Just in case you were wondering where Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske stands on marijuana-policy reform. look no further than his speech, "Why Marijuana Legalization Would Compromise Public Health and Public Safety," given at the California Police Chiefs Association Conference in San Jose on Mar. 4, 2010.

Here's a lengthy excerpt: I know it is impossible to talk about drug policy issues ranging from prevention to policing, from drugged driving to treatment, without mentioning the role of the most commonly used illicit drug today -marijuana.

You all know the impacts of marijuana in this state - from the proliferation of marijuana being grown on public lands and indoor grows to the negative effects of marijuana use among youth, the increasing influence of violent gangs on the marijuana trade and the problems associated with medical marijuana dispensaries.

As I’ve said from the day I was sworn in, marijuana legalization - for any purpose - is a non-starter in the Obama Administration. I’d like to explain why we take this position.

First, on the medical marijuana issue, I believe that the science should determine what a medicine is, not popular vote.

We’ve seen the problems of medical marijuana here in this state but also in places like Colorado, too, where kids are given the message that since marijuana is a medicine, it must be safe.

But we’ve also seen how localities are dealing with this, with success, through zoning, planning regulations, nuisance laws and other mechanisms.

I recently met with officials from the Netherlands, they are closing down marijuana outlets - or “coffee shops” - because of the nuisance and crime risks associated with them. What used to be thousands of shops have now been reduced to a few hundred, and some cities are shutting them down completely.

This brings me to the issue of outright legalization.

The concern with marijuana is not born out of any culture-war mentality, but out of what the science tells us about the drug’s effects.
And the science, though still evolving, is clear: marijuana use is harmful. It is associated with dependence, respiratory and mental illness, poor motor performance, and cognitive impairment, among other negative effects.

We know that over 110,000 people who showed up voluntarily at treatment facilities in 2007 reported marijuana as their primary substance of abuse. Additionally, in 2008 marijuana was involved in 375,000 emergency visits nationwide.

Several studies have shown that marijuana dependence is real and causes harm. We know that more than 30% of past-year marijuana users age 18 and older are classified as dependent on the drug,  and that the lifetime prevalence of marijuana dependence in the U.S. population is higher than that for any other illicit drug. Those dependent on marijuana often show signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior.

Traveling the country, I’ve often heard from local treatment specialists that marijuana dependence is as a major problem at call-in centers offering help for people using drugs.

Marijuana negatively affects users in other ways, too. For example, prolonged use is associated with lower test scores and lower educational attainment because during periods of intoxication the drug affects the ability to learn and process information, thus influencing attention, concentration, and short-term memory.

Advocates of legalization say the costs of prohibition - mainly through the criminal justice system - place a great burden on taxpayers and governments.

While there are certainly costs to current prohibitions, legalizing drugs would not cut the costs of the criminal justice system. Arrests for alcohol-related crimes such as violations of liquor laws and driving under the influence totaled nearly 2.7 million in 2008. Marijuana-related arrests totaled around 750,000 in 2008.

Our current experience with legal, regulated prescription drugs like Oxycontin shows that legalizing drugs is not a panacea. In fact, its legalization widens its availability and misuse, no matter what controls are in place. In 2006, drug-induced deaths reached a high of over 38,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control - an increase driven primarily by the non-medical use of pharmaceutical drugs.
Controls and prohibitions help to keep prices higher, and higher prices help keep use rates relatively low, since drug use, especially among young people, is known to be sensitive to price.

The relationship between pricing and rates of youth substance use is well-established with respect to alcohol and cigarette taxes. There is literature showing that increases in the price of cigarettes triggers declines in use.

Marijuana has also been touted as a cure-all for disease and black market violence - and for California’s budget woes. Once again, however, there are important facts that are rarely discussed in the public square.

The tax revenue collected from alcohol pales in comparison to the costs associated with it. Federal excise taxes collected on alcohol in 2007 totaled around $9 billion; states collected around $5.5 billion. Taken together, this is less than 10% of the over $185 billion in alcohol-related costs from health care, lost productivity and criminal justice. Alcohol use by underage drinkers results in $3.7 billion a year in medical costs due to traffic crashes, violent crime, suicide attempts and other related consequences.

Tobacco also does not carry its economic weight when we tax it; each year we spend more than $200 billion and collect only about $25 billion in taxes.

Though I sympathize with the current budget predicament - and acknowledge that we must find innovative solutions to get us on a path to financial stability - it is clear that the social costs of legalizing marijuana would outweigh any possible tax that could be levied. In the United States, illegal drugs already cost $180 billion a year in health care, lost productivity, crime and other expenditures. That number would only increase under legalization because of increased use.

Rosy evaluations of the potential economic savings from legalization have been criticized by many in the economic community. For example, the California Board of Equalization estimated that $1.4 billion of potential revenue could arise from legalization. This assessment, according to a researcher out of the independent RAND Corporation is, and I quote, “based on a series of assumptions that are in some instances subject to tremendous uncertainty and in other cases not valid.”

Recent testimony from a RAND researcher concluded that “There is a tremendous profit motive for the existing black market providers to stay in the market, as they can still cover their costs of production and make a nice profit.”

Legalizing marijuana would also saddle government with the dual burden of regulating a new legal market while continuing to pay for the negative side effects associated with an underground market whose providers have little economic incentive to disappear.

Now that I’ve told you what the research says, let me tell you what this means in practical terms. Legalization means the price comes down, the number of users goes up, the underground market adapts and the revenue gained through a regulated market will never keep pace with the financial and social cost of making this drug more accessible.

Gil Kerlikowske photo courtesy of Life

Also see:
Gil Kerlikowske: 'Marijuana Is Dangerous'
Drug Czar's Son Jeff Kerlikowske Busted
More Marijuana News
CelebStoner News