Obama Thinks Legalizing Marijuana Would Not Help the Economy. Economists Disagree.

[girl gone mad]

http://economics.about.com/b/2009/03/26/obama-thinks-legalizing-marijuana-would-not-help-the-economy-economists-disagree.htm


From http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/03/26/obama-marijuana-is-not-a-good-strategy-to-spur-economy/">CNN:

In a statement that's sure to disappoint many of those who submitted questions to President Obama's virtual town hall meeting, the president made clear Thursday he does not support legalizing marijuana as a means to spur economic growth.

(H/t: N.S. Gill)

Harvard economist http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/24/miron.legalization.drugs/index.html">Jeffrey Miron disagrees:

The U.S. repealed Prohibition of alcohol at the height of the Great Depression, in part because of increasing violence and in part because of diminishing tax revenues. Similar concerns apply today...

My views on the economics of marijuana legalization have been well-known for some time. Not surprisingly, I side with the economists, not the politicians.

[lostnotforgotten]

1. Hemp Is An Amazing Plant With Many Valuable (Prosperous) Uses

It's time that Hemp can be grown legally.

[Hannah Bell]

2. i'm not sure it would either, to tell you the truth. mj is *already* part of the economy.

legalization would just channel the money flow a bit differently, & channel e.g. drug enforcement money differently, which i think would be (mostly) a good thing, but wouldn't *add* to the economy, & it wouldn't solve the underlying problems of concentrated economic control & billions in phoney debt liabilities.

[Uncle Joe]

7. I believe it would redirect precious resources to wards far more constructive

parts of the economy.

[rd_kent]

3. I was very disappointed in our President when I saw that!

This is an issue that touches on nearly EVERY major problem we are facing right now, and he laughed it off. There is a groundswell of support that has been building for many years now and its time for legalization to be taken seriously for a change. Its no longer a third-rail issue. This makes me wonder just hoe "progressive" he really is. I truly hope that he has a plan and wants to tackle this issue when the time is right, not just right now. If he would just tell us why he opposes it.....

[Patchuli]

4. I wonder if Obama's POV is actually reverse psych...

he opposes and then gives the stage to economists and the honest scientists who tell the truth about cannabis and what a useful plant it is for the human species. He then allows a bill to get signed. If he were pro-cannabis, that would just give the republicans something else to attack him for. Make sense?

[rd_kent]

6. Im open to any explanation

I hope that this is all just part of a bigger plan. I was just disappointed because legalization was THE most popular question in ALL categories.

[scarletwoman]

17. No need to "wonder just how progressive he is" -- wonder no more, he's NOT.

He's never shown an inkling of being progressive -- he talked a good populist game here and there during the campaign, but that was the extent of it.

[Mari333]

28. yep. nt

[corruptmewithpower]

5. Federal law enforcement unions have enormous clout.

They will never allow legal reforms that could result in fewer "criminals" to deal with.

[Echo In Light]

9. System's been in place too long to EN$URE profitability of such "criminals"

[corruptmewithpower]

27. Incarceration is profitable indeed!

Prison-industrial complex


The prison-industrial complex refers to interest groups that represent organizations that do business in correctional facilities, such as private corrections companies, corporations that contract prison labor, construction companies, and surveillance technology vendors, and to the belief that these actors may be more concerned with making profits than actually rehabilitating criminals or reducing crime rates.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison-industrial_complex

[WorseBeforeBetter]

8. I referenced that Miron piece a couple of times last week on DU.

In summarizing his commentary, drug prohibition:

--Increases violence.
--Corrupts politicians and law enforcement.
--Erodes protections against unreasonable search and seizure.
--Encourages police to engage in racial profiling.
--Has disastrous implications for national security.
--Harms the public health.
--Breeds disrespect for the law.
--Drains the public purse.

"...legalize drugs while using regulation and taxation to dampen irresponsible behavior..."

Hell, even Jim Webb seems open to legalization as part of prison reform. There's been discussion on DU about how to handle cigarettes, alcohol and weed: Legalize, tax and don't advertise. Makes sense to me; then again, I'm not in politics, law enforcement or advertising.

