For Three Clear Reasons:
1) Marijuana is Less Socially Harmful than Gambling
I already pointed out in my previous thread, that casinos are a bad deal from an economic perspective. In short, they raise crime, close businesses, lower property values, and literally suck up their host tax base from under them, without contributing significantly to permanent job creation or tax revenues. In the case of Foxwoods and Atlantic City, municipal and state governments may even be on the hook when casinos go under, to the tune of several hundred million dollars. And re-purposing closed casinos is a massive urban planning challenge.
Problem gamblers are estimated to cost nearly $10,000 per person to the states they live in.
Marijuana is significantly less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, and unlike users of those drugs, marijuana has not caused any fatalities from overdosage, self harm, or harm to others. It in fact, reduces aggression and injuries according to the American Psychiartric Association. The social costs related to marijuana are significantly lower than alcohol or tobacco, and far lower than those related to problem gambling, in terms of it’s effect on users and their loved ones.
2) Marijuana is a more profitable revenue generator than Casinos
In Colorado, marijuana revenues are projected to generate up to $40 million a year. In California, it is estimated it could generation up to $1.2 billion a year. Not to mention, in Colorado it has already created an entirely new start up private sector, several hundred small businesses, and thousands of new jobs.
Meanwhile, casino revenue is down by 5% in Atlantic City, down by almost 15% in Vegas, and significantly down in Indiana, Kansas, and New York-which has only recently legalized gambling in the first place.
While legalization has created a ‘pot rush’ of sorts in Colorado and Washington, and thousands of new jobs; casinos, on the other hand in our region alone, are already shedding jobs as fast as they are shedding profits.
It will be awhile before our state embraces progressive taxation and smart approaches to revenue generation, constitutional impediments, Prop 2 1/2, the outdated and inaccurate ‘Taxachusetts’ label, and voter aversion to new taxes will likely keep that day in the far future for now. But, if we must legalize previously illicit activity to generate new revenue, it seems that pot is by far the best bet for a revenue high.
Christopher says
I don’t think it’s appropriate to raise revenue on either one, at least as a reason to legalize, though I do hope pot is well taxed if it became legal. I do think your economic argument against casinos is the strongest one and between that and how much the process has stunk I am inclined to vote for repeal. I don’t think you’ll ever convince me it’s appropriate to outright legalize another substance for non-medicinal purposes, still too many public and private health concerns in my mind, but the comparisons to other substances are problematic precisely because some things are legal and others are not.
jconway says
I think there is a false binary between libertarianism and paternalism. The paternalist state would say that gambling, smoking (either pot or tobacco), and drinking are bad for you. Therefore, they would ban such activities. The libertarian would say, it’s none of the state’s business, and allow those activities. I am arguing that if we examine these activities on a case by case basis, we can see that the social costs and benefits are distinctly different and can be evaluated from different angles. Booze is harmful, but prohibition was more harmful, and our current regime limiting purchases to adults and having strict regulation and taxation has largely worked. Tobacco use has declined to just 20% of the adult population thanks to a vigorous anti-smoking campaign funded by very high tobacco taxes. Those taxes are effective-some family and co-workers quit largely since they couldn’t afford the habit rather than the personal health consideration.
Similarly, if we legalize marijuana without the right regulatory or taxation regime, than, we are essentially letting the harmful underground economy to continue while looking the other way. Decriminalization largely does this. Legalization which actually enable the very controls you seek, while benefiting the state with added revenue. Like tobacco use, I am actually confident that a legalized product properly taxed and regulated, will see the rates of usage actually do down. Particularly amongst young populations.
The data in Colorado is already indicating that marijuana related public intoxication arrests have gone down, partly because, people will be using it in regulated ways in a safer and more controlled environment. Teen use is already down, and even law enforcement admitted:
.
Casinos on the other hands, are an industry that cause significant social costs that might outweigh the revenues gained. And we clearly have a poor regulatory regime in place. We are even allowing these facilities to veto our existing policies controlling alcohol and tobacco consumption, since those regulations would impede their bottom line. A bottom line that will inevitably lead to future layoffs and bailouts.
