With a bill to legalize marijuana on the November California ballot, the controversy over the prohibition has reached a new high. Supporters see the potential tax revenues as a solution to the state’s mounting budget crisis, while those against argue that the increased use of marijuana will bring with it additional health care costs that far outweigh any economic benefits. We couldn’t think of a more appropriate day than today, 4/20 to take a look at the economic implications of a repeal of the prohibition. Is this a viable plan to get the state out of the weeds or just some kind of reefer madness?
Embed the above image on your site
5 Comments so far
leave a commentLung cancer… what?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html
“With a bill to legalize marijuana on the November California ballot, the controversy over the prohibition has reached a new high.”
A new high? Pun, pun, pun, puuuuunnnnnnn.
There has been serious research on whether there is any linkage between marijuana smoking and cancer, and the results have shown that there is no correlation between them. A good friend who died of lung cancer a couple of years ago spoke with a number of specialists who clearly said that there appears to be no correlation, and told him that he could go ahead and smoke it. He was a heavy cigarette smoker for years, and the type of cancer he had was highly correlated with cigarette smoking. Smoking marijuana kept his appetite up and pain down.
This is an interesting graphic that has already circulated widely on the Web. As a traffic generator for Mint.com, it’s a success. My fear is that this will be used as a sales tool to tout the Regulate, Control and Tax and Cannabis Act, the potential economic impact of which falls well below the figures cited here.
The Board of Equalization estimate was admittedly imprecise on its face, and it’s based on sales and excise taxes collected on a statewide basis (with an arbitrary figure of $50 per ounce selected to crunch the numbers). RCTCA 2010 does not legalize pot on a statewide basis, leaving it to local governments to set “appropriate” taxation levels should they desire to legalize cannabis within their respective jurisdictions. Not only will pot remain illegal in the vast majority of California, then, the purported tax benefits will be localized and likely much smaller than what’s cited in this graphic.
So … kudos to Mint.com for some creative thinking and marketing. Now, how about crunching some numbers on the true economic impact of RCTCA, the only legalization proposal that’s currently under serious consideration?
Pretty big $$ in this age old debate and, judging by this chart, lung cancer is the only thing stopping the ball from rolling. I cant wait to see how things play out in November.