[Mugweed]

10. It's a shame to see someone his age pretend the plant is bad

I heard a politician on the Thom Hartman show play a dumb runaround when asked the same question about legalization. He asked "Where do you draw the line?" I would answer "At the legalization of marijuana." Man, what a hard decision to make. Just remember - nicotine and alcohol have never been directly attributed to addiction or death. That's why they're legal and acceptable. This politician then went into some tangent about a society that needs illegal drugs. I wanted to reach through the radio and slap the fucker. What about the constant barage of advertisements from pharmaceutical companies that want us to rely on "legal" drugs? The government has no fucking poblem with that, do they?

I don't recall anyone during the Prohbition era advocating medicinal alcohol. Why do people keep asking for medicinal maijuana to be legal? Fuck that, just make it legal...period.

[jedr]

11. I posted this before and stand by it: the real reason ;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=289318&mesg_id=289419

[ima_sinnic]

12. meh. he got our votes, so now we can go screw ourselves.

if it won't benefit his rich friends on Wall St., he doesn't care about it--THEY aren't pushing for legalization, so it doesn't count, same as with single-payer health care, which of course they will oppose to the death. If it doesn't make a profit for the corporatists, or keep their taxes from being raised, he won't work for it.

I will be voting for whoever the TRUE progressive is next time, third party if necessary. I no longer care whether that means the republicans might win, because the difference between the two parties is miniscule.

[lib2DaBone]

13. Ciala.. may cause vomiting, seizures, sleep-walking and stroke...

"ASK YOUR DOCTOR".. ya, fucking right.

It's OK to push big pharma chemicals... but we must bust down the doors of pot smokers to "protect them from themselves".

HUH?

[Liberal Veteran]

24. Sigh. All pharmaceuticals carry a risk of adverse effects.

The vast majority of people who take Cialis are going to get a boner, not vomiting, seizures, stroke or anything else.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm not sure that potential adverse reactions to a pharmaceutical that treats a medical problem is the best argument one can proffer for legalization.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. The good news is, we're talking about it more than ever.

The idiocy can't last forever.

[G_j]

15. that laughing bit made me ill.. nt

:puke:

[wartrace]

16. It WON"T help the economy.

Right now people actually BUY marijuana, if it were legal people would grow their own next to the tomato plants in the backyard. If it were legal there would be vacant beds at our corporate prisons. Lawyers would lose billable hours, drug testing companies would lose revenue, logging companies would go out of business and pulp mills would close. Drug sniffing dogs would be "put to sleep" & alcohol sales would plummet. There would be fewer fatal traffic accidents due to the "low speed crashes" involving marijuana as opposed to the high speed alcohol crashes we now enjoy. Funeral directors would suffer tremendously. Legal marijuana is BAD for the economy.

[troubleinwinter]

18. It's illegal because Monsanto hasn't patented the seeds yet and

because it grows without fetilizers and pesticides.

Once Monsanto develops and patents a seed strain requiring Dow fertilizers and pesticides, Monsanto's seeds will be the only strain that will be legal to grow (a 'terminator seed' that won't produce next year's seeds, requiring purchase of the patented seed for each crop).

The first thing Bremmer did in Iraq was to illegalize seed-saving by farmers. Seeds that had been developed over hundreds and thousands of years, specialized by farmers to each locale. Farmers were FORCED to buy Monsanto GM seed and fertizilzers and pesticides that had previously not been needed. Crop production went down, while costs went up.

[sarcasmo]

19. Kick back to the top. Wrong answer.

[Prophet 451]

20. Still marching the wrong way

*sigh* I wonder sometimes if our politicians will ever see sense. The government in my own country (England) just increased the penalties for pot possession (having only lowered them about five years ago) in defiance of the advice of scientists and the drug advisery board. In your country, no "serious" politician will even entertain the idea.

And the solution is so obvious and has been for decades: Legalise and treat it like booze - age restricted and requiring a license to sell (if you want to grow your own, fine, that's just like brewing your own beer).

[Thickasabrick]

21. I like pot. I want to see it legal. This issue would make us lose

many independents and we need them for 2010. Other issues are more important right now.

[Liberal Veteran]

22. Of course what he said was that legalizing marijuana wasn't a good strategy to grow our economy.

And while I am 100% in favor of legalization, as a panacea for fixing our economic troubles, it falls short.

Regulation of the banking industries, fixing health care, decreasing "defense" spending and putting an end to the excesses of corporate America are much better strategies to fix our economy.