And to be absolutely clear, we shouldn’t rely on regressive vice taxes as a revenue source, we should actually start taxing wealth and property in a fair and progressive manner. But, taxing vice is always an easier sell, and I am arguing that if we must tax one vice, let that vice be the comparatively less harmful and more lucrative marijuana rather than gambling. The data clearly shows it costs less to society, generates more revenue, and creates more jobs than casinos.
JimC says
I’m leery of the quick switch … but I think we will legalize marijuana eventually, so we might as well get ahead of the curve on regulating it and yes, taxing it.
There are obvious problems, though — no hotel revenue (nothing for the unions to build), and unregulated competitors (also a casino problem, but presumably an unarmed one).
SomervilleTom says
Even in the rosiest scenarios, casino gambling build many hotels in and therefore won’t bring very many construction jobs to western MA (even if we define “western MA” to be “west of I-495”.
Legalized marijuana would, conversely, encourage the immediate creation of many agricultural jobs. There is a large overlap between potential marijuana users and “localvores” who prefer buying products made nearby by people they trust.
It seems to me that the creation of a a California- or Colorado-style marijuana boom would bring great economic benefits to precisely those areas left behind by the push for casino gambling. Among those are MANY agricultural jobs — marijuana farming is still a labor-intensive business.
SomervilleTom says
I really do wish we could emit our own comments after submission. Turn off the capability when the first reply is added, if need be.
Christopher says
I’m sure you would prefer to “edit” your own comments rather than “emit” them:)
petr says
… This isn’t strictly true.
It appears to be true of smoking marijuana. However, ingesting it in the form of infused products, has show a great deal of possible danger. One of the problems Colorado is seeing is repeated overdoses, with serious side effects, from infused products: people will buy an entire marijuana infused candy bar, which will sometimes contain 20 doses or more, and eat the entire thing in one shot. They sometimes end up in the ER with hallucinations, uncontrollable vomiting and serious aggression. While this is a failure of regulation, it was was brought about by the notion that marijuana is ‘significantly less harmful’… when, sometimes, it is not.
jconway says
Petr:
Maureen Dowd shouldn’t be the experience we judge the ‘Colorado’ experience on, she seemed to go out of her way to harm herself. That said, a failure in regulation should be a sign of more activist government rather than less. Remember, the status quo of criminalization or even decriminalization essentially let’s the drug cartels regulate the substance, set the prices, and reap all the profits. We can always add more layers of vigorous regulation to offset unforeseen challenges. But we shouldn’t let those exceptions dictate an abandonment of the experiment, if anything they prove the need for more rules rather than the fact that the initial rule itself isn’t working.
JimC’s comments are puzzling:
Marijuana tourism has seen a big boom in Colorado, and while we have seen Vegas loose 15% of it’s casino revenues and it’s hotel occupancy rate drop by 25% hotel, Denver area hoteliers around 4/20 saw an occupancy rate higher than that for the 2008 DNC. Obviously, this is a temporary affect of having a regional monopoly. But seeing that at this point, all of our neighbors have built casinos, most of which are struggling, wouldn’t it be better to hitch our wagons to an industry that is thriving and enjoy the benefits of getting there first?
The regulatory controls in Colorado are stricter than the lobbyist infested arm we have proposed for casinos in MA. Our regulatory arm is made up of industry insiders who have been openly lobbied by the industries they are supposed to regulate. The control board in Colorado is made up of law enforcement and public health officials-the very people who want to discourage unhealthy usage and protect the public. They have the shepherds guarding the sheep, we have the wolves.
As for the unarmed comment, I might add that the pot enterprenuers in Colorado tend to be of the unarmed variety, and just like ending prohibition wiped out the mafia, ending the drug war will dry up the cartels supply. I am not advocating legalizing cocaine or heroin, but marijuana makes up nearly 70% of the cartels revenue. Having a legalized source of such revenue ensures that the state is making money off of the activity, rather than losing money in a futile effort to fight it. And a legal market, even if it is more expensive, ends up being the preferred method of purchase. People prefer an above board product to a black market one. Not to mention the mafia has been involved extensively in legalized gaming operations, as a way to launder and legitimize money from illegal activities. This was well documented with Operation Family Secrets that took down the Chicago Outfit, the Scorcesse film Casino, and can be traced back to the fact that Vegas itself was the brainchild of Bugsy Segal, an organized crime figure.
petr says
… as I neither read her column nor much care what she has to say in other venues. My source was an episode of NPRs “On Point” where they interviewed the head ER doctor at a Colorado hospital who described exactly what I wrote above…
johnk says
marijuana is a harmful drug, I find it puzzling for those who find it so obscene to raise revenue on something harmful as casinos don’t think twice on building revenue harming people with drugs. They all see to just look the other way when very real evidence is brought up.
