One of the main arguments against marijuana legalization is that it will inevitably increase underage people’s access to marijuana, therefore increasing their use of the drug. But two studies released in the last month — one about Colorado and one about Washington, both of which legalized in 2012 — refute that claim.
Anonymous surveys given to about 40,000 Colorado students before and after legalization showed “no significant change” in marijuana use by children under 18 in the preceding 30 days.
Among high school students, use went from about 23 percent in 2005 to about 20 percent in 2014. Similarly, there was no significant change in use by kids younger than 13 in recent years.
Researchers compared 2010 and 2014 data from the Washington State Healthy Youth Survey. Each year’s survey included questions about ease of access to marijuana, alcohol, cigarettes and other illicit drugs.
There was virtually no change in the proportion of teens who reported it was “easy” to access marijuana in 2010 (55 percent), compared to 2014 (54 percent) after the new law was enacted, according to the study.
We’re learning a lot from the experiences in Colorado, Washington, Oregon, DC, and Alaska. Luckily, one of the things we’ve learned is that marijuana legalization can be done responsibly, in a way that does not increase the amount of marijuana consumed by young people whose brains are still developing. The initiative in Massachusetts will regulate marijuana very tightly, and there is no reason to expect that our results will be any different.
I have to admit to still being very skeptical, especially when it seems to fly in the face of common sense and logic. There is really no way to tell how accurate either the before or after surveys are when you are. Maybe 21 vs. 18 makes all the difference as some jurisdictions are considering raising the cigarette age. Let’s hope so.
Consider “when you are” at the end of the second sentence above stricken.
Anonymous public health surveys are actually quite accurate and used by law enforcement agencies and public health departments to assess teen drug and alcohol usage as well as guage the statistics on other behaviors. My own bias in favor of legalization aside, I do not question the accuracy of these kinds of surveys. They are from objective government bodies and the data they collect directly assess the impact policy changes will have. In our own state it’s data like this that lead so many lawmakers to conclude he 18/21 tobacco switch would have so much efficacy.
However accurate this data is, it’s the best we’ve got. Some data is better than no data.
Legalization drives black market dealers out of business, since they can’t compete with convenient storefronts with better product that the big majority of their customers (who are over 21) can shop at. They used to sell to anyone, including some teenagers, but now they can’t stay afloat solely on teenagers’ business so they stop selling. Now, those teenagers don’t have a reliable source of marijuana, and have to resort to getting a 21+ friend to buy it for them like they do with alcohol, which is just as hard, if not harder, than calling their dealer. That’s basically what’s happening in CO & WA.
…teenagers DO get their hands on alcohol, so this isn’t going to be perfect.
And if we always shot down imperfect proposals, we’d never change anything.
…but I still am not convinced that it won’t get more prevalent because it is easier. Alcohol is legal. It is therefore sold at package and convenience stores and kept in many homes where kids have easy access to it. Pot is not yet legal. You can’t just go buy it in a store and I suspect most homes don’t have it lying around. I’m just really not looking forward to the cultural message, intended or not, that another drug is acceptable.
… without disputing the news as good, I will point out that Massachusetts geography is distinctly different than that of Washington (7x greater in land mass, for instance) or Colorado (bigger) or Alaska (even bigger).
It is this difference, which translates into a difference in mobility, that might prove a problem for Massachusetts. Yeah, the black market will shrivel up and die if the nearest illicit drug buy is a several hour trek. However, there is no place in the CommonWealth that is more than an hours drive to another state… As far as I know, marijuana will continue to be illegal in New Hampshire, Vermont, New York and Rhode Island. And we can expect the black market there to continue, perhaps thrive depending upon the vigilance of respective state police at the borders. I expect, if the measure passes, that Massachusetts will see in an increase in tourism… but what is bought here, I gather, will have to be smoked here…
So, don’t get me wrong, the survey seems sound and results in good news. But I don’t think we can discount the geography. That should be factored into the ultimate legislation…
Washington and Colorado may be many times our size in landmass, but most of their land mass is very, very empty.
Like Massachusetts, both Colorado and Washington are dominated by their urban centers, which are plenty dense.
