People really aren’t aware of the prison problem Prohibition-type, draconian drug laws have imposed? Well…
Let Google do the walking… (let me preface this by saying these cites do not in every case separate marijuana offenses from any other offenses, but where it was possible, I specified in my searches non-violent drug offenders)
Now, admittedly, this first cite looks um…suspect (crackpot, even) but the links they seem to have pulled their data from are legit (I followed links listed under the first table, mostly .gov sites): http://members.fortunecity.com/multi19/federal.htm#perc
It should be noted that the above table shows Federal Prison statistics, not State. (104 institutions, 174,179 inmates total as of February 2004, according to the above link)
A .pdf document from the [Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that in a 1997 survey of State inmates across the board, out of 1,075,167 total inmates, 507,800 were incarcerated for violent offenses, which is only just under half the number of drug offenders, 222,100. (This is a much higher number than the first year shown, 1990, where the numbers are 684,544 total, 313,600 violent, 148,600 offender, respectively.
marijuana.com (I deliberately left this source till last, because it is obviously a biased source. However, this does not make the information based off of actual comiled data any less true.) has this to say on one of it’s flyers (link folled from sidebar on main page, Prohibition Undressed)
I could keep going, probably for days, but I think that’s enough to show that we’re not talking out of our asses about how much of our tax-payer dollars go to marijuana/drug offenders, not to mention how incredibly serious a problem this poses in general, both in the short and long term.
Out of curiosity, Lord Ashtar, who do you think pays the salaries for all those prison jobs? It’s certainly not the Money Fairies: it’s taxpayers who pay those salaries. Coincidentally, that’s the same group who pays for welfare and unemployment benefits; also coincidentally, welfare and unemployment benefits invariably come out to less than the person’s previous salary. Even if 100% of prison guards went on unemployment, we’d still be paying less to take care of them.
Keep in mind that your 650 million dollar figure only includes the cost of incarceration (and I should point out that the 86,165 drug offense statistic comes from the February 2004 Federal Bureau of Prison report, so the actual percentage of prison population that are drug offenders, which was pulled from a 1997 report, is quite likely higher, if you look at the fact that the numbers have steadily increased every year you can find statistics for.), NOT the total amount we spend on drug prohibition and enforcement, which is stated at close to 50 billion dollars at the federal level, and again as much at the state level, bring us close to 100 billion dollars a year on drug enforcement. (One of the links above had this statistic, so you can find this cite for yourself, however, if someone is too lazy to look themselves and still dispute this number, I can pull up the specific portion when I get home tonight, off to work)
As far as any supposed loss in worker productivity, medical costs due to marijuana use (though every cite I can find, shows not a single death attriutable to marijuana, versus the proven medical benefits of same), if you think there’s merit to those claims, I’d like to see some of your cites outlining those ideas and some numbers behind them.
As far as decriminalizing making usage more prevalence, I’d like to see cites proving that as well. (To clarify, it’s certainly possible that this is true. It also may mean that survey information taken might have a higher number of people admitting to marijuana use, because it’s not illegal in that situation.
It also doesn’t mean that more people using marijuana would be detrimental in any way. If you think that more peoople using marijuana would be detrimental to society on a greater level than the current draconian Prohibition state, again, cite?
Strictly debating the OP, how can you answer with a factual “yes” and then admit that taxes have nothing to do with expenditures? That is the very heart of a factual answer (which nobody seems to care about anymore, but whatever).
If pot or narcotics or murder were legalized, and prisons were emptied, the government would have lower expenditures for those functions. No question about it. But the government’s decisions on tax rates for discretionary programs (like law enforcement) are not linked to specific taxes. Less spending can result in more spending in other areas, deficit/debt reduction, or lower taxes, and there’s no way to predict what course the government would pursue.
Less government spending does not mean lower taxes, and that’s a fact.
Drug offenders does not equal casual pot smokers. I have not tried to argue the original question at all either way. I’m just looking for some honesty.
