What are the implicit costs of marijuana use?

Hall and Solowij state that there is evidence that childhood marijuana use results in diminished scholastic performance and low future work-place achievement (1998, p. 1613). In an NBER working paper, Rosalie Pacula asserts that marijuana plays a direct role in decreasing an individual’s capital creation. According to data compiled from the National Educational Longitudinal Surveys (NELS), Pacula’s analysis of nationalized math and reading test scores from tenth and twelfth graders indicate a fifteen percent drop over time of marijuana users, or a reduction of two percent in future wages for those who do not go to college (Pacula 2005). Pacula puts the statistical effect of adolescent marijuana use into perspective, “the negative impact of marijuana use in the tenth grade on educational attainment is similar in magnitude to the effect of living in a single parent family or living in a family with an income in the lowest quartile” (Pacula 2005).

Indeed, a relationship exists between heavy adolescent marijuana use and poor scholastic and job performance in young adulthood. However, heavy use of marijuana, tobacco, alcohol, and hard drugs in adolescence signals the presence of other risk factors that by themselves diminish scholastic and job performance. Psychologists identify risk factors such as low grade point average, lack of religiosity, early alcohol abuse, low self-esteem, and poor parental relationships as factors which initiate drug abuse and also signal that an individual will continue to have low scholastic and workplace performance (Newcomb, 1986, p. 525). Evidence also suggests that marijuana adversely affects family formation, mental health, and involvement in drug-related crime, but as before, when controlled for other pre-existing factors, this association diminishes (Hall, 1998, p. 1613).

There are many studies that confirm marijuana as an associative variable rather than an explanatory variable for low capital creation and poor school performance. McCaffery et al. analyzed the relationship between persistent marijuana use and dropout rates of high school students in South Dakota. Using weighted regression, they found a positive association between the two variables, but other differences in characteristics and behavior of the individual explained over half of the association (2008, p. 19). The remaining association was statistically insignificant and attributed to parental and peer influences (2008, p. 21). In a similar model, Rosa Duarte, José Julián Escario, and José Alberto Molina also found a relationship between marijuana and student failure rate. Their analysis confirmed that marijuana often appeared as a warning sign that low grades, dropping out, and low future scholastic performance will arise, but adolescent marijuana use appeared as a characteristic that came along with these other behaviors, not as the underlying cause of scholastic underachievement (2006, p. 479).

An adolescent’s decision to use marijuana may signal that he/she may not be scholastically high-achieving, but in most cases, it is not the reason for it. This is not surprising; using an illegal substance at such a young age indicates the presence of other factors that induce early drug use. Environmental and personality factors, not marijuana, best explain why certain adolescents have diminished capital creation.

Marijuana’s potential to influence future hard drug use is another concern raised by legalization proponents. The gateway effect, the theory that an individual will be more likely to use harder drugs after using marijuana, can occur in three ways according to Jeffery DeSimone. First, DeSimone states that marijuana can generate curiosity in other drugs or reduce fears in trying them. Secondly, the individual marijuana user may experience diminishing marginal returns of “euphoria” from continued marijuana use and experiment with other drugs in order to attain their original level of euphoria. And finally, marijuana use can simply be a marker of personal characteristics or unobservable facts that lead one to trying drugs in the first place (1998, p. 149). As marijuana is usually the first illicit drug an individual tries, DeSimone is able to accurately estimate current cocaine demand based on reconstructions of previous marijuana demand. Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth from 1984-1988, De Simone calculates past demand levels of marijuana based on previous state laws, beer tax rates, and indicators of parental alcoholism. DeSimone’s results indicate that marijuana use in 1984 increases the probability of cocaine use in 1988 (1998, p. 160). Although marijuana use may predict cocaine use in DeSimone’s model, this association does not prove that marijuana causes future drug use as the gateway theory dictates. While drug users may begin by using marijuana, marijuana’s placement as first in a sequence of drugs does not indicate causation. The difficulty in identifying marijuana use as the underlying reason for future drug use is the largest problem in the gateway hypothesis.

A twin study by Arpana Agrawal et al. from the University of Virginia Institute of Behavioral Genetics assessed this issue of the gateway effect. Researchers attempted to identify the causal effect of marijuana use on future drug dependence when controlling for genetics and shared environments. Agrawal’s results showed that marijuana use strongly predicted future drug use, but when controlled for environmental and genetic factors, this association diminished (2004 p.1235). Agrawal concluded that although marijuana contributed to some causal effect, the main association came from other factors (2004, p. 1235).

The causal effects of marijuana on future drug use are tenuous, and the most logical explanation for the observed “gateway effect” is that marijuana is the first drug that many people try. The RAND Corporation, a global think-tank that provides a considerable amount of research on drug policy, acknowledges that while they do not stand in favor of legalization, their recent marijuana gateway research does not support the theory. Andrew Morral, director of RAND’s Public Safety and Justice unit explains, “People who are predisposed to use drugs and have the opportunity to use drugs are more likely than others to use both marijuana and harder drugs…marijuana typically comes first because it is more available” (www.rand.org). Simply put, marijuana is usually the first illicit drug people use. If in an individual is predisposed to drug use through genetics or environmental factors, then they will begin with the substance that is easiest to get.

