The Effect of State Legalization of Marijuana (updated 30sep16)

George Rebane

The debate continues and heats on the pros and cons of states legalizing RMJ production, sales, and use.  In these pages we have covered the progress of attitudes about MMJ and RMJ in Nevada County.  The debaters often cite the experience of other states that have also gone through various forms of MJ legalization – the presented data is often incoherent and at odds.

To get a better understanding of what really has been the impact of MJ where it has been legalized, the Cato Institute has just completed a major report in their respected policy analysis series titled ‘Dose of Reality: The Effect of State Legalization of Marijuana’.  This is an extensive effort with lots of facts, data, graphs, etc.  Readers interested in MJ and the upcoming California vote on Prop 64 (more here) should definitely become familiar with the facts.

In this policy analysis Cato “assesses recent marijuana legalizations and related policies in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and Alaska.”  The authors close with –

Our conclusion is that state marijuana legalizations have had minimal effect on marijuana use and related outcomes. We cannot rule out small effects of legalization, and insufficient time has elapsed since the four initial legalizations to allow strong inference. On the basis of available data, however, we find little support for the stronger claims made by either opponents or advocates of legalization. The absence of significant adverse consequences is especially striking given the sometimes dire predictions made by legalization opponents.

[30sep16 update]  Oregon begins RMJ sales tomorrow.  The authorization is granted even though there is a shortfoll of the state's testing of profuct offered for sale because of the tremendous backlog.  "To protect medical users of marijuana, Oregon Health Authority is prioritizing testing for those products. The agency is responsible for developing and implementing testing rules for both medical and recreational marijuana."  (more here)

Comments

[Patricia Smith]

Thank you George, i will give the report a read later tonight. For the most part, I am finding that proponents of both sides of legalization are exaggerating their claims to rally support. I didn't spend four decades of my life helping patients to let them get thrown under the bus in favor or recreational users.

[BradC]

Saw this online,

https://lostcoastoutpost.com/2016/sep/29/governor-signs-cottage-cannabis-micro-farmer-bill/

[Brad C.]

Military vets working in MJ industry,

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6nzU0ZLkoak

[Bill Tozer]

Figured some growers would reject Prop. 64. Too much red tape, regulations, restrictions from state and local tax collectors seeking more revenue everywhere you turn. Fines, fees, and business taxes are a sure fire way to have the tax man and eco-police making several trips on one's property...without a warrant.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-marijuana-growers-idUSKCN1240AF

[BradC]

Re: 30sep16 update - RMJ has been on sale (tax free) in MMJ dispensaries since October 2015. The first RMJ only businesses opened their doors this week.

[George Rebane]

BradC 828am - Thanks for that clarification Mr Croul.

[Patricia Smith]

I got a phone survey from SAM last night asking if I supported Prop 64. How very stange to be siding with my nemesis. I keep waiting for the No on 64 TV ads to appear, but so far I've only seen ads that support he measure. Kevin Sabet said he raised $50mil to defeat Prop 64 as they see CA as a firewall. I hope they haven't conceded the race already.

BTW, I have a ultra-conservative guest on my radio show today. Buck Weckman is Don Bessee on steroids when it comes to MMJ, but we both agree that Prop 64 is bad law. Tune in KVMR at noon for a lively discussion.

[don bessee]

Hardly Pattie, the highly sophisticated, demographically targeted outreach campaign has been rolling on many media platforms in high density voter areas. Areas that have the most undecided voters.
People who have heard the truth about the advertising to kids aspects of 64 soundly reject it, truth that was adjudicated by the yes on 64 billionaires boys club. The language as approved by the judge is in the pro/con ballot arguments in the official ballot guide and is clear they will market to kids just like big tobacco did.

We just had a No On 64 rally at the capitol, it made AP, LA times, SF paper as well as lots of TV minutes. Sac TV news was very nice in terms of minutes of coverage over a couple of days. Of course you wont see any of that in our local media. Did anyone in my home base of Nevada county even hear about the AAA press conference with SAM Prez Dr. Sabet in which they came out against 64? Didn't think so. ;-)

[Patricia Smith]

Well that's comforting to know SAM is still in the fight (at least against Prop 64 - we will live to fight again on other issues). Prop 64 will win or lose in the cities where the most voters live so I'm glad to hear that's where their advertising money is going.

I had planned to attend the No on 64 rally in Sac but had a conflicting commitment. Many of my fellow pro-cannabis activists were there however. Many of us oppose AUMA (Prop 64).

So you can stop taking "pot" shots at me. We are on the same side of this issue - which makes me just a little bit crazy! You really can't make this stuff up.

[don bessee]

Too bad you were not able to make the rally, I would have given you a slot on the mic to slam 64. In my work in the urban areas I know what you mean about what a unique Nov. election cycle this is. I have spent years building coalitions of people who don't often vote for the same people for prez and so on. This cycle with the Bernie bro factor and the mmj folks v yuppies who want to become rich off selling weed to yuppies is the epitome of issue specific loose coalitions.
It may have forced us to refine positions out of necessity and then folks like you and me end up standing for No on 64 together. A maturing of the legislative landscape perhaps? ;-)

[Bill Tozzzzerrrrr]

About 20 or so years ago, I had a friend that wanted to grow a few tobacco plants in his backyard. Literally I mean tobacco leaves. Found out he could grow a few tobacco plants legally in CA fo personal uses. I am not kidding. . He ordered seeds from a tobacco company catalogue and they came complete with little plastic starter packs for humidity. The names of the seeds were the same as the common slang names of marijuana varieties at the time. Acapulco Gold, Panama Red, Hawaiian, etc.

The point is the tobacco companies bought up the trademark names of marijuana. That was decades ago. I told myself then if NORMAL ever got marijuana legalized, the Big Ag Boys would own the market. I still hold that view after all the talking is done.

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/10/16/4-reasons-californias-marijuana-growers-surprising.aspx

[Patricia Smith]

I didn't know that Big Tobacco had bought up those names, but somehoe i am not surprised. The joke may be on them however as none of those MMJ strains have been around for ages and kids today haven't even heard of them. But I guess what goes around, comes around again eventually.

Between tobacco, alcohol and Big Pharma, there will be no place for small patient growers. I'm sure they will eventually outlaw personal grws altogether so they can collect more tax dollars - patients be damned.

[George Rebane]

PatriciaS 501pm - I feel we may be circling the barn here. If the patient numbers are anywhere near those that MMJ promoters (like you?) imply, then would we not want Big Pharma to get in there and make cheaper medicine available to those patients, and in the process make a profit on which taxes will be paid?

[Gail Kraus]

Then we could have the MJ equivalent of Box wine.