Yes

by Brenda Mcintosh

Created on: April 21, 2012   Last Updated: April 22, 2012

The legalization of marijuana would have a tremendously positive effect on the application of the nation's criminal justice policy and the manner in which it effects the social and economic conditions of communities.

There would be less crowded prisons, a less disproportionate rate of non-violent criminal arrests by racial group, a huge new commodity, hemp, that would bring new revenue streams and jobs into a distressed economy, and government would no longer enforce a policy that intrudes upon the rights of individual adult citizens to be responsible for their own consumption decisions.

Reduced Law Enforcement Costs and Tax Revenue Benefits

The cost of keeping marijuana illegal is tremendously high.  A recent report by Jon Gettman estimated that national criminal justice expenditures for enforcing marijuana laws is $7.6 billion per year with $3.7 billion being allocated to police, $853 million to the courts, and $3.1 billion to corrections.

Similarly, a 2005 report by the Sentencing Project claims that $2.1 billion is being spent by police on enforcing marijuana laws. According to a report prepared by Michael R Aldrich, PhD, Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D., and Gordon S. Brownell, J.D., the cost in California was estimated to be approximately $100 million per year before they decriminalized marijuana. California now generates over $30 million per year in reduced police costs alone.

Jon Gettman indicates that  "funds diverted to the illicit marijuana market costs government $31.1 billion in tax revenue annually."

He writes that local, state and federal governments receive 28.7% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in tax revenue and that if money now being diverted to the illegal marijuana market was spent on legal goods instead, the GDP would increase by $112.9 billion.  At a rate of 28.7% of GDP, this diversion would produce $11.6 billion in revenue to state and local governments, $7.2 billion to the federal government in social security and other social insurance premiums, and $12.2 billion in other federal tax revenue. Therefore, prohibiting marijuana causes the destruction of $31.1 billion in tax revenue.”

Agricultural and Environmental Benefits

Hemp is the same plant as marijuana,  Its scientific name is "cannabis sativa" For thousands of years hemp was used to make dozens of commercial products like paper, rope, canvas, and textiles.

A large canvas producer in Portland, Oregon since 1945, Waagmeester Canvas Products, Inc, prepared a brief history of canvas which reveals that the name "canvas" comes from the arabic word for cannabis, which is a latin word for hemp.  Long ago it was popular to use hemp to make canvas.  Today canvas is usually made from cotton, linen or synthetic material. 

In the US, hemp production is currently banned in most states because of the illegal status of marijuana.  However, many states are currently looking at the economic and agricultural benefits of growing hemp.

The potential of hemp for paper production is enormous.  According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, “one acre of hemp can produce 4 times more paper than one acre of trees.” 

It is estimated that it takes from 20 to 50 years after planting it to grow a tree to the point where it can be harvested for commercial use.  Comparatively, hemp grows 10 to 20 feet and it is ready for harvesting within 4 months after it is planted.  Unlike forests, which require vast areas of land, hemp can be grown on most farmland throughout the United States. 

The use of hemp rather than trees to produce paper would save forests and wildlife habitats and prevent the topsoil erosion that occurs as a result of cutting down trees.  The reduction of topsoil erosion would reduce pollution in lakes, rivers and streams.

Canada and Australia legalized hemp production in 1998. In other countries, such as China, Russia, and Hungary, hemp production was never outlawed.

Several companies import hemp fabrics and garments into the United States. Other firms import hemp fiber or sterile hemp seed for further processing and manufacturing into products, such as paper, nutrition bars, and beer.

If marijuana was decriminalized in the United States, there would be no need for states to import hemp.
Several states are currently focused on the agricultural and economic benefits of hemp production, including : Kentucky, Vermont, Hawaii, and North Dakota. Published study results are available from Kentucky, Oregon, and North Dakota.
Since 1995, a total of 19 States have introduced hemp legislation.  In 1999, nine States passed legislation concerning the research, study, or production of industrial hemp as a crop. The legislation in Minnesota and North Dakota permits the production of industrial hemp.

As observed by Vote Hemp President Eric Steenstra, the U.S. hemp industry is valued at over $400 million in annual retail sales and growing. A change in federal policy to allow hemp farming would mean instant job creation, among many other economic and environmental benefits."

Social  and Economic Benefits

The American criminal justice system causes a tremendously disproportionate rate of incarceration across racial lines for marijuana usage and/or sales and it's very costly.

According to the results of a study conducted by the Drug Policy Alliance - "Although rates of drug use and selling are comparable across racial lines, people of color are far more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated for drug law violations than are whites.” 

The Alliance concluded that the higher arrest/incarceration rates for Blacks and Latinos reflected a law enforcement focus on communities of color and low income communities in addition to inequitable criminal justice treatment was the cause of this phenomena, rather than a higher prevalence of drug use or drug sales in those communities.

According to Bo Lozoff, a leading American prison reform activist, “Drug cases are clogging our nation's prisons.”  “….And all this incarceration is doing nothing to solve the drug problem. . . . it has become political suicide to discuss decriminalization.”

A Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) study conducted by John Schmitt, Kris Warner, and Sarika Gupta in June 2010 titled ,“The High Budgetary Cost of Incarceration” found, shockingly, that the United States incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other country in the world. 

The study concluded that if the incarceration rate of non-violent offenders was reduced by just fifty percent, correctional incarceration expenditures would be lowered by $16.9 billion  per year and almost all of those savings ( a full $14.8 billion), would be realized at the cash strapped state and local government levels.

This study made similar findings to those of  Bo Lozoff who looked at incarceration during the same period, but from a different perspective.  The CEPR study found  that 60% of the prison and jail population is comprised of non-violent offenders, representing an increase from less than 10% of the prison and jail population in 1980 to 60% in 2010.  Bo Lozoff found that 61% of all federal prison inmates are there for drug offenses, which is an increase from 18% in 1980.

Valerie Wright, PhD, examines the social and economic impacts of incarceration for marijuana usage and sales in her 2010 report issued through The Sentencing Project.

According to Dr. Wright, “It is estimated that federal, state, and local governments are spending $68 billion annually on incarceration. A recent economic analysis estimates that reducing the number of incarcerated non-violent offenders by half could save taxpayers $16.9 billion annually without putting public safety at risk.”

Dr. Wright found that treatment costs are far lower than incarceration costs and that lengthy terms of incarceration did not show evidence of deterring crime.

As an example she cited a study that concluded – “a dollar spent on treatment in prison yields about six dollars of savings, but a dollar investment in community-based treatment yields nearly $20 in costs savings.”

There is overwhelming evidence that the current policy of heavy reliance on incarceration as the weapon of choice wielded by the criminal justice system in the war on drugs has a high social and economic cost.  Consequently, policymakers are  reconsidering the practicality of current sentencing policies and the reliance that has been placed upon incarceration.

Learn more about this author, Brenda Mcintosh.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.