DOCSLIB.ORG

Thesis Final Manuscript

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Thesis Final Manuscript THE STATE AND CANNABIS: WHAT IS SUCCESS? A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF CANNABIS POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, URUGUAY, AND CANADA A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts By GIDEON C. CUNNINGHAM B.A., Wright State University, 2018 2021 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL July 27, 2021 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Gideon C. Cunningham ENTITLED The State and Cannabis: What is Success? A Comparative Analysis of Cannabis Policy in The United States of America, Uruguay, and Canada BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Arts ______________________________ Lee Hannah, Jr., Ph.D. Thesis Director ______________________________ Laura M. Luehrmann, Ph.D. Director, Master of Arts Program in International and Comparative Politics Committee on Final Examination: ________________________________ Lee Hannah, Jr., Ph.D. School of Public and International Affairs ________________________________ Liam Anderson, Ph.D. School of Public and International Affairs ________________________________ Pramod Kantha, Ph.D. School of Public and International Affairs ________________________________ Barry Milligan, Ph.D. Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Dean of the Graduate School ABSTRACT Cunningham, Gideon C. M.A., School of Public and International Affairs, Wright State University, 2021. The State and Cannabis: What is Success? A Comparative Analysis of The United States of America, Uruguay, and Canada. Globally, the policies that states engage in concerning the cultivation, production, distribution, and sale of recreational cannabis in the 21st century is changing rapidly. Three countries have now legaliZed, regulated, and implemented recreational cannabis frameworks, albeit in starkly different ways. These countries are The United States of America, Uruguay, and Canada. This research identifies the contradictory nature of cannabis policy goals and compares the similarities and differences of each countries’ recreational cannabis framework. It proposes a theory of understanding the contradictory nature of creating cannabis policies post-legaliZation and presents a framework from which to analyze the success of individual cannabis frameworks to contribute to furthering policymakers and the broader public’s understanding of best practices. iii Table of Contents I. AN INTRODUCTION TO CANNABIS POLICY ..................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 BACKGROUND ON CASES .............................................................................................................................. 4 TABLE 1 BACKGROUND ON CASES ............................................................................................................... 7 CASE SELECTION .......................................................................................................................................... 8 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 9 THEORY ...................................................................................................................................................... 10 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 11 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................................. 13 FOUNDATIONS OF RESEARCH ..................................................................................................................... 30 CANNABIS AS A COMMODITY ..................................................................................................................... 32 THE CHANGING INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT OF CANNABIS REGULATION ................................................... 34 FIGURE 1: EXAMPLES OF OPTIONS POLICYMAKERS HAVE IN DEALING WITH THE SUPPLY OF CANNABIS ..... 35 II. CASE STUDY – THE UNITED STATES ............................................................................................... 39 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 39 BACKGROUND OF CASE STUDY .................................................................................................................. 40 CANNABIS BY POPULAR DEMOCRACY ........................................................................................................ 41 THE HISTORY OF CANNABIS PROHIBITION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ...................................... 43 UNEVEN PATHWAYS TO LEGALIZATION ..................................................................................................... 49 TABLE 2: PATHWAYS TO LEGALIZATION (THE UNITED STATES) ................................................................ 51 FACTORS COMPLICATING TAXATION ......................................................................................................... 54 TABLE 3 U.S SUBNATIONAL TAX STRUCTURES .......................................................................................... 56 THE STATE OF TAXATION IN THE STATES ................................................................................................... 63 MARKET REGULATION ............................................................................................................................... 65 TABLE 4: MARKET REGULATION IN THE UNITED STATES .......................................................................... 65 CENTRALIZATION OF CANNABIS POLICY .................................................................................................... 73 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 75 III. CASE STUDY – URUGUAY ................................................................................................................. 80 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................... 80 BACKGROUND ON CASE STUDY .................................................................................................................. 81 THE HISTORY OF CANNABIS PROHIBITION IN URUGUAY ............................................................................ 85 PATHWAY TO LEGALIZATION ..................................................................................................................... 89 TO TAX OR NOT TO TAX ............................................................................................................................. 93 MARKET REGULATION ............................................................................................................................... 94 TABLE 5: URUGUAY RECREATIONAL CANNABIS REGULATION .................................................................. 94 CENTRALIZATION OF CANNABIS POLICY .................................................................................................... 