Tighter Budgets, Looser Rules? Chicago May Decriminalize Marijuana

Breitbart is reporting that several Chicago councilmen have recently said that "they plan to introduce a local law that would decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana in order to cut costs and free up police to handle more serious crimes". The article suggests that the intent of the Chicago councilmen is to promote both economic efficiency and security.

Currently, those found to be in possession of marijuana in Chicago could face a misdemeanor charge with a punishment of up to six months in jail, a $1,500 fine, and a criminal record. According to Breitbart, "under the new law set to to be introduced next week, people caught with less than 10 grams of marijuana would instead face a $200 fine and up to 10 hours of community service" thereby sparing pot smokers jail time.

According to the pro-marijuana group NORML's website, "decriminalizing marijuana frees up police resources to deal with more serious crimes". NORML claims that "taxpayers annually spend between $7.5 billion and $10 billion arresting and prosecuting individuals for marijuana violations" -- the vast majority of which are for marijuana possession only. NORML also claims that the state of California saved roughly $1 billion between 1976 and 1985 owing to the state's decriminalization of possessing one ounce of marijuana.

In echoing the sentiments of NORML with respect to the proposed law in Chicago, Cook County Commissioner John Fritchey commented that, "It is not time to act tough on crime; it is (time) to be smart on crime. We need our resources spent somewhere else."

The news that Chicago might decriminalize pot comes not long after Gallup announced that more Americans today support the legalization of marijuana than ever before. According to the Gallup poll, 50 percent of Americans believe that marijuana should be made legal, up from 46 percent in 2010. To be fair, 46 percent of Americans today still believe that marijuana should remain illegal.

Given the distinction between perceived essential and non-essential security, it would seem that the market in requiring economy and efficiency is encouraging society to move towards liberty. As governments tighten their belts, perceived non-essential rules may be loosened -- thereby giving individuals and firms more freedom. That being the case, liberty can often be a two-edged sword. Where the sound of legalized marijuana owing to tighter government budgets may please some, the idea that there would not be enough police officers to enforce the law in a given region may not be as pleasing to others.

The root economic impetus for the proposed law in Chicago would appear to be in the interests of economy and security, perhaps even to effectively provide more funding for police, but what if the legalization of a drug only leads to a greater need for police? Or what if the correlation between crime and a particular drug is false? As with how the Western world's experience with absinthe went, not everything can be blamed on drugs, chemicals, or beverages in themselves. Even so, I might be more reluctant to drive at night were the legal blood-alcohol level significantly raised where I live.

There may very well be an economic tradeoff at play here between security (police officers that can focus on dealing with more serious crimes) and luxury (not having a society that openly uses marijuana in public and/or in private). That being the case, we have to remember that with liberty comes responsibility. And for that, the ability for a society to legalize X or Y will depend on the particular location's level of tolerance. As such, it may be time for Chicago to decriminalize marijuana. The market (if not financial, then psychological) appears to be compelling individuals to take proper action to decriminalize marijuana.

Given the struggling state of the economy, the market seems to be drawing individuals and firms towards liberty (as governments need to lose weight to maintain efficiency)...perhaps even to the point of the legalization of marijuana. Interestingly enough, in light of philosopher Ayn Rand's analysis that a government's power (in light of the true role of government) should be limited to the courts in contract enforcement and law enforcement on the basis of physical altercations between individuals where one's rights are violated by another, it is as if the market is driving governments towards that same level of efficiency and economy: Owing to market forces, a proper government's abilities will become limited to law enforcement and contract enforcement as a government becomes more efficient while guaranteeing the rights of its citizens. In a Darwinian economic sense, it appears that if a government becomes too bloated, too controlling, too bureaucratic, or too inefficient, it will either gradually improve over time to the point of becoming lean, eventually collapse, or be overtaken by a leaner or even more efficient government.

In a country where possession of marijuana is a federal crime under the Controlled Substances Act and yet the IRS can target medical marijuana dispensaries for tax money, one has to ask, "Why exactly is marijuana illegal in the first place?"

As more Americans begin to favor the legalization of marijuana, maintaining the status quo may be unfeasible. And if the arguments are raised that marijuana is illegal for an individual's safety or health, driving purposes, or to prevent children from using pot, then since we care so much about an individual's health, why don't we just make items like tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, burgers, and fries illegal as well? While we're on the topic of children's health, what about making candy illegal to prevent cavities? Heck, since cell phones cause many car accidents, why don't we make cell phones in cars illegal just as we make drunk driving illegal?

As time goes on, a healthy number of our common legal conceptions are simply becoming untenable.

I am not sure if it goes back to societal maturity or common sense, but one thing that history has taught us is that prohibition of an item does not work; the market still lives, it is just that the price of the item increases based on the increased risk from dealing with the item. The market is based on supply and demand; the crux comes down to the protection of rights -- but how exactly marijuana plays into the protection of individuals' rights under the law is a matter for courts and legislatures, not the marketplace.

Nevertheless, the marketplace has ways of making its voice heard in terms of government policy. Prohibition did not work in the 1920's and was a failure. Back then and even today, the market persists and has the last word -- and apparently in Chicago, it is saying that it is time to legalize marijuana.