Contemplating California's Drug Policy

Growing up in the Midwest with a conservative health teacher for a mom, I always held a pretty strong opinion against recreational drugs. Active in D.A.R.E. and youth, drug use was never something I was really able to understand.

Then I moved to California. The basic view here is drastically different; in California, possession of up to 28.5 g of marijuana constitutes only a $100 fine and no jail time, while the same amount in Illinois can mean 1 year of incarceration and a steep $2,500 fine. Recently the nation's (and particularly California's) policies have opened up for more discussion then has been allowed in the past, and for a surprising reason: the economic crisis. Many argue that the decriminalization of marijuana will draw in huge quantities of revenue for the state through taxes and decreased cost of punishment for offenders. Now even our governor has stated that he thinks it is time to open discussion on the matter, though he is not yet actively supporting the idea.

Instead of discussing whether or not this is morally a good idea, an always heated debate, let’s discuss how this might affect the state (if the former is more interesting to you, feel free to click this link). Though it is a very different situation, one example we can look to is the decriminalization of drugs in Portugal in 2001. The Cato Institute put together a study on the effects decriminalization had on Portugal in the five years after the new regulations were passed. After eight years, the results are clear: the change has been a success. Drug use among teens declined, rates of HIV infections from sharing needles decreased by 17%, and those seeking treatment for drug addiction doubled. Currently, the percentage of Americans who have tried cocaine is higher than the percentage of Portuguese who have tried marijuana. Since the situation and culture of the two countries is very different, it is hard to tell if these same changes would be seen in the United States.

On a more practical, everyday standpoint, things might not change too much. Following Portugal’s model, marijuana would not be legalized but simply decriminalized. Therefore possession and use would still be against the law, but not be criminal offenses. Drug trafficking is an exception (still a criminal offense). In this way, California has almost kept pace with Portugal. While the average person does not have legal access to it, it has been legalized for medical purposes. However, the US government has only recently allowed this; several cases where distributors complied with California but not federal laws are still being prosecuted.

Because of our different culture in the US, it seems unlikely that we would be able to take the exact same path- California will not simply begin to look the other way, but will place regulations, age limits, and other various rules on its sale and use. However, we can see that “high” would not become a way of life for the average Joe after decriminalization. While it would certainly become more easily accessible, smoke shops would not suddenly pop up all over the place (although in the current state, Los Angeles already has a few). Realistically, those with a moral opposition to pot will continue to decline to smoke and those who participate in it will simply enjoy it without the threat of punishment. Proposed bills in California to legalize marijuana have included an age limit of 21, the same as the current legal drinking age.

Considering that from 2005-2007 the US government spent an estimated $10 million on raids in California alone, the decriminalization could go a long way toward helping our current budget crisis. Combine that with $1.3 billion that CA tax collectors estimate tax on marijuana sales could bring in each year and our state’s budget could be drastically changed. Orange County Supreme Court Justice James Gray estimates that the cessation of prosecution against non-violent offenders could save another $1 billion a year for the state. $2.3 billion a year could hire teachers, fix roads, or just decrease the amount taxes have to be raised.

Few seem to be able to put up an argument that from a monetary standpoint, the decriminalization of marijuana could be anything but beneficial. Instead, all arguments focus on the fact that we have enough mind-altering substances on the market for society to handle right now. Judging by Portugal’s example, state revenues would go up. The country has given offenders the option of therapy, though it is not mandatory. This will mean some increased cost, but drastically less than incarceration has in the past. Decreased income in the form of fines will also be inconsequential when compared to the money saved by the decrease in raids and court costs.

Current budget reform plans have relied heavily on raising taxes, and specifically raising sales tax until it is the highest state rate in the US. While this kind of measure may work in the short run, long term it is going to do nothing to draw in more businesses that can help to create more revenue for the state. Politicians are aware of this, which explains why they are thinking outside the box to try to get out of this budget crisis. Legalizing the sale and possession of cannabis is just one potential part of a solution.

It may seem that despite these possible benefits for the state, we are still a long way from legalizing it. However, many facts about cannabis have recently become more widely accepted. Most now consider the potentially adverse effects of marijuana to be drastically less than alcohol. The harmful threats are now mostly linked to its role as a “gateway drug.” It is true that many are still wary of the potential drawbacks that could come from the decriminalization of marijuana, but a recent poll said that 56% of voters would support legalizing it. We may not be as far as we once thought. While it may be clear that it would be a clever financial decision for the state, only time will tell how it could affect the state’s moral code.