98 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 99 iv Table of Contents (Continued) IV. CASE STUDY – CANADA .................................................................................................................. 102 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 102 BACKGROUND ON CASE STUDY ................................................................................................................ 103 THE HISTORY OF CANNABIS PROHIBITION IN CANADA ............................................................................ 104 PATHWAY TO LEGALIZATION ................................................................................................................... 108 TAXATION OF CANNABIS IN CANADA ....................................................................................................... 110 TABLE 6: CANADIAN FEDERAL CANNABIS EXCISE TAXES ....................................................................... 110 TABLE 7: CANADIAN AD VALOREM TAXES .............................................................................................. 111 MARKET REGULATION ............................................................................................................................. 113 TABLE 8: CANNABIS MARKET REGULATION IN CANADA ......................................................................... 113 CENTRALIZATION OF CANNABIS POLICY .................................................................................................. 117 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 119 V. WHAT IS SUCCESS? DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION ............................................................. 122 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Actors and Incentives in Cannabis Policy Change: an Interdisciplinary Approach to Legalization Processes in the United States and in Uruguay
    1 UNIVERSIDADE DE SÃO PAULO INSTITUTO DE RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS Fernanda Mena Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay São Paulo 2020 FERNANDA MELLO MENA 2 Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay Original Version Ph.D. Thesis presented to the Graduate Program in International Relations at the International Relations Institute, Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, to obtain the degree of Doctor in Science. Advisor: Prof. Dr. Leandro Piquet Carneiro São Paulo 2020 Autorizo a reprodução e divulgação total ou parcial deste trabalho, por qualquer meio convencional ou eletrônico, para fins de estudo e pesquisa, desde que citada a fonte. 3 Catalogação na Publicação* Instituto de Relações Internacionais da Universidade de São Paulo Mena, Fernanda Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay / Fernanda Mello Mena -- Orientador Leandro Piquet Carneiro. São Paulo: 2020. 195p. Tese (doutorado). Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Relações Internacionais. 1. Relações exteriores (História) – Brasil 2. Relações internacionais (História) - Brasil 3. Política externa – Brasil I. Mena, Fernanda II. Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay CDD 327.81 4 MENA, Fernanda Actors and incentives in cannabis policy change: an interdisciplinary approach to legalization processes in the United States and in Uruguay Ph. D. Thesis presented to the International Relations Institute, at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, to obtain the degree of Doctor in Science.
    [Show full text]
  • The Green Regulatory Arbitrage
    Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 II. PROHIBITION - HOW CANNABIS BECAME ILLEGAL ..................................................... 4 III. THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE .................................................................................................... 7 A. Federal Law And Its Impact On The Cannabis Industry ..................................................... 7 1. Cannabis Is A Schedule 1 Substance ............................................................................ 7 2. Access To Capital Markets Restricted ......................................................................... 9 3. Banking Services Limited .......................................................................................... 10 4. Tax Burdens .............................................................................................................. 11 5. Interstate And International Commerce Restrictions ................................................. 11 6. Insurance Options Limited ........................................................................................ 12 7. Medical Research And Clinical Trials Stymied .......................................................... 12 8. Professional Services Harder To Find ........................................................................ 13 9. Real Estate Challenges .............................................................................................. 13 B. The States
    [Show full text]
  • Hearing Unit Cover and Text
    Public Hearing before ASSEMBLY OVERSIGHT, REFORM, AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS COMMITTEE “The public hearing will be held in accordance with Article IX, paragraph 1 of the New Jersey Constitution and Rule 19:3 of the General Assembly” Assembly Concurrent Resolution 840 “Proposes constitutional amendment to legalize cannabis for personal, non-medical use by adults who are age 21 years or older, subject to regulation by Cannabis Regulatory Commission” LOCATION: Committee Room 16 DATE: December 12, 2019 State House Annex 10:00 a.m. Trenton, New Jersey MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE PRESENT: Assemblyman Joe Danielsen, Chair Assemblyman Eric Houghtaling, Vice Chair Assemblywoman Yvonne Lopez Assemblywoman Annette Quijano Assemblyman Ronald S. Dancer Assemblyman Brian E. Rumpf ALSO PRESENT: Stephanie M. Wozunk Martin Sumners Natalie Ghaul Office of Legislative Services Assembly Majority Assembly Republican Committee Aide Committee Aide Committee Aide Hearing Recorded and Transcribed by The Office of Legislative Services, Public Information Office, Hearing Unit, State House Annex, PO 068, Trenton, New Jersey TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Karen O’Keefe, Esq. Director State Policies Marijuana Policy Project 5 William J. Caruso, Esq. Trustee New Jersey Cannabis Industry Association 8 Sarah Fajardo Policy Director American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey (ACLU) 11 Scott Rudder President New Jersey CannaBusiness Association 11 Barbara Eames Representing Morris Patriots 15 Shawn Hyland Director of Advocacy Family Policy Alliance of New Jersey 18 Justin Escher Alpert, Esq. Private Citizen 21 Monica B. Taing, Pharm.D. Board Member and Membership Director Doctors for Cannabis Regulation (DFCR), and National Director Research and Clinical Education Minorities for Medical Marijuana, Inc. (M4MM) 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page Jon-Henry Barr, Esq.