.
Is anyone actually reading this or just trying to fit things to their own preconceived ideas? One statistic only sites a percentage of arrests not an ammount the second does not mention how many are for possesion. The 86,165 number is for federal offenses. Casual pot smokers are not clogging the jails, the drug offenses that people get put away for are for dealing. I don’t count people put away for pot because it is a parole violation because they are being re-jailed for their original offense not the pot.
I also don’t understand this use of the emphasis on non-violent offenders. You should only go to jail if you do violence? Good news for Martha! How about burglars? Identity thieves? Crack dealers? Meth dealers? Which non-violent offenders are good andwhich aren’t?
My basis for these posts is a lot of time in court. My experience is in New Jersey only. Possesion of Marijuana under 50 grams is a disorderly persons offense. It is punishable by UP TO 6 months injail. I have never seen this. I guess if you are a multiple repeat offender you could go to jail for six months but I haven’t witnessed it. If you are a first offender you just about automatically qualify for pre trail intervention which would mean you have no criminal record. If you are not eligible for PTI you will usually get a fine. DP offenses are heard at the municipal court level. If a municipal court judge started to give jail time to everyone with a doobie he would get his ass handed to him by the assignment judge. For a cite of the penalties for pot possesion I will use the NORML website. Of course they only mention the maximum penalty. http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4552&wtm_view=penalties
Before anyone jumps on me I will remind you I have not argued either way to the question posed in the OP. I just want the argument to be based on fact. There are a ton of people in prison for drug offenses. But don’t kid yourself into thinking that most are pot smokers caught with a small amount. If you want to argue that people should not be jailed for dealing or that coke and heroin and meth should be legal go ahead. If you have any stats on how many people are jailed for personal use marijuana please post.
It is true that some dude doin’ a doobie is likely not going to go to prison. But- many of those “drug related offenses” are still only pot. Huh? Yes, because they are sales or “possession with intent to sell” (which is often automatic if you have more than a certain amount.). Note that even if a “possession only” arrestee never goes to PRISON, his arrest still costs the Gov’t money. And of course cuts into valauable police resources- which could be better used -IMHO- in stopping violent crime, and even (as Loach pointed out) certain non-violent crimes.
Now if they legalized pot, then the “selling” offenses would also mostly go away. Sure, yeah, once in a while they’d bust a dude for not paying his BATM&F (B of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijauna & Firearms) stamp tax on his kilos. But that is a tax offense for which very very few actually go to prison (they get convicted, heavy fines, and suspended sentance). The stamp tax alone of Pot could lower taxes- my WAG is maybe 10%. Of course, they’d likely increase spending rather than reduce taxes, but it ends up the same.
This would reduce the prison population. And/or it could allow us to keep violent offenders in prison longer. Whether or not the reduction in prison budgets would mean they’d reduce taxes- I doubt it. Maybe a little. But they’d be able to spend the $$ on schools or somethin’, so…
But certainly- legalizing Pot would both earn the Govt big bux and save them a significant chunk.
My husband is one of those prison workers, but if pot were suddenly decriminalized, I wouldn’t worry in the least that his job would be in danger. Offenses involving marijuana make up an extremely tiny percentage of the inmates who pass through the prison in which he works.
That $21,000 per inmate figure is somewhat misleading. That figure is derived basically by taking the operating costs of the institution and dividing it by the number of inmates. However, if there were, say, 300 less inmates, the costs of running the prison would not substantially increase.
First of all, the actual cost of feeding and clothing one single inmate is extremely low. Secondly, the guards, utilities, and maintenance on the building would still have to be paid even if there were less of them. (The prisons in my state are already operating at bare-bones budgets, with the prisons running at 150% capacity in some cases.) Thirdly, the ratio of guards to inmates is (frighteningly) large. In my husband’s prison, there is generally one guard per 250 men.