[immoderate]

23. He chose his words carefully...

He didn't say it wouldn't help the economy. He said he doesn't support it as the (a) way to help the economy. I say it's all hypocritical. Many around here say supporting legalization now is not feasible. But that's politics. So it's hypocritical.

--imm

[alfredo]

25. A 50 state strategy: if the states lead, the Feds will have to follow.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. The Ecomonic Benefits Would Only Be Temporary.

First of all, we know that technically pot is the biggest cash crop in the US. That money is still already part of our economy, so legalizing would only go so far in helping the economy. I do believe there could be some large improvements though.

The problem as I see it though, is the monkey see monkey do problem If we legalize, within years times I guarantee other major countries would as well. Legalizing it opens it up to being a legal product. Legal products are open for competition. Before you know it, the tons of jobs that would be created from the legalization would be sent overseas, thereby nullifying our economic benefit. Then, within years, other countries who have followed suit and legalized it would likely have pot far superior to ours (mark my words) and 'win' the competition, meaning we'd have an increased trade deficit and most of the pot we were legally smoking would likely be via import.

So though it may have a temporary positive impact on our economy, I think in the long run the reverse would be true. Lost jobs and more trade defecit.

[robdogbucky]

30. Economic benefits

and other benefits:

OPERATIONMINDCRIME wrote and I respond:

“First of all, we know that technically pot is the biggest cash crop in the US. That money is still already part of our economy, so legalizing would only go so far in helping the economy. I do believe there could be some large improvements though.”

That money is part of the underground economy, ala tips, contractor work for cash, bribery and financial “favors,” to win bids as a way of doing business, etc. and does not meet the taxman. The potential for increased revenues through reasonable taxation would do what? You got it, help the economy and increase revenues for needed social programs. ‘Course what the IRA threatens, the tax avoidance industry (billions of dollars spent in legally avoiding taxes) preserves and your immediate analysis entirely ignores the flexibility and creativity of the American people. In the hands of our people this change holds tremendous potential.

“The problem as I see it though, is the monkey see monkey do problem If we legalize, within years times I guarantee other major countries would as well. Legalizing it opens it up to bein;g a legal product. Legal products are open for competition. Before you know it, the tons of jobs that would be created from the legalization would be sent overseas, thereby nullifying our economic benefit. Then, within years, other countries who have followed suit and legalized it would likely have pot far superior to ours (mark my words) and 'win' the competition, meaning we'd have an increased trade deficit and most of the pot we were legally smoking would likely be via import.”

What a crock OMC, your underlying assumptions are dead wrong. Look to the end of Prohibition, did that kill the alcohol and spirits industry here? There is a smattering of import beers and high-end imported liquors, but by and large most of the alcohol consumed in the US is made in the US. In addition there are burgeoning homebrew and microbrew industries here. Your ignorance betrays you, as we here in No. America can hold our own in any growing contest (mark MY words if you like). I am surprised that you would think the hydroponics, seed stock hybridization and nutrient technology developed here would somehow be supplanted by some third world cheap labor gambit in the growing game. You actually think we would lose this production war? With our experience and resources, we could easily become the world’s leader in production/sales, IMHO. Don’t you listen to your own disinformation? The pot grown here now is 7 times stronger than what the hippies used to smoke from Mexico. Cripes, what a crock and only meant to sow fear and further disinformation. Needless to say there is a grain of truth to that sentiment, we do grow some really good product here now.

“So though it may have a temporary positive impact on our economy, I think in the long run the reverse would be true. Lost jobs and more trade defecit.”

Yup, all those prison doors that would swing open and all those lives that would no longer waste away behind bars due to this “Prohibition,” and all those production and sales jobs created and all that legal tax revenue and that newly freed-up legal industry would be a bad thing, huh? Those kind of jobs associated with the criminal incarceration industry should be lost anyway. Human nature tells me that particular vacuum would be filled almost as immediately as your dire predictions would. An allegedly free society that devotes so much to lies and suppression of basically benign behaviors, can only reap what it sows. It would feasibly restore confidence in our own government’s word, instead of knowing it is willingly continuing to be tied to a big lie and rampant corruption. I know it had an effect on me when I was young and reminds of that oft-used jury instruction to jurors, along the lines of “If the witness has been proven in a lie once, you have the right to disbelieve anything further they may testify to,” or such.

robdogbucky

[TWiley]

29. psssst girl_gone_mad ..... lay off the pot and sanity will return.