Reefer smartness: A public good
Legalizing, regulating and taxing recreational marijuana would help strained government budgets significantly, a Cato Institute study finds.
Such legalization would bring public policy in line with reality — marijuana causes demonstrably less societal harm than legal alcohol. Ending the criminalization of otherwise law-abiding Americans, it would save state and federal governments $8.7 billion annually in law-enforcement, judicial and incarceration costs while generating another $8.7 billion in tax revenue, according to the study.
State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery County, sponsor of legalization legislation, says Pennsylvania could see benefits of more than $800 million annually — up to $350 million in criminal-justice savings, plus $200 million to $500 million in tax revenue — if it follows the lead of Washington state and Colorado voters and heeds the 58 percent of Americans who now favor legalization.
The Cato study estimates Pennsylvania spends about $190 million annually on arresting, trying and imprisoning marijuana offenders. The ACLU says that cost is $100 million. Even if it doesn't approach Mr. Leach's $350 million, the figure represents significant — and needless — spending.
With these powerful savings and revenue incentives among so many other reasons why legalization is the right thing to do, it's increasingly clear that Gov. Tom Corbett and other opponents are on the wrong side of this issue. It's time to end counterproductive, failed marijuana prohibition in Pennsylvania and nationwide.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.