Nor would marijuana legalization make much of a dent in his prison’s population. As a person who is interested in this issue, I once asked him how many people were incarcerated in his prison for simple possession of an amount which you could reasonably deem “personal use.” His answer: “None.”
Not in the seven years that he has worked there has he seen the sterotypical “kid-found-with-a-joint-in-his-pocket” scenarios which a lot of people think of when talking about this issue. Not that such injustices don’t occur, it’s just that they’re very rare. Rare enough, that in a prison with a population of thousands, with a relatively high turnover (the average sentance is less than two years) he has never seen one.*
Some of the statistics that people mention which talk about “non-violent” offenders, or “drug offenses” leave out some very important information. The numbers on the whole seem alarming, but there are a few factors which must be considered.
Crimes like car theft, burglary and identity fraud are included in “non-violent” offenses. I don’t think anyone would argue that a car thief or someone who ruins a stranger’s credit shouldn’t be incarcerated.
“Drug offenses” does not differentiate between the different kinds of drugs: crack, or heroin, for example. (While I am an advocate for decriminalization of marijuana, I do believe the State has a compelling interest in controlling those types of drugs.)
Nor does “drug offenses” take into account additional charges which were levelled at the time of arrest. The offender may have been caught doing something else, but in order to avoid a more serious charge, pled to drug posession. (A “non-violent” drug offender may have been found in a stolen car, for example.)
A designation of persons incaracerated for “marijuana posession” does not tell you how much they were caught with, and under what circumstances. The law does see a difference between a “quarter” bag found in a routine car search, and the discovery of a dozen “bricks” hidden under the floorboards. Sometimes, prosecutors have a hard time proving someone is a drug dealer. If no sale was observed, no cash or weighing equipment is found, it’s hard to prove dealing to the standard of the law. Sure, no one but an idiot is going to say that someone caught with 50 pounds of pot is anything but a dealer, but the legal system is funny sometimes. Add to this that most cases plead out, and you’ll find a good number of offenders classified as “posession” offenders.
In my state you have to have a LOT of marijuana in your posession (much more than can be claimed as “personal use”) before you’re even at risk of jail time.
*And he is in the position to know: one of his jobs in the prison involved compiling reports and statistics on the inmates for purposes of treatment programs and the like.
[QUOTE=Apos]
It is a factual question, and the answer is yes.
Not only would we pay less in taxes to maintain tons and tons of non-violent offenders, but those people would also be able to continue working productively to at least some extent: meaning a larger tax base, and hence less pressure on everyone else. It’s obviously better for an economy to have more currently living people working and less simply having to be supported by the rest.QUOTE]
I think we should decriminalize pot. It’s certainly no worse than alcohol. But as to that leading to more people working, given that so many jobs are fleeing overseas at this time, not sure there would be any jobs for them to hold.
Well there was my attempt to put some numbers on the amount of money used on inmates in for marijuana possession. Just trying to get a order of magnitude figure.
Cecil states that marijuana may or may not cause brain damage, can probably cause lung cancer, and causes temporary reproductive problems. So there appear to be long term health effects.
I was thinking that marijuana use would increase after legalization because I read somewhere that the consumption of alcohol went down during prohibition but according to this site I was wrong.
I think you missed the point. One counter to Apos’s ‘yes’, “But the governments can simply increase spending to eat up the free money, so there’d be less of a tax burden,” which he thoughfully provides for us. He counters that hypothetical criticism with, “But the government can always raise expenditures, so there’s nothing particularly salient about bringing it up in this scenario.”
Still missing the point. With some exceptions for mandatory programs (like Medicare and Social Security), the government does not link revenues from taxes to specific spending.
Conversely, less spending does not mean lower taxes. That “yes, less prisons mean less taxes” is factually wrong in any case, even with my flippant rhetorical question.
To use the phrase you used, less spending does not mean less tax burden. It does not mean more tax burden. The only time one has anything to do with another is on the ledger sheet.