I am not in favor of either, and to the alcohol and cigarette argument, I want to understand why adding MORE options for people to hurt themselves for revenue is good because the other two aren’t going away. Explain why you want to add more.
jconway says
You are asserting it’s harmful, I showed links it’s not. Care to show links that it is?
As for Petr, I thought you were referring to Dowd’s column where she had a bad brownie. I saw the NPR link, and it is despairing to see people get hospitalized for that. I would argue that the other statistics I showed-teen use down, overall use down, arrests related to public intoxication down, all attest to the fact that legalization with strong regulations is working to control the substance and you’re citation is proof that more regulation is needed, not less. Banning the substance is the equivalent of letting the cartels set the price, regulate for quality control, and reaping all the profits. Those mothers can’t sue a dealer or a cartel for supplying their sons with bad weed-but they can sue the company that made the product and the shop that sold it. Thanks to torts and more regulation, this industry will get safer and evolve like any other. The mother of a heroin overdose victim in today’s Times has no recourse to punish those that gave her son the drug, the mothers in the NPR story do, you wouldn’t have MADD raising the drinking age and going after bars and distributors if Prohibition was still in effect. This logic is clearly cross applied in the case of marijuana.
As for Christopher and John-your “feelings” and “beliefs” shouldn’t guide your approach to public policy-evidence should. And so far the evidence I presented clearly demonstrated that organized gaming is more harmful than legalized marijuana-on the individual and on society. Moreover, the revenue and job numbers are significantly better. I challenge you to fight my evidence with evidence of your own-as petr has.
petr says
…
I made particular note of the fact that this was a failure of regulation, BUT WHICH regulatory failure was informed by a rather casual dismissal of possible harm. People who eat an entire pot infused candy bar might be at risk only of their own inability to read a label… On the other hand, children have eaten bags of pot infused gummy bears unknowingly poisoning themselves thinking their parents had given them a treat. (question: why would you combine gummy bears and marijuana in the first place…? ) On yet another hand, we really don’t know either the immediate or the long term affects of ingesting marijuana-infused products.
So yeah, if you’re going to do it, regulate it. But regulating infused-products is an entirely different beast from regulating marijuana leaf for smoking. So I’m not entirely convinced that doing it the same way Colorado has will be all that wise… I’d be willing to split the difference and allow marijuana smoking and specifically outlaw pot-infused substances.
theloquaciousliberal says
Two short paragraphs and yet loaded with pure nonsense.
Marijuana is decidedly *not* a harmful drug. You’ve brought up virtually no “real evidence” here aside from a handful of people getting sick from ingesting too much candy, cookies or chocolate. Decades of research has proven that marijuana is far *less* harmful than alcohol, cigarettes or 16 ounce sodas.
But where you really get my goat is with this ridiculousness:
In no way does legalizing marijuana “add more options for people to hurt themselves.” Marijuana is already an option for the estimated 400,000 + individuals who smoke it at least once a month in Massachusetts. Legalization is decidedly *not* adding a new “option” for most people.
What it does do is end the Prohibition of an already widely-used drug that has been shown to have very few harmful effects. Ending the prohibition of marijuana will almost undoubtedly *reduce* harm to society by severely undercutting the criminal marijuana black market and increasing regulation. Reducing crime, saving law enforcement and judicial resources, and (a nice side benefit) increasing revenue.
This is a *legal* and public policy debate about what should be considered a state crime. And whether the downsides of Prohibition are at all worth criminalizing the re-sale of a plant.
petr says
… I don’t wish to leave you with the impression that I’m either for or against marijuana legalization. I was merely replying to a partially incorrect data point and extrapolating the possible harm done, already, by the incorrectness presented.
