Marijuana legalization is a controversial and multifaceted issue that is now the subject of serious debate. In May 2014, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed a bill requiring the Secretary of Administration to produce a report about various consequences of legalizing marijuana. This resulting report provides a foundation for thinking about the various consequences of different policy options while being explicit about the uncertainties involved.

Considering Marijuana Legalization

Insights for Vermont and Other Jurisdictions

Jonathan P. Caulkins, Beau Kilmer, Mark A. R. Kleiman, Robert J. MacCoun, Gregory Midgette, Pat Oglesby, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, Peter Reuter

ResearchPublished Jan 16, 2015

Cover: Considering Marijuana Legalization
Download PDF
Additional Downloads

Includes other ebook formats

Marijuana legalization is a controversial and multifaceted issue that is now the subject of serious debate. Since 2012, four U.S. states have passed ballot initiatives to remove prohibition and legalize a for-profit commercial marijuana industry. Voters in Washington, D.C., took the more limited step of passing an initiative to legalize home production and personal possession. In December 2013, Uruguay became the first country to experiment with legalization nationwide. In May 2014, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin signed a bill into law that required the Secretary of Administration to provide a report about the consequences of legalizing marijuana. This report was produced for the Secretary of Administration in response to that legislation.

The report does not make a recommendation about whether Vermont should change its marijuana laws. The goal is to inform, not sway, discussions about the future of marijuana policy in Vermont and other jurisdictions considering alternatives to traditional marijuana prohibition.

The principal message of the report is that 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. These choices could have profound consequences for health and social well-being, as well as job creation and government revenue.

Key Findings

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.

Topics

Document Details

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Caulkins, Jonathan P., Beau Kilmer, Mark A. R. Kleiman, Robert J. MacCoun, Gregory Midgette, Pat Oglesby, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, and Peter Reuter, Considering Marijuana Legalization: Insights for Vermont and Other Jurisdictions, RAND Corporation, RR-864, 2015. As of September 14, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR864.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Caulkins, Jonathan P., Beau Kilmer, Mark A. R. Kleiman, Robert J. MacCoun, Gregory Midgette, Pat Oglesby, Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, and Peter Reuter, Considering Marijuana Legalization: Insights for Vermont and Other Jurisdictions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2015. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR864.html.
BibTeX RIS

The research described in this report was conducted within the RAND Drug Policy Research Center, part of RAND Health and RAND Justice, Infrastructure, and Environment.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.