increase, if not laced in the right contest can be misleading, in that marijuana stays in the system long after the immediate effects have subsided, so that a person testing positive for marijuana in the blood may not have used marijuana in days and may therefore not have suffered from impaired driving abilities at the time of the accident. This figure may thus be reflecting an increase in the number of persons using marijuana, but not necessarily an increase in the number of persons driving under the influence of marijuana. Furthermore, implementation and enforcement costs may be significant, depending on the model used. These costs are likely to be lowest under model 1 and highest under model 2, where there is greater government intervention. Therefore, authorities may have some degree of control over these costs by adjusting the level of government involvement in the market. In addition, the Literature highlights the fact that in some countries that have legalized marijuana, the black market for the drug remains vibrant. In fact, in 2014, one year after legalization, it was estimated that roughly 60 percent of the marijuana consumed in Uruguay was sourced from the blackmarket. This outcome is hardly desirable as it robs the government of revenues and diminishes the influence of the authorities on the market for the product, among other things. One of the main reasons for this outcome may be that the black-market price and to a lesser extent, product quality may be more favourable to the marijuana user. Therefore, an important component of any marijuana legalization thrust is a sustained anti-black market effort. As outlined above, when such efforts by the authorities are effective, the non-monetary costs of the product tend to remain high, leading to a higher priced, less competitive product. If this result is achieved, the incentive to purchase marijuana from the illegal market will be minimized. The importance of time horizon in the assessment of the outcomes of such legislative changes, must not be understated. Many of the countries experiences show that the initial response (in terms of prevalence, arrests etc.) tend to be significant, but over time as the novelty of the new framework diminishes, the long-term response is likely to be more tamed. Likewise, as seen in the case of Washington State and Colorado, marijuana-related tax revenues have grown over time.
References – Economic Analysis
1. 2. 3.
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
12.
UNDOC. Fact Sheet on Statistics and Trends. 2015;6:1–16. Available from: http://www.unodc.org/wdr2017/field/WDR17_Fact_sheet.pdf United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. World Drug Report 2010. Vol. 2010, Joost. 2010. 316 p. Nickus, Lesley. Where in the World is Marijuana Legal? | Marijuana [Internet]. Marijuana.com. 2017 [cited 2018 Apr 2]. Available from: https://www.marijuana.com/news/2017/11/where-in-the-world-ismarijuana-legal/ Ogrodnik M, Kopp P, Bongaerts X, Tecco JM. An economic analysis of different cannabis decriminalization models. Psychiatr Danub. 2015;27(3):309–14. Clark AE. The Economics of Drug Legalization. 2003;1–37. Kilmer B. Policy designs for cannabis legalization: Starting with the eight Ps. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2014;40(4):259–61. Hughes C, Stevens A. The Effects of Decriminalization of Drug Use In Portugal. 2007;(December). Hughes CE, Stevens A. What Can We Learn from The Portuguese Decriminalization of Illicit Drugs ? Brit J Criminol. 2010;50:999–1022. Williams J, Bretteville-Jensen AL. Decriminalization and Initiation into Cannabis Use. Parkville; 2011. Forum MH. Examining the Impact of Decriminalizing or Legalizing Cannabis for Recreational Use. 2017. National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS) 2016—key findings , Data - Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [Internet]. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. [cited 2018 Apr 22]. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/illicit-use-of-drugs/ndshs-2016-key-findings/data Stroup K. America Can Learn A Lot From Portugal’s Drug Policy | NORML Blog, Marijuana Law
106