    [Show full text]
  • Considering Marijuana Legalization
    Research Report Considering Marijuana Legalization Insights for Vermont and Other Jurisdictions Jonathan P. Caulkins, Beau Kilmer, Mark A. R. Kleiman, Robert J. MacCoun, Gregory Midgette, Pat Oglesby, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Peter H. Reuter C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/rr864 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2015 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface Marijuana legalization is a controversial and multifaceted issue that is now the subject of seri- ous debate. In May 2014, Governor Peter Shumlin signed Act 155 (S.
    [Show full text]
  • Annex 1 Current Encod Membership – April 2014
    ANNEX 1 CURRENT ENCOD MEMBERSHIP – APRIL 2014 HARM REDUCTION ORGANISATIONS - 6 ASSOCIAZIONE TILT – Italy AILAKET - Spain COLLETIVO INFOSHOCK – Italy Akzept e.V. - Germany DRUG PEACE INSTITUTE - Netherlands ALICE-PROJECT - Germany FHN – Norway Blue Point Drug Counseling and Outpatient Center – Forum Droghe – Italy Hungary INEIDFO - Germany BUNDESVERBAND DER ELTERN – Germany LEGALIZACE.CZ – Czech Republic FEDERACION ANDALUZA DE DROGODEPENDENCIAS LEGALIZE! – Netherlands Y SIDA ENLACE - Spain Liaison Antiprohibitioniste – Belgium Meres pour la Marijuana - France CONSUMER ORGANISATIONS, CANNABIS - 40 Netherlands Drug Policy Foundation - The Netherlands ACMEFUER – Spain Norml France – France AICC CANNABISCAFE – Spain Norml UK - UK AIRAM - Spain SNARROTIN – Iceland ALACANNABIS – Spain TILT ROMA - Italy ASARTE CLUB SOCIAL CANNABIS – Spain VEREIN LEGALIZE – Austria Asbl Sativa - Belgium VOC - Netherlands Asociación Club Calidad de Vida – Spain Asociación Casa María – Spain MEDIA - 9 Asociación Kali Club – Spain Cañamo – Spain ASSOCIAZIONE ASCIA - Italy Cannabis Magazine – Spain Bündnis Hanfparade e.V. - Germany Cannaclopedia - Belgium CANNABIS COLLEGE – Netherlands CANNAWEB.CH - Switzerland CANNABIS SANS FRONTIERES – France CANNAWEED – France Cannabis Social Club Maribor - Slovenia CANNAZINE – United Kingdom Chanvre et Libertés – France GONZOMEDIA - Netherlands CIRC NORD EST - France Radio K Centrale – Italy CLUB SOCIAL DE CANNABIS DE GRAZALEMA – Spain The Stoned Society - Netherlands CSC MA WEED PERSO - Belgium Deutscher Hanf Verband – Germany
    [Show full text]
  • Unconstitutional Qualification of the Right to Bear Arms by the Federal Government Against Law-Abiding Medical Marijuana Patients
    A STICKY SITUATION: THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL QUALIFICATION OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGAINST LAW-ABIDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS LUKE C. WATERS* INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 116 I. MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAWS ................................................................ 120 A. Comprehensive Medical Marijuana Programs ....................... 121 B. Federal Laws & Policies ........................................................ 129 1. The Ogden Memo ............................................................. 134 2. The Cole Memo ................................................................ 135 3. The Cole Recreational Memo ........................................... 137 4. The Sessions Enforcement Memo .................................... 137 5. The Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment .................................. 138 II. SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ............................................................ 142 A. An Awkward Landmark Decision ......................................... 143 B. The Post-Heller Two-Step Qualification Analysis ................ 144 1. Individuals Adjudicated as Mentally-Ill ........................... 149 2. Users of Illegal Drugs ....................................................... 151 IV. UNCONSTITUTIONAL APPLICATION ................................................... 152 A. Modest Collateral Burdens: Wilson v. Lynch ......................... 153 B. Applying the Two-Step Test to Qualified Patients Appropriately
    [Show full text]
  • Police and Crime Commissioners
    Police and Crime Commissioners : emerging 'drug policy actors'? AUSTEN, Liz <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2837-8297> Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/11365/ This document is the author deposited version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. Published version AUSTEN, Liz (2016). Police and Crime Commissioners : emerging 'drug policy actors'? Safer Communities, 15 (1), 4-10. Copyright and re-use policy See http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.html Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive http://shura.shu.ac.uk Police and Crime Commissioners: Emerging 'drug policy actors'? Dr Liz Austen Sheffield Hallam University Safer Communities: Viewpoint Article Pre-publication draft Abstract Purpose