My own personal experience with marijuana has been, literally, a snooze: that is to say it puts me right to sleep. I took a bite out of a pot infused brownie once and didn’t like the taste. I have no idea how much pot was infused into it… The most harm it did to me was to my social standing.
jconway says
My thanks was because you refuted my evidence with evidence of your own, something Christopher has been entirely incapable of during our many arguments about this subject, and something johnk has yet to do on this thread. I don’t think marijuana, at least in the large quantities of that edible candy, is harmless, which is precisely why I support a strictly controlled, above ground and above board legal regulatory regime to ensure the product is safe for consumption and not abused. I even favor high taxes, like the ones in Colorado, to inflate it’s price and discourage it’s use. Just as I don’t favor alcohol or tobacco abuse, I don’t favor marijuana abuse.
The example you cites sounds like it can be easily rectified via the tort system. If there were clear warning labels and instructions on how many pieces could be safely consumed in one sitting, than the kids who ate the whole thing are SOL and as dumb as the lady who needed a label to know coffee was hot. If there was no label or a poor label, than I think a suit against the makers would be something to applaud and a way to ensure better regulation against liability in the future. It would be healthy for the industry-as it is for they industries-to have litigation and liability from time to time.
johnk says
has anything to do with a post by an ER doctor which petr has linked to. Sorry petr, I did not intend to bring you into my opinion. Thanks for the link is how it was meant.
My opinion, which we have seen cases at hospitals, is not worth the revenue.
jconway says
What cases? And have we not also seen cases of alcoholism and treatment that we also make revenue off of? Have these cases continued with or without government prohibition? Are they likely to be worse or better with daylight and government regulation?
I get to this point with abortion opponents too. I don’t like it either, but you do recognize banning it doesn’t make it go away, it only makes it way less safe?
johnk says
but it’s not the 1920s. It always starts off with small businesses but as soon as it is legalized in enough places and profitable enough for mass production they are going to rename tobacco road.
This is from CCSA, the folks which were quoted from the study you linked, remember this is who you quoted:
Don’t know if you remember the advertising cigarettes to kids and the battles fought, but forget about the Camel, they are already making gummy gears and little children brought them to elementary school.
It’s addictive and harmful, that’s not how i want to build my revenue base.
SomervilleTom says
News flash: There are already several million perfectly functional occasional partakers all around you.
Your hysteria is treatable.
Christopher says
Last go around I found and posted links as to the harmful effects of marijuana, and it happens I’ve read more confirmation since then. Just because you don’t like my evidence doesn’t mean it isn’t there, so in the great tradition of Prime Minister’s Questions I will simply say that I refer my honourable friend to the replies I have previously made on this matter. I will only remind you that I have been open to medicinal use and decriminalization.
Christopher says
…is not only a weak argument, but a negative one for me. In other words, if you tell me that MA could benefit from this that is a reason I would if anything become more entrenched in my opposition. I do not want people coming to MA with the express intent of getting legally high.
jconway says
You are opposed to our state taking part in a growing thriving industry with few societal or individual harms, and would rather it take part in a dying one with far more social costs and individual harms ? That is the definition of a weak argument my friend, not mine. Care to show any evidence to point out how this will be a net negative to the state?
theloquaciousliberal says
Are you against offering brewery tours? The various “Brew Runs” held across the state every year? Wine related tourism? (e.g.: http://www.massvacation.com/blog/2012/08/the-massachusetts-wine-cheese-trail-expands/ )
SomervilleTom says
Marijuana farms can be just as scenic as vineyards. We have the climate to support growing high-caliber marijuana — the same is not true for grapes for wine (with all apologies to Nashoba Valley). It seems to me that a western MA countryside populated by lush, fertile, and prosperous farms (growing marijuana) is a perfectly reasonable motivation for a thriving tourism industry inviting visitors to enjoy their stay.
I continue to be flabbergasted by your opposition to this, accompanied as it is by your frequently expressed apathy towards gambling tourists. I see no justification aside from puritanism for your antipathy.
California wine tours are an important component of that state’s economy. While I’m sure that prohibitionists would have had apoplexy at the suggestion, I’m equally sure that the result has been overwhelmingly positive. We can and should do the same here.
Christopher says
It makes sense that people would want to sample it’s product and see where it is produced, though they can purchase wine in any state if they wanted to do is drink. I don’t envision a pot equivalent in MA.
SomervilleTom says
Pioneer Valley
It doesn’t sound as though you’ve spent much time in Western MA.