Taken as a whole, marijuana’s dizzying array of implicit costs add further complexity to the issue of legalization. Heavy, life-long use of marijuana subtly erodes the mind, and the immediate intoxicating effects of marijuana impair judgment. But despite this, marijuana use lacks power as an explanatory variable in high-school dropout rates, low scholastic achievement, and other hard drug use. Marijuana appears in certain adolescents as a warning sign of future underachievement and drug abuse but cannot overcome the strength of other environmental variables that influence the success of certain individuals. Also, marijuana use at an early age may affect the brain’s chemistry, but the gateway theory’s assertion that it causes further drug use is under heavy skepticism and remains unproven. In terms of legalization, the health and capital effects of marijuana are moderate enough to lend support to either side of the argument.

Uh one more thing

So, basically I'm going to keep posting stuff. This blog would be especially useful for people that are doing informed research about marijuana. I notice that the majority of websites about marijuana are very badly put together (in terms of impartiality of the topic) ...and this blog is an attempt at improving that situation. Obviously, this blog is incredibly low budget and not very pretty :( but what I do provide is content...backed up by research. It'll get better...I promise!

Also...this is written from an economic perspective...so it can get a bit dry.

What are the health effects of marijuana?

 From the reproductive system to the nervous system, marijuana use affects a wide range of systems in the body. Wayne Hall and Nadia Solowij wrote a comprehensive report in 1998 that aptly summarizes clinical evidence of the array of health effects that face users. Hall and Solowij’s analysis is a guide for determining whether marijuana is a harmful drug, and it highlights the important attributes of marijuana that are still unclear to the general public.

Hall and Solowij emphasize that cannabis dependence is the most common form of illicit-drug dependence in the United States (1998, p. 1614). Interestingly, the rate at which first time marijuana users become addicted occurs at a similar rate to that of alcohol. In the United States, about ten percent of people who ever try cannabis become daily users compared to that of alcohol at 15% and nicotine at 32% (1998, p. 1614). There is also clinical evidence that marijuana’s withdrawal effects are analogous to those of alcohol (1998, p. 1614). THC, the critical component in marijuana, affects the reward system in the body as alcohol, cocaine, and opioids such as codeine and morphine do (1998, p. 1614).  Hall and Solowij advise doctors to warn patients that persistent/heavy use of marijuana affects an individual’s cognitive skills, ability to concentrate, and short-term memory during intoxication (1998, p. 1614). In the long term, heavy cannabis users are prone to respiratory problems such as chronic bronchitis and more seriously, aerodigestive and respiratory cancers linked to the inhalation of the carcinogenic smoke (1998, p.1613). Long-term use also subtly diminishes attention and memory that may not be reversible through prolonged abstinence (1998, p. 1614).

 Hall and Solowij point to a number of statistics about marijuana that are similar to alcohol and tobacco. Considering the rates of addiction, marijuana is similar to alcohol, but the long term effects of heavy marijuana do not profoundly affect memory and cognitive function as chronic heavy alcohol use does (1998, p. 1614). Like tobacco smoke, the carcinogenic smoke of marijuana is linked to a higher risk of respiratory cancer, but addiction rates differ; one tenth of marijuana users become dependent while one third of tobacco users become addicted (1998, p. 1614).

 Clearly, chronic, prolonged marijuana use harms the body in some way, but if that standard of prohibition is applicable to all goods, one would expect the government to prohibit the sale of tobacco and alcohol as well. Thus marijuana’s remaining implicit costs, the impact on human capital creation and the gateway effect, deserve careful consideration when considering legalization.

an introduction

Is Marijuana Legalization Beneficial to the United States?

 One of the most persistent arguments against marijuana prohibition is that it does not work. Despite education programs, thousands of marijuana arrests every year, heavy police enforcement, and every other instrument of prohibition, more than ten percent of Americans continue using marijuana every year (www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov). Despite the federal government’s ban on the sale and possession of marijuana, individual states and municipalities around the country enact laws that blatantly contradict congressional legislation. The government attempts to control marijuana use, yet an estimated one out of every hundred marijuana users is ever actually caught in the act (Single, 1989, p.458). A casual glance at these facts makes one wonder if the alternative is better. At least under legalization, the 10,000 people that smoke marijuana openly and with minimal reprisal from police at the University of Colorado on April 20^th every year would not erode at our concept of the rule of law in the United States (Anas 2010). The law would finally be in accordance with what many people see as inevitable: marijuana is here to stay. Nevertheless, while marijuana use may remain widespread under prohibition, that is not reason enough for the government to change its policy. There are other considerations in making a decision to legalize marijuana. For instance, the health consequences of marijuana play a large role in determining the government’s position; if marijuana is dangerous enough, then the public ought to be discouraged from using it. Also, the budgetary impacts of legalization deserve consideration. How much of a burden would legalization really lift off the shoulders of taxpayers? What follows in this blog is an impartial discussion of these issues. I will discuss the health and capital creation issues of marijuana, then mention the budgetary effects of legalization, and bring to light the most important point of all: whether the law influences marijuana use at all.