In 2013, the Police and Crime Commissioner for Durham, Ron Hogg, initiated a debate around the future of British drug policy. In June 2015, the Derbyshire PCC, Alan Charles, opened a similar debate with representatives from policing, third party support agencies, national advocates and academics to discuss the possibilities for change. This short article presents the views and actions of senior figures in the police service and discusses motivations for pursuing change. The aim of the paper is to introduce Police and Crime Commissioners as 'drug policy actors' (Seddon 2011) and to highlight key areas for further academic enquiry. Design/methodology/approach This article is based on press releases and media accounts of the recent activity of the PCCs in relation to national drug policy. This article provides an academic viewpoint on recent events, supported by theoretical literature critiquing drug policy and contemporary policing.
    [Show full text]
  • How Can the Lens of Human Rights Provide a New Perspective on Drug Control and Point to Different Ways of Regulating Drug Consumption?
    How can the lens of human rights provide a new perspective on drug control and point to different ways of regulating drug consumption? A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2015 Melissa L. Bone School of Law Table of Contents Index of Tables……………………………………………………………………..….5 Table of Cases………………………………………….………………………………6 Table of Statutes, Treaties and Legislative Instruments……………………………....10 List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………15 Abstract………………………………………………...…………………………….18 Candidate’s Declaration and Copyright Statement…………………………………...19 Acknowledgements…………………………………...……………………………...20 Introduction………………………………………………………………..…………22 Chapter 1: Understanding the origin and value of human rights and psychoactive consumption………………………………………………………………………….32 1.1 What are human rights and where have they come from?………..……………….33 1.2 Human right foundations and the question of importance…………...……………36 1.3 The grounds for human rights…………………………………………….………42 1.3.1 ‘The universalist challenge’…………………………………………..46 1.4 The origin and value of human psychoactive consumption……………………….49 1.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………..…………54 Chapter 2: Understanding how human rights can address the drug policy binary: the conflict between the interests of the State and the interests of the individual………….55 2.1 Defining ‘the State’……………………………………………………...………..56 2.2 Identifying four ‘typical philosophical positions and the binary which underpins them……………………………………………………………….………………….62
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Federal Marijuana Policy by Ed Chung, Maritza Perez, and Lea Hunter May 1, 2018
    Rethinking Federal Marijuana Policy By Ed Chung, Maritza Perez, and Lea Hunter May 1, 2018 For decades, the failed war on drugs has devastated communities across the United States, contributing to unprecedented rates of incarceration. The United States has nearly 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population despite comprising less than 5 percent of the world’s total population.1 This phenomenon gained momentum in the 1970s when President Richard Nixon first declared a war on drugs and policy- makers at all levels of government added harsh criminal penalties for drug offenses, leading to explosive incarceration rates. Since then, the nation’s incarcerated popula- tion has increased sevenfold—from 300,000 people to 2.2 million people today—and 1 out of 5 people incarcerated are serving time for a drug offense.2 People of color have disproportionately felt the damaging and unnecessary consequences of these outdated tough-on-crime policies. Members of these communities have been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment as well as lifetimes of poverty and economic insecurity.3 According to the Drug Policy Alliance, drug enforcement in the United States is rooted in racial discrimination, as the first anti-drug laws were established around the turn of the 20th century and targeted Chinese immigrants, black Americans, and Mexican migrants.4 Today, between 40 percent and 50 percent of all drug arrests are for mari- juana.5 Discriminatory enforcement of marijuana laws is one reason that black and Latino Americans make up two-thirds of the U.S. prison population despite only comprising 12 percent and 17 percent of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Adapting a Regulatory Framework for the Emerging Cannabis Industry
