全球智库信息集成服务系统

Marijuana Policy Is Not a Binary Choice Between Prohibition and the For-Profit Commercial Model

• Marijuana policy should not be viewed as a binary choice between prohibition and the for-profit commercial model we see in Colorado and Washington. Legalization encompasses a wide range of possible regimes, distinguished along at least four dimensions: the kinds of organizations that are allowed to provide the drug, the regulations under which those organizations operate, the nature of the products that can be distributed, and price.
• Vermonters likely consumed between 15 and 25 metric tons of marijuana and spent between $125 million and $225 million on marijuana in 2014.
• There are nearly 40 times as many regular marijuana users living within 200 miles of Vermont borders as there are living inside Vermont.
• Under a scenario in which Vermont legalized marijuana, taxed aggressively, suppressed its black market, and consumption increased by 25 to 100 percent, tax revenues from sales to Vermont residents could be in the range of $20 million to $75 million annually.
• Vermont also could end up supplying large numbers of out-of-state users, directly via marijuana tourism or indirectly — unless and until other states in the Northeast also legalized marijuana. That flow could then reverse if those states imposed lower taxes, undermining revenues from taxing Vermont's own residents. The likelihood of cross-border commerce could engender a federal government response, making all revenue projections highly uncertain.
• State and local governments in Vermont likely spend less than $1 million annually prohibiting marijuana for those ages 21 and older. Regulatory costs associated with legalizing production and retail sales would likely exceed that level.