Proposition 19

Recently we have been hearing a lot about California's Proposition 19. Also known as the "Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010", Proposition 19 intends to legalize various marijuana-related activities, allowing local governments to regulate, impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes.  

The proposition's fate will be decided on November 2, 2010 in a California statewide ballot. Why is Proposition 19 causing so much controversy? The reason is that its legalization measures go beyond any drug policy that has been adopted before.  Already in the US, residents in 14 states and Washington D.C. can appeal to doctor's prescriptions for medical marijuana. If Proposition 19 manages to pass in California, other states might follow the same steps. In the July 26 poll from Public Policy Polling 47% were in favor of Prop.19, 43% against and 10% do not know. 

In 2010, the UN Office on Drugs and Crimes reported that the highest levels of cannabis use remain in the markets of North America and Western Europe. In 2008, it was estimated that 15.2 million Americans were "past month" users. More than 102 million Americans have tried marijuana, and those who haven't are mostly discouraged because it is illegal. 

In August 2010, the LA Times published a commentary by directors of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. When asked about legalization, their answer was no. Their main argument is that legal marijuana sales would not generate much revenue since Proposition 19 does not impose a tax on homegrown marihuana for personal use, which is what many consumers do.  And the revenue that could be collected is simply not enough to cover the increasing costs of health care and justice. According to their report, for every dollar the government collects from taxes on alcohol, society spends 8 dollars more on social costs. Nothing guarantees that consumers will volunteer to pay taxes and that the underground market will diminish, it would just adapt. A report by Rand Corp. called "Altered State", could not predict an estimate of revenue from marijuana tax, and stated that consumption would increase as well as tax evasion and a "race to the bottom" within the US in terms of local tax rates.

The second strongest argument for legalization is that law enforcement officers could focus more on real crimes if marijuana becomes legal. However, Californian law enforcement does not put much effort in arresting adults whose only crime is possessing small amounts of marijuana. Proposition 19 would burden them with complicated enforcement duties. And take the Netherlands for instance.  For some time now, the Dutch have been reducing the number of coffee shops because of excessive drug tourism, drug-related crime and social disturbances. Law enforcement in Netherlands did not rest thanks to legalization, quite the opposite happened. 

An analysis by the Drug and Alcohol Review showed that a significant percentage of people that sustained injuries or died in a car accident in 2008 in the US were under the effects of marijuana. Legalizing implies more people driving under its influence, more accidents and therefore, more work for law enforcement officials and the health system. California should also note that during the time marijuana use was commercialized and expanded in the Netherlands, there was a tripling of lifetime use rates and a double increase of use among 18 to 20 year olds.

However, experts from the New York Times in Room for Debate tend to favor legalization and discuss the scenarios that would emerge with legalization. Wayne Hall, expert on public healthy policy, thinks that with legalization, the government could set a price to discourage use, regulate its content, restrict sales to minors and include health warnings. The point of legalization would ultimately be to eliminate the black market of marijuana, help rather than arrest users, and fight consumption with health education. In the best case scenario, the marijuana mafia would disappear and consumption would decrease. Legalization would also allow more studies about drug use, and would provide numbers that could give an idea of how many consumers there are and how much is needed to help them. Maybe, marijuana use would decrease with the years with public healthy education just like tobacco. This scenarios are hypothetical and the task of the experts becomes speculative since no modern country has done something like Proposition 19.

In all of this, I find a huge contradiction. If Proposition 19 and drug policy in the US incurred economic and social costs exclusively for the US government, maybe the debate would not be so pivotal. Unfortunately legalization could severely undermine Mexico's war against drugs, and Colombia's and Peru´s drug enforcement efforts. It is actually very ironic, or more like a slap in the face, that a country that pushed the Mexican government to prohibit marijuana in the 1930s in order to homologate both country's drug policies, is now gradually legalizing the product, especially in the middle of a drug war. It is devastatingly contradictory that the terrible death toll in Mexico continues to rise while the Army violently fights cartels and seizes tons of marijuana that are going to be legally consumed in the US. Is Mexico now supposed to adopt the US's drug policy as well? Right after word spread about Proposition 19, President Calderón opened a debate on something that had never been endorsed by him or his party. It was only because US marijuana legalization deeply affects Mexico's drug war.

Drug policy success, or failure, depends on education, income, health care access and law enforcement, to name a few. If the US and Mexico and Colombia have vastly different economies, wealth distribution and law enforcement, it is impossible to have homologous drug policies but at the same time, it is also impossible to have opposite drug policies. US drug policy decisions are not unilateral, not while it imports drugs and provides weapons for cartels from the other side of the border. The US is being naive and short-sighted in thinking that its drug policy decisions will not impact or inspire its neighbors to do something that their economies and law enforcement are not strong enough to take. Or maybe they are turning a blind eye. Do they think they are immune to the spillover effect of violence in its South border? Drugs, drug policy, and drug-related crime are transnational whether we like it or not. 

Since pro-legalization activists are so keen on speculation, I would like to speculate on the following: Proposition 19 might unchain a series of unfortunate events that would consummate with the US absorbing more crime, medical and economic costs; and meanwhile its neighbor (or failed state?) will be facing the same costs of legalization, still waging a losing war against cartels, crime and drug addiction.  Marijuana legalization will not eliminate the pervasive corruption on both sides of the border.

Ana Johnson

 Lic. en Estudios Internacionales 
Universidad de Monterrey