I’ve been both places. The Napa Valley has nothing on Massachusetts.
Christopher says
…but I’d still prefer not to turn that view into pot farms.
SomervilleTom says
I’ll take prosperous farms that support families and communities — barns and outbuildings in good repair, fields well-kept, providing jobs and money for people who choose to call western MA home — over ex-urban blight, casinos, and people who have to drive hours every day to keep their homes.
It sounds as though the most important distinction between this vision and Napa Valley is that you enjoy drinking wine.
Christopher says
I don’t drink, but not for health, safety, or moral reasons. It’s just that any time I’ve tried anything with alcohol in it, and I’ve tried the gamut, I just plain haven’t liked it. I reject the false choice offered by your first paragraph.
Christopher says
You could probably make fields of just about any crop look decent, but that wouldn’t be the reason to expand tobacco growing either.
JimC says
When I said problems, I meant political problems in the way of passage. Unions for example will not push for marijuana farms. There’s no jobs argument (other than one Tom makes above), and there’s cultural resistance.
But as Lenny Bruce once observed, “Pot will be legal someday because all the law students are users.”
jconway says
He was one of my dad’s favorites, but his quote was clearly incorrect, as incarceration rates rose steadily under ‘I didn’t inhale’ Clinton, ‘Coke was much better’ Bush, and ‘inhaling was the point’ Obama. What has made a difference, as my dad and Michelle Alexanderr have argued, is that there’s now money to be made by big business. Alexander’s argument is more poignant, but my dad said as far back as the 70s that as soon as RJ Reynolds learns how many people like to get high, it’ll be legal.
jconway says
I’ve never actually used marijuana in any way, shape or form, in spite of multiple opportunities to try. It’s something I am uninterested in trying. Like Christopher, I can’t stand the smell, and I didn’t like the affect it had on my roommates and friends, and figured, I got into enough trouble with alcohol that I didn’t need to try something else.
So my entire advocacy comes from an objective best practices approach to a public policy question. I know that my largely, upper middle class, white friends who enjoyed trying this drug, would be willing to pay for it if it was legal and taxed. Some of them love the product enough, and are entrepreneurial in other areas, that they may even make money off of it. Some of them also got caught by police, and got slaps on the wrist, one of them even was driving while high. I also know that my black friends who tried the drug, were far more likely statistically to end up in jail for a long period of time and have their lives ruined by the criminal justice system had they been caught. I find that injustice profoundly unfair, and so long as it remains illegal, we will have the recreational understanding selectively applied to the wealthy and the white while the ‘menace to society’ standard will be applied selectively to the black and the poor.
We will continue to have presidential candidates admit to marijuana use, and laugh about it, as the Democratic candidates did in 2004 and 2008, while insisting on a zero tolerance policy that incarcerates thousands, costs millions, and does nothing to actually prevent people from abusing the drug. It’s a policy that has clearly failed, and like many of our recent wars, one desperately in need of an exit strategy.
SomervilleTom says
I enjoyed it immensely when I was many decades younger (before children). Unlike Mr. Clinton, I did inhale. Frequently.
I stopped partaking when I realized that (1) I was still cotton-headed for the first half of the following work-week after getting high on Saturday. This is was an age-related phenomena; as I got older, my metabolism changed. (2) Parenting is a full-time job, and I could not afford to be incapacitated for entire evenings while I had young children.
I share this because I had NO DIFFICULTY ending my use of marijuana. None. I just stopped, because I didn’t enjoy it. I contrast that with my subsequent attempts to stop smoking perfectly legal cigarettes — I found it nearly impossible, and I still have nightmares that I have started smoking cigarettes again. Similarly, though not nearly as intense, I have a much harder time foregoing alcohol than marijuana. I even gave up coffee for a few years, and I found even THAT far more difficult than giving up marijuana.
I am much more disturbed that several of my five children have taken up cigarette smoking than the very moderate marijuana and alcohol use they each maintain. Each of them has used marijuana, and I am unaware that any of them have any difficulty managing their consumption and behavior.
I support this proposal (to legalize marijuana and ban casinos) because it does the best job I’ve seen to date of addressing the needs that motivate our contemplated embrace of casino gambling while having none of the disadvantages — and it brings advantages of its own.
