches or
break into houses [to seek out the criminals.] If prohibition were
lifted, there would be a significant shift of usage from alcohol to
marijuana, and also from more intense drugs to marijuana, which [in
comparison] is pharmacologically mild," Moody said.

Prohibition, in Moody's opinion, is the reason that harder drugs have
become more popular.

"[During prohibition in the 1920s,] beer wasn't smuggled in, they took
in hard alcohol. Essentially the same thing holds true now. Dangerous,
designer drugs are popular because they're easier to smuggle in. You
can't fly a plane of marijuana leaves," Moody said.

The report has been summarized in a letter to President George W.
Bush, requesting "an open and honest debate about marijuana
prohibition" and advocating reform that would allow a system of
regulation and taxation similar to that used for the distribution and
sale of alcoholic beverages.

"I don't expect significant movement [to change marijuana policy as a
result of] the report," Moody said. "This is essentially one drop in a
Chinese water torture method to change [the current] policy. Our one
drop says 'your policy is stupid.' Sooner or later, reason will win
out."