With a little help (ok, actually quite a lot of help) from my friends Lowry Heussler, Jon Caulkins, Keith Humphreys, and Beau Kilmer, and my sister Kelly, I produced an op-ed for the Financial TimesÂ on the design of a post-prohibition cannabis control regime.
Here’s the punchline:
A large increase in problem use might be a price worth paying to rid ourselves of the many ills attendant on prohibition. But it is not a price we have to pay.Â Smarter policiesÂ could lead to better outcomes.
Many thanks to Kesewa Hennessy, Deputy Comment Editor at the FT, for a superb job of copy-editing.
One key point, omitted to save space: the system of user-set quotas proposed for cannabis could also apply – should, in my view, be applied – to alcohol and gambling.
Debating *whether* to legalize pot is pretty pointless. The important debate now is *how* to legalize it. Some notes toward an essay on that topic.
Debating whether to legalize pot is increasingly pointless. Unless there’s an unexpected shock to public opinion, itâ€™s going to happen, and sooner rather than later.
The important debate now is how to legalize it. The results of legalization depend strongly on the details of the post-prohibition tax and regulatory regimes. In the current situation, continued prohibition might be the worst option. Full commercial legalization on the alcohol model might well be the second-worst. But thatâ€™s the way weâ€™re heading.
I’m preparing an essay about designing a post-prohibition regime. After the jump is a set of topic sentences and paragraphs for sections of that essay, not yet in a well-defined order. (UPDATE: Numbers inserted to facilitate comments.)
Substantive comments are welcome. Rant and snark will be ruthlessly zapped.
Continue reading “How to legalize cannabis”