Finally, I note that it is no more regressive than any other “sin tax”. There will be no transfer of wealth from poor communities to affluent communities if this proposal is enacted.
jconway says
A lot of my friends who smoked in high school quit by college, and the ones who started in college have since quit. Some of them quit cold turkey in advance of government job applications and drug testing, others quit gradually since their social circles no longer used it. A lot of people in the latter group are real hop heads and wine drinkers now.
Most things are good in moderation. Sometimes pot can be a gateway drug to tobacco, particularly to cigarette use, but that’s about it. I suspect that was the case with our President, and I know that was the case for some friends, and they are having a much harder time quitting that substance than they ever did with pot.
hoyapaul says
Interesting post, but you use “gambling” and “casinos” interchangeably, and I think it’s important to separate the two.
There are good reasons to believe that casinos are a net economic negative due to their effects on property values, small business, and the like. However, there are good economic reasons to support the legalization and taxation of online gambling, which is how most of Europe has handled it. This would also have the benefit of reducing the political and economic clout of brick-and-mortar casinos, which would be forced to compete with online competitors.
jconway says
And it’s worth pointing out that casinos and their shills in Congress are the main barriers to sensibly regulations of online poker. I am agnostic on legalizing gambling itself, there may be ways to do it that reduce the social harms, though I also personally know someone who dropped out of college due to massive losses in online poker leagues (and I know someone else who paid off his tuition thanks to his winnings, it goes both ways). So there should be limits and regulations to how much you can bet, how much credit you can take, and where the ‘banks’ running the online casinos are located.
Many of them are in Malta or Cyrpus to avoid regulations and taxes. But I think the regulations Barney Frank and Ron Paul backed, would’ve opened the industry up to more consumers while also ensuring that the revenue stayed onshore and safeguards were in place. Either way, it’s important to note that casinos are a predatory industry that thrive on working class consumers and require substantial government largesse to operate profitably. Online poker may have some of the same social costs, but there is a significant barrier to entry. It largely targets middle class males, while casinos target the poor, minorities, and the elderly, including elderly women who make up it’s largest client base. And unlike casinos, if an online poker company goes under, the tax payer won’t need to foot the bill for the unemployed workers and depressed communities it leaves in it’s wake.
hlpeary says
Been to Denver lately? The streets are strewn with homeless teens. Can’t help but notice. Local news points to legalized pot drawing out-of-state teens to the city who become stranded there. Not a pretty sight and the shelters are being overrun. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26216037/legal-pot-blamed-some-influx-homeless-this-summer
jconway says
And the lack of construction jobs is often blamed on illegal immigration. Correlation isn’t causation-how about we end youth homelessness rather than blaming them for their predicament. It’s also a very expensive product thanks to the tax, and raised nearly 30 million in the past month alone. Casinos destroy communities, lower property values, etc. Maybe the lot revenue can be used to help these kids get jobs.
hlpeary says
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/after-5-months-of-sales-colorado-sees-the-downside-of-a-legal-high.html?_r=0
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/colorado_s_pot_experiment_the_unintended_consequences_of_marijuana_legalization.html
jconway says
There are some downsides and hiccups, just as there were when alcohol prohibition ended. But, like petr’s example above, these problems can be solved by more regulation and more government. Who would you rather regulating this product? Doctors , public health officials, and law enforcement officials acting in concert with policy makers and one another, as they do on the marijuana control board in CO and WA; or cartels regulating themselves, setting the prices, determining safety , violently rather than freely competing with one another and reaping the profits?
Not to mention we can have tort systems ensuring liability on top of regulations. All good things. Dowd should’ve used instead of writing like a prude.
fenway49 says
Broader legalization would prevent concentration of those kids in one state. Conversely, having casinos everywhere will dissipate the alleged benefits while spreading the social harms.
jasongwb says
It states outright that crime is way down and tax revenue way up. There are problems with calibrating the proper way to tax pot that will be fixed as data comes in as well as couple unfortunate deaths that were actually indirectly involved with pot at best. Legalization is a very recent development and will take some time to get it right. It will be shown to be a more than worthy experiment that will keep large numbers of people from being locked up and bankrupted for no good reason.
I do worry about the the pot business going corporate but the solution to that is proper regulation not ruining people lives by making it a crime to sell or use pot.