C.C.C. 11357(c)
Feelin' Fines

The first policy I would like to examine how our state punishes marijuana-related offenses. In short, we should consider making all possession of marijuana charges punishable by fines instead of imprisonment. A sufficiently high fine could provide the same deterrence as imprisonment at a considerably lower cost to society. It would also provide a new revenue stream to the government.

A fine is merely a transfer, in that they do not impose any net cost on society. With fines, the loss to the offender is directly offset by the gain to the government. When I pay a speeding ticket, my $300 loss is the government's $300 gain.

As previously noted, imprisonment does impose a net cost. The offender suffers a loss in foregone income, and his loss is no one's gain-- what economists call "deadweight loss." Remember, it costs $24,000 a year to house an inmate, and roughly one-tenth of that to supervise a parolee. With 1,100 people currently imprisoned and 2,257 on parole solely for marijuana-related offenses, the state could save approximately $87,000 dollars every day.

There are several objections to this idea. The first objection is the most common and is also completely invalid: fines cannot adequately deter use of marijuana. Each and every one of us has a point in which they would rather spend a certain amount of time in jail to avoid paying an exorbitant fine. If a judge gave you the choice between a $20,000 fine and a night in jail, surely many of us would grit our teeth and bear those miserable 24 hours. We can set the fine at an amount so that a criminal offender would be indifferent between paying the fine and going to jail, which thus gives us the exact same amount of deterrence.

Another, more legitimate criticism is that many drug offenders would be unable to pay fines high enough to provide optimal deterrence. As a remedy, the state could create payment plans, basically entering into a contract with the offender that provides for installment payments with interest, and stipulates imprisonment as punishment for breach. That way, an offender can still earn an income while paying his debt to society, and the state turns the net loss associated with imprisonment into a new revenue stream.

One might even consider extending similar policies to other illicit substances. First-time drug offenders, regardless of what substance they are arrested for possessing, might be given the option of paying a steep fine and agreeing to enter rehabilitation. The fine he pays funds the rehab (allowing for no additional cost to the taxpayer), and, at least in theory, reduces the likelihood of further usage more effectively than imprisonment alone.

This analysis is likely to be unpopular among virulent supporters of the 'War on Drugs.' It is important to emphasize that complete decriminalization is not advocated here, although these figures should be considered against the backdrop of the conclusions drawn by a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research which showed that states moving towards decriminalization have seen only a 2% increase in use among high school students.

I am merely asking people to consider what we spend to prevent the use of marijuana (the $87,000-a-day figure is not exhaustive, by the way; it neglects the costs associated with detection and prosecution, which on a national level are estimated at $7.6 billion annually.) Perhaps most importantly, I am asking people to consider how valuable those resources would be if directed to other uses.