Surely, Denver, Colorado Springs and Aurora would present no such geographic problems for a black market, and those three cities are over 25% of Colorado’s population. Washington is similarly centered around a few big cities, although Washington has a few more of them.
While the states certainly have rural areas, they are relatively small parts of the population. And given the rates of addiction and abuse that often occur in poorer rural areas, I don’t think the black market has any geographical issue with getting their goods to market in them.
No “but” necessary there. That’s the argument. Of the choices available to teens (or anybody) in the old paradigm — buy illegal here, or trek across the ‘very, very empty’ spaces to buy it illegally there — the very fact of ‘very very empty’ spaces makes the default — a local purchase– so much more attractive.
That’s not the case in the CommonWealth… that is if you accept the argument made herein that black markets for a specific good dies entirely when that specific good is legalized. If the illicit trade can’t compete, locally, with the legitimated trade, for all the reasons listed previously in this diary, and withers on the vine… the choice of trekking to New Hampshire, Vermont, New York or Rhode Island remains. Nor is this merely theoretical: I grew up in Scituate Mass at a time when you couldn’t buy alcohol in the CommonWealth on a Sunday. We thought nothing of trekking to New Hampshire on Sunday afternoons to purchase alcohol. I also spent two years living in Colorado (working at a ski resort in the winters and at a golf course in the summers) and I can tell you, for any commodity you can name, legal or no, if you couldn’t purchase it locally then you were SOL.
It will make the black market a shadow of its former self, since there’s currently a massive black market in MA. But even in Colorado and Washington, there is still a black market (more in Washington because their taxes are higher), and we have black markets for loose cigarettes, DVDs, purses, and many other legal products. Shrinking the black market from a powerful force into a relatively tiny concern is still a great accomplishment, though.
What we call the “black market” for marijuana is organized crime.
Marijuana was not interesting to organized crime until the Reagan-era “war on drugs” caused its street price — and hence its profitability — to skyrocket. The primary impact of the “war on drugs” has been to replace amateur weed sellers with professional (and far more violent) criminals.
Legalizing marijuana in Massachusetts will be a significant step towards reversing this foolish and failed Reagan-era policy. Real progress requires legalization at the federal level, and that will come with time.
In the meantime, though, if marijuana is legal in Massachusetts then I’m not sure why people would drive to New Hampshire, Vermont, New York or Rhode Island to buy more expensive weed (I guess Maine just doesn’t count. 🙂 ). If marijuana is LEGAL in Massachusetts and illegal in the surrounding states, then I suspect residents of those surrounding states will be driving to Massachusetts to buy their weed.
I, frankly, doubt that Massachusetts authorities (or those in neighboring states) will bother posting border patrols to snag residents of neighboring states returning home with weed purchased for their individual consumption. Among other things, that seems like a very effective way to increase the pressure to legalize weed in our neighboring states.
This measure will surely reduce the influence of the black market, and that’s good enough for me.
…that a key point of a union such as ours is that states CAN’T set up border patrols at state lines.
NO, that was not my argument.
My argument was that the vast majority of people who live in those states live in densely populated areas within those states — areas with plenty of density to make any black market feasible. And my argument is factually correct.
This:
isn’t what happens for the vast majority of people in those states, because the vast majority of people live in large cities or towns/cities near large cities.
What can’t you purchase in Denver, or Seattle? In Aurora or Tacoma? It’s cities like these in Washington and Colorado where large majorities of the population live. Maybe it wasn’t that day back in the olden days when you lived there… but in case people haven’t noticed, we’ve had a trend going on several decades now where people are moving into urban areas and out of rural ones. Those trends hold true in Washington and Colorado, too.
I made a second argument, which you ignored completely, suggesting that rural areas have plenty of drug addiction, which would suggest the black market is having no trouble reaching those places — contrary to your thoughts. You’ve offered no evidence to suggest otherwise. If a post office can deliver to these places, drug dealers can find one addict willing to go to them as a means of supporting their own addiction — including addicts who are open on Sundays. Drug distribution ain’t that hard when there’s a market, but their markets can collapse if we want them to by legalizing and regulating their current product of choice.