    OCTOBER 2019 Learn more about NCIA’s Policy Council TheCannabisIndustry.org/PolicyCouncil National Cannabis Industry Association TheCannabisIndustry.org ADAPTING A REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR THE EMERGING CANNABIS INDUSTRY National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) Adapting a Proven Regulatory Framework for the Emerging Cannabis Industry Table of Contents 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 INTRODUCTION 11 LEGAL STATE OF CANNABIS IN THE UNITED STATES 13 CURRENT LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS 14 CANNABIS PRODUCTS 15 REMOVING THE OUTDATED REGULATORY STRUCTURE 16 ESTABLISHING A NEW REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 19 SOCIAL EQUITY 20 LANE #1: Pharmaceutical Drugs 23 LANE #2: Ingested, Inhaled, or Topically Applied THC Products 31 LANE #3: Ingested and Inhaled Cannabinoid Products with Low/No THC 40 LANE #4: Topically Applied Low THC Products 43 CONCLUSION National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) Adapting a Proven Regulatory Framework for the Emerging Cannabis Industry Executive Summary For almost a century, the United States government has criminalized the production, distribution, and sale of cannabis. However, this era of prohibition has been crumbling in the face of voter and, increasingly, legislative revolt. Even as these federal laws remain unchanged, most states have legalized some form of medical cannabis, and eleven states and the District of Columbia have changed their laws to regulate adult-use cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol. Moreover, Congress recently removed hemp (and any cannabinoids derived therefrom) from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), legalizing
    [Show full text]
  • This Is the Peer Reviewed Version of the Following Article
    This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Potter, G. R., Barratt, M. J., Malm, A., Bouchard, M., Blok, T., Christensen, A.-S., Decorte, T., Frank, V. A., Hakkarainen, P., Klein, A., Lenton, S., Perälä, J., Werse, B., & Wouters, M. (2015). Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: Sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(3), 226–237. which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.007 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Elsevier’s Article Sharing policy and Hosting policy © 2014. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Accepted Manuscript Title: Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: Sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries Author: Gary R. Potter Monica J. Barratt Aili Malm Martin Bouchard Thomas Blok Anne-Sofie Christensen Tom Decorte Vibeke Asmussen Frank Pekka Hakkarainen Axel Klein Simon Lenton Jussi Peral¨ a¨ Bernd Werse Marije Wouters PII: S0955-3959(14)00363-6 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.007 Reference: DRUPOL 1503 To appear in: International Journal of Drug Policy Received date: 22-7-2014 Revised date: 6-12-2014 Accepted date: 8-12-2014 Please cite this article as: Potter, G. R., Barratt, M. J., Malm, A., Bouchard, M., Blok, T., Christensen, A.-S., Decorte, T., Frank, V. A., Hakkarainen, P., Klein, A., Lenton, S., Peral¨ a,¨ J., Werse, B., and Wouters, M.,Global patterns of domestic cannabis cultivation: sample characteristics and patterns of growing across eleven countries, International Journal of Drug Policy (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.12.007 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Marijuana Legalization Has Gained Traction in Recent Years in the United
    How One 11-Page Bill Could Yield Billions in Annual Benefits: The Marijuana Justice Act of 2017 Haley Dunn arijuana legalization has gained traction in recent years in the United States with a variety of bipartisan supporters. Primary benefits often cited include savings in enforcement and incarceration costs, additional tax revenue and jobs, release and expungement for those incarcerated, Mand lowered racial and economic disproportionality in the U.S. criminal justice system. Critics often bring up health costs, increases in impaired driving, harmful effects on adolescent brain development, and greater attendant crime as possible drawbacks. This article examines the potential costs and benefits of federal marijuana legalization under the Senate version of the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017 (S. 1689) introduced in the 115th Congress, assuming 30 additional states legalize recreational marijuana and set up a regulated commercial retail system. Using an analysis that operates under a net present value over 1,000 years and reflects 2017 dollar amounts, the results are overwhelming: these combined efforts could lead to nationwide lifetime net benefits of over $168 billion, with approximately $50 billion in the first year alone, and $17 billion in tax revenue that federal and state governments could receive annually. This article also runs best- and worst-case scenario sensitivity analyses in a post- enactment universe—best being one in which all 50 states legalize recreational marijuana and worst being one in which no additional states legalize. Even the worst- case scenario would lead to lifetime net benefits of over $77 billion ($4 billion/year) and, in the best case, over $1.4 trillion ($75 billion/year).
    [Show full text]