Ravenman, I appreciate your dedication to a literal reading, but I was paraphrasing Apos, not restructuring his post. His original point is: “Not only would we pay less in taxes to maintain tons and tons of non-violent offenders, but those people would also be able to continue working productively to at least some extent: meaning a larger tax base, and hence less pressure on everyone else.” This is an answer to the question, “Would it help lower taxes?” Yes, it would help. More taxes collected (possibly), the same input with less expenditures… these are things that help to decrease the tax burden. Why? Because when the public knows the government is taking in the same or more money for less programs, the political platform of “lowering taxes” becomes a better tactic. This, of course, focuses on the word “help” which, to my mind, does not imply sufficiency.
Note that the possibility of lung cancer comes from the carcinogens produced when smoking it, and that there are other methods of intake that do not necessitate burning it.
You can eat it, however, ingestion produces a completely different effect than when smoked, and if you eat too much, it can be VERY intense and even produce hallucinations…I’d post a website about cooking with pot for my cite on that, but I figured it’d be too close to posting how to do illegal stuff. If you want to know that bad, or don’t believe me, you can google as well as I can.
There are also vaporizers that do not produce smoke, but vapor, and do not burn the marijuana at all.
Both these methods of intake would virtually eliminate the risk of lung cancer, since carcinogens are not produced, since nothing is burnt.
With all due respect to those who want us to refute that there are very few people in jail for possession of marijuana, it is not our job to refute that until you offer cites or other proof that there are few people in jail for that offense. If you make the claim that almost nobody goes to jail for possession of marijuana despite the fact that the punishment can include jail time, you better back it up before you start saying other people have to refute it. I could offer personal anecdotes as some people already have (though to support my position that people do get locked up for possession), but they would just be anecdotes.
That said, the opening post was about whether making pot legal would effect taxes and merely mentioned jails as an example. Making pot legal would save a lot of money even if not a single person today is in jail for possession. Every arrest, every court appearance, every public defender, every trial, all the administration, costs money. Also remember that, even if one is not locked up, possession will often (though not always) leave you with a criminal record.
Of course the State has a compelling interest in controlling them. That applies to marijuana, too. Even if it is decriminalized or legalized it would still be controlled, probably similarly to alcohol and/or tobacco. Why are the other drugs different?
I don’t know if this applies to this thread or should be a new one, but decriminalizing most recreational drugs would benefit society more than locking up the drug offenders benefits society, especially when considering how much money is spent by Federal and local governments on enforcing drug laws (and I guess this thread is mostly about the economic impact of marijuana prohibition). Drugs are rightly a health problem, pure and simple, and should be dealt with as such.
Here’s something from an anti-drug prohibition website. Now, I state this up front to make readers aware of the bias, but this should not detract from the actual facts they present: http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/327/budget2005.shtml
Now, this number is only relevant given the number of people prosecuted and imprisoned for marijuana (which the OP is about) rather than cocaine, heroin, meth, or who knows what else we silly humans like to do to pass the time. But that’s an interesting result to see, that two-thirds of drug war expenditures go to the enforcement, prosecution, and imprisonment of drug users.
Guess that will keep the cost of the drug war down. :rolleyes:
If pot were legalized, people on pot-related charges would gradually exit the system. Not like that hasn’t been said, though.
There’s a lot of talk in America, some hysterical, some not, about pot being a gateway drug for users. It seems to me that it would be much more likely to be a gateway drug for dealers. Pot makes up such a huge market share among in middle- and upper-class society drugs. I bet there are a lot of dealers who wouldn’t be dealing if pot were legal.
The government, if it had half a brain (ha!) would tax the living hell out of pot. That would result in tax relief. On what scale? I have no idea, but I’m guessing the order of magnitude of the industry would be a gross of $10B. Just a WAG.
Policing, trying, administration, etc. is enormously expensive.
)