First, I've put this in the editorials section because I'm not sure how the site feels on this issue, so to speak, and furthermore it's not something that's talked about here all that much (although I have written articles about it in the past). Also, fair warning: this is long.

In the interest of disclosure, let me make it clear that I am strongly against the war on drugs. Now then, on with the really big shew.

Professor Jeffrey A. Miron is a visiting professor of econ at Harvard University. He analyzed the budgetary effects of legalizing and taxing marijuana, and came up with some surprising numbers. His report has been endorsed by more than 500 economists, including a Nobel laureate. Obviously all this is just an estimate, but there's no doubt we spend a fortune on prevention and incarceration: we have the highest rate of incarceration in the world (714/100,000), as well as the highest overall prison population in the world (2,085,620).¹ Furthermore, a report by the Justice Policy Institute found in 2000 that 1 out of every 4.5 (or 458,131) prisoners in the US are there for drug offenses.²

And the numbers Dr. Miron found support this. First, he concluded that legalization would save the local, state, and federal governments a total of $7.7 billion (that's billion with a b): $2.4 billion for the federal government and $5.3 billion for state and local governments. Furthermore, taxation of marijuana would yield an income of $2.4 billion if it were taxed like any other good, and $6.2 billion if were "sin taxed," like alcohol or tobacco. That's a total savings of between $10.1 and $13.9 billion per year.³ Furthermore, these numbers actually seem conservative. From the press release:

For example, Miron's report does not include estimates for certain potential savings -- such as the likelihood of fewer criminal justice referrals of marijuana offenders to drug treatment and reduced prison costs stemming from persons on parole or probation being reincarcerated after positive urine tests for marijuana. In addition, Miron based his figure for corrections costs stemming from marijuana prohibition on an estimate that one percent of state prisoners are imprisoned for marijuana- related offenses. A report released May 18 by the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy put the figure at 1.6 percent, acknowledging that tens of thousands of Americans are incarcerated in state or federal prisons for marijuana offenses.

Furthermore, the National Office of Drug Control Policy's budget alone for 2006 is $12.4 billion⁴. While this is not only focused on marijuana, and thus the federal government would not get all this money back, some savings would come from here.⁵

The report admits that there is more to the debate than just budgetary concerns, but that the financial side "should be included in a rational debate about marijuana policy." The open letter adds, "The fact that marijuana prohibition has these budgetary impacts does not by itself mean prohibition is bad policy. Existing evidence, however, suggests prohibition has minimal benefits and may itself cause substantial harm."

And I believe there is the crux of the issue. Aside from the horrible incarceration rate (which is also racially unbalanced; Human Rights Watch found that 62.6% of all drug offenders put in state prisons in 1996 were black⁶) and the budgetary concerns mentioned above, there are other social concerns such as the support of an abusive regime in Colombia. On top of all that, it's not working. For example, 85% of high school sophmores told survey-takers that marijuana was easy to get⁷.

The fear of marijuana, while somewhat more rational now than in the 1930s, is still based on tradition more than anything else. There is no evidence that marijuana is worse for you than anything like tobacco or alcohol, for example, both of which are entirely legal. One editorial I read also brought up the fact that marijuana does not make one violent, but alcohol can. Furthermore, the Institute of Medicine (of the National Academy of Science) found that:

However, except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications. The harmful effects to individuals from the perspective of possible medical use of marijuana are not necessarily the same as the harmful physical effects of drug abuse. When interpreting studies purporting to show the harmful effects of marijuana, it is important to keep in mind that the majority of those studies are based on smoked marijuana, and cannabinoid effects cannot be separated from the effects of inhaling smoke from burning plant material and contaminants.⁸

Also, regarding the gateway myth:

Patterns in progression of drug use from adolescence to adulthood are strikingly regular. Because it is the most widely used illicit drug, marijuana is predictably the first illicit drug most people encounter. Not surprisingly, most users of other illicit drugs have used marijuana first. In fact, most drug users begin with alcohol and nicotine before marijuana--usually before they are of legal age.

In the sense that marijuana use typically precedes rather than follows initiation of other illicit drug use, it is indeed a "gateway" drug. But because underage smoking and alcohol use typically precede marijuana use, marijuana is not the most common, and is rarely the first, "gateway" to illicit drug use. There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs. An important caution is that data on drug use progression cannot be assumed to apply to the use of drugs for medical purposes. It does not follow from those data that if marijuana were available by prescription for medical use, the pattern of drug use would remain the same as seen in illicit use.

This is hardly the only study to find similar results; many others are cited here. Now we come to the history of prohibition in the United States. It all comes out of racism (against Mexicans, who flooded into the country at the beginning of the 20th century and brought marijuana with them), although it first became illegal because of the Mormons. They brought it back from Mexico, and then the Mormon church proscribed it; at the time, Utah automatically made church doctrine law, so there we go. Other states quickly follow suit, but the racist attitudes behind them are clear. A Montana legislator said in 1927 (when that state outlawed marijuana): "When some beet field peon takes a few traces of this stuff... he thinks he has just been elected president of Mexico, so he starts out to execute all his political enemies." A Texas Senator said on the floor: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff [marijuana] is what makes them crazy."⁹

In the eastern part of the country, racism also played a role, although this time the fears came from a combination of Latin Americans and blacks (specifically musicians). One newspaper editorial in 1934 said, "Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."⁹ Also, when the Treasury Department started the Bureau of Narcotics in 1930, it's director, Henry Anslinger, had a very interesting view on the issue: "...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races." Oh, and don't forget: "Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

William Randolf Hearst is often cited as having a lot to do with the prohibition as well. He'd invested tons of money into timber, which could not compete with hemp paper, as well as the fact that stirring up marijuana fears could help sell newspapers.

The above-cited page has some interesting quotes on the committee debate surrounding the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, including the legislative representative of the American Medical Association lambasting the committee for having no scientific evidence to support their claim. This was dismissed, and the debate on the floor of the House took about a minute:

Member from upstate New York: "Mr. Speaker, what is this bill about?"

Speaker Rayburn: "I don't know. It has something to do with a thing called marihuana. I think it's a narcotic of some kind."

"Mr. Speaker, does the American Medical Association support this bill?"

Member on the committee jumps up and says: "Their Doctor Wentworth[sic] came down here. They support this bill 100 percent."

It should be noted that the doctor in question was named Woodward, not Wentworth.

Obviously I could go on, but given all the evidence put forth here, I can't help but wonder how anyone could come to a different conclusion. There's really nothing I can add, really, other than to say that the whole thing is ridiculous, and we need to get rid of these preposterous fears. Just think what we could do with an extra $10 billion per year....

-----------
1. Prison Brief: Highest to Lowest Rates -- International Centre for Prison Studies (King's College, London).
2. Quoted in: Poor Prescription: The Costs of Imprisoning Drug Offenders in the United States -- Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.
3. The Budgetary Implication of Marijuana Prohibition -- Jeffrey A. Miron.
4. National Drug Control Budget FY 2006 -- Office of National Drug Control Policy.
5. As an aside, I'd like to point out how ridiculous it is to dump so much money into disrupting the market. This is done to increase the price; unfortunately, it fails to take into account the fact that, because so many drug users are addicts, demand is relatively inelastic. Therefore upping price won't actually do anything, and will only lead to more drug addicts committing crimes in order to be able to support their habits.
6. Race and Incarceration in the United States -- Human Rights Watch (found on Brown University's site).
7. Looking at New Ways to Combat Drug Use -- The Salem Observer.
8. Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base -- Institute of Medicine.
9. Why is Marijuana Illegal? -- DrugWarRant.com.