Has U.S. gone further than Netherlands over marijuana?
By Beau Kilmer, Special to CNN
Editor’s note: Beau Kilmer is co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Research Center and coauthor of Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know. The views expressed are his own.
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee recently, U.S. Deputy Attorney General James Cole summarized the administration’s new approach to marijuana policy released in a recent U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) memorandum.
The announcement was monumental.
In addition to laying out the marijuana enforcement priorities for federal prosecutors, the memo suggests the DOJ will tolerate potentially large, for-profit marijuana companies in states with strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems. This means Colorado and Washington will be the first jurisdictions in the modern era to remove the prohibition on commercial marijuana production and distribution for nonmedical purposes and start regulating and taxing it.
Not even the Netherlands goes that far.
In fact, the memo specifically states that firms should not be targeted solely because of their size or commercial nature, suggesting instead that they should only be targets if they undermine any of the federal enforcement priorities, such as selling to minors or diverting revenues to organized crime groups.
But here is something to keep in mind about for-profit companies: They tend to like profit. A lot.
Since about 80 percent of the marijuana market is driven by those who use on a daily or near-daily basis, profit-maximizing companies will have strong incentives to market and advertise in ways that create and retain heavy users. While decision makers in Colorado and Washington are working to limit marijuana advertising, controlling promotion can be difficult in the United States with its doctrine of commercial free speech. The DOJ memo suggests federal prosecutors should target marijuana firms that market in ways that appeal to minors and it will be interesting to see if, and how, this is enforced.
More from CNN: Why I changed my mind on marijuana
Meanwhile, the federal announcement could encourage other states and other countries to consider the radical shift from marijuana prohibition to allowing the development of a commercial marijuana industry. But it’s critical to note those are not the only choices. Marijuana policy isn’t a black or white issue. Indeed, it’s more like 420 shades of grey.
For those seeking alternatives to marijuana prohibition, there are a number of options short of regulating a profit-maximizing commercial industry.
They could permit home production, as is allowed in Colorado, or allow non-profit cooperatives or buyers’ clubs. And if permitted under state law, they could also limit licensees or give preferences to social enterprises or “for-benefit” companies like B Corps that prioritize people and planet over profits.
But with all of these options, policy makers should consider how these choices might ultimately affect the retail price of marijuana, which can then influence both consumption and tax revenues.
Studies I have undertaken with my RAND colleagues suggest that marijuana legalization could dramatically decrease the costs of producing and distributing marijuana by removing risk and allowing for increasing returns to scale. The reduced costs could deflate retail prices, but the overall impact will depend on how the regulatory regimes are set up and enforced.
Aside from taxes, jurisdictions could attempt to offset price declines by imposing production limits and minimum prices. They could also create monopolies that would allow the government to control production and set the price. However, setting up monopolies would be difficult in the U.S. since state governments cannot order their employees to violate federal law.
Policy options become even greyer when you realize that decisions about marijuana don’t have to be permanent. But once for-profit companies and their lobbyists get entrenched, it could be harder to make changes. Thus, pioneering jurisdictions may want to consider incremental approaches that begin with non-profit regimes.
They should also contemplate sunset provisions that give them an escape clause in case they change their minds.
Ultimately, there are pros and cons to all marijuana policy options, and decisions will likely hinge on values about intoxication, personal freedom and predictions about what will work best. Since no modern country has removed the prohibition on commercial marijuana production and distribution, no one really knows whether legalization will be a net positive or negative for public health and public safety.
That means the world will be watching what happens in Washington and Colorado, but policy makers and voters should not forget that regulating profit-maximizing commercial firms is only one alternative to marijuana prohibition – and what works for one jurisdiction may not be the best fit for others.
@fareedzakaria on Twitter
How much longer will the lies about cannabis prevail? Most of us know it has a better safety record then asperine and even water (both can cause death from acute intoxication; something not possible at any dose with natural cannabis). Are we not free? Why no be allowed to chose something safer then alcohol?
Not to mention industrial uses for hemp (the real reason it was made illegal in 1937).
End this nonsense and free the weed! Clean out the prisons of nonviolent, possesion only, drug war victims if you want less government and less spending! It's 2013, let's tell the truth about cannabis!
Posted on another CNN blog awhile ago.
Ca-nabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®) – National Cancer Insti-tute
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/.../page4
Mar 21, 2013 – [1,2] These plant-derived compounds may be referred to as phytocannabinoids. ... have a protective effect against the development of certain types of tumors. ... In lung cancer cell lines, CBD upregulated ICAM-1, leading to ...
Good stuff !
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/25/survey-young-christians-want-marijuana-legalized/#comments
I find articles like this one frustrating-half truths, lack of info on the subject, shallow gubbly gook.
Marijuana plant has many industrial uses beyond the obvious medical uses which can benefit our economy. The plant is one of the fastest growing in many climate zones. It can provide cloth material to compete with cotton , rope, wood pulp. The seeds have outstanding protein which is being sold even on amazon and can be added to cereal. I barely touched the surface. The plant is much more important than poppies which foolish people neglect to see as a food source. People in the EU that used to make good money growing poppies for food are now prohibited from doing it so that big monopoly
or drug dealers can have absolute control. At least I think we are heading in the right direction on this matter in the US and this article is not helping it.
Why was my comment removed ?- the Thought Police must have come back. This article is absolute nonsense. The marijuana plant has many industrial uses , is one of the fastest growing plants in many time zones. It can compete with cotton, can be used as wood pulp. it has outstanding protein that can be used in cereals.
On and on which I specified before and some ignoramus removed my comments.
CNN needs to stop manipulating comments – it is unAmerican , undemocratic, totalitarian like. Shame on you !
Interesting article. Answer a bud poll on http://www.ismokeup.com and check out classic apparel at 20% off
Donbereediclus......... phwooooooooo.... cough, cough.
I don't think low prices will be an issue, especially in WA where they are taxing the crap out of it. They have set up a 25% / 25% / 25% system where the same bud could possibly be taxed 3 times for a total of 75%. You know that the growers will have to raise prices substantially to even be profitable under that model. In fact studies have shown that the legal weed for sale in shops will likely be quite a bit more expensive than what is offered in the black market.
the blind and greedy leading the blind
Check your math. 25% 3 times does not equal 75%. By my calculation it is more. Add 25% to $100. You get $125. Add 25% and you get $156.25. Add 25% again you have $195.31 Add 75% to $100 and you get $175.
That is not taking in consideration of markup price between grower, processor, and retailers, and assumes the cost of taxes are all passed on. The math gets complicated.
http://www.surveyshare.com/s/AYAWQWC
The DOJ is not "tolerating" marijuana, they have no choice. The states have already told Holder that they will vigorously defend marijuana legalization as a right conferred under the Tenth Amendment. The DOJ is making an attempt at offering terms of surrender.
I have been absent for some time, but now I remember why I used to love this website. Thank you, I will try and check back more frequently. How frequently you update your web site?
http://www.strategyboardgames.co.uk/play-flamme-rouge/
Awesome blog here, its really very helpful information for me. i enjoy this blog.
I am feeling very lucky found your site. Thankyou
Bigpond
detectives privados torrejón de ardoz
https://www.argadetectives.com/investigaciones-las-rozas-majadahonda.html
Transfer from bitcoin to paypal very fast and low cost.
https://exchanger24.org/xchange_btc_to_ppusd/