State: Legal pot could bring in $2 billion over 5 years

SEATTLE (AP) — The state's latest financial analysis says legalizing and taxing marijuana could bring Washington as much as nearly $2 billion over the next five years — or as little as nothing.
The Office of Financial Management released its fiscal impact statement for Initiative 502 on Friday, and the results track closely with its earlier analysis, released in March.
I-502, which will be on the November ballot, would legalize pot under state law and allow its sale at state-licensed stores, with tax proceeds dedicated to education, health care and substance abuse prevention. Oregon and Colorado voters will also decide on marijuana legalization measures this fall.
Marijuana would remain illegal under federal law, however, and it isn't clear how the federal government would respond if any of the states voted to legalize it. The Justice Department could prosecute employees of state-licensed pot shops, sue in federal court to block the laws from taking effect, or simply seize the tax revenue from the states as proceeds of transactions that are illegal under federal law.
Because the federal response remains unclear, Washington's analysts said they could not determine the ultimate effect of I-502 on the state's finances. However, they said, assuming a fully functioning marijuana market develops — and that it entirely replaces the existing illicit market — state revenue from pot sales could be more than $1.9 billion over the next five years. The state typically spends $30 billion per two-year budget cycle.
I-502 would create a system of state-licensed growers, processors and stores, and impose a 25 percent tax at each stage. People 21 and older could buy up to an ounce of dried marijuana, one pound of marijuana-infused product in solid form, such as brownies, or 72 ounces of marijuana-infused liquids.
The analysis anticipates 100 state-licensed growers supplying 328 marijuana stores that would sell more than 187,000 pounds to at least 363,000 customers. Those numbers are based on federal drug-use surveys.
Consumers would pay $12 per gram — the price currently charged by many medical marijuana dispensaries — plus the 25 percent marijuana tax, 10 percent state sales tax, and any local sales tax, the analysts assumed.
The document noted that Washington would likely lose some federal money to fight drugs, such as a marijuana eradication grant from the Drug Enforcement Administration.
However, the analysis did not take into account any possible savings from no longer arresting, prosecuting and jailing people for having small amounts of marijuana, and Alison Holcomb, campaign manager for I-502, said she found that disappointing.
About 10,000 people in Washington are charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession each year.
The Office of Financial Management released its fiscal impact statement for Initiative 502 on Friday, and the results track closely with its earlier analysis, released in March.
I-502, which will be on the November ballot, would legalize pot under state law and allow its sale at state-licensed stores, with tax proceeds dedicated to education, health care and substance abuse prevention. Oregon and Colorado voters will also decide on marijuana legalization measures this fall.
Marijuana would remain illegal under federal law, however, and it isn't clear how the federal government would respond if any of the states voted to legalize it. The Justice Department could prosecute employees of state-licensed pot shops, sue in federal court to block the laws from taking effect, or simply seize the tax revenue from the states as proceeds of transactions that are illegal under federal law.
Because the federal response remains unclear, Washington's analysts said they could not determine the ultimate effect of I-502 on the state's finances. However, they said, assuming a fully functioning marijuana market develops — and that it entirely replaces the existing illicit market — state revenue from pot sales could be more than $1.9 billion over the next five years. The state typically spends $30 billion per two-year budget cycle.
I-502 would create a system of state-licensed growers, processors and stores, and impose a 25 percent tax at each stage. People 21 and older could buy up to an ounce of dried marijuana, one pound of marijuana-infused product in solid form, such as brownies, or 72 ounces of marijuana-infused liquids.
The analysis anticipates 100 state-licensed growers supplying 328 marijuana stores that would sell more than 187,000 pounds to at least 363,000 customers. Those numbers are based on federal drug-use surveys.
Consumers would pay $12 per gram — the price currently charged by many medical marijuana dispensaries — plus the 25 percent marijuana tax, 10 percent state sales tax, and any local sales tax, the analysts assumed.
The document noted that Washington would likely lose some federal money to fight drugs, such as a marijuana eradication grant from the Drug Enforcement Administration.
However, the analysis did not take into account any possible savings from no longer arresting, prosecuting and jailing people for having small amounts of marijuana, and Alison Holcomb, campaign manager for I-502, said she found that disappointing.
About 10,000 people in Washington are charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession each year.
The first line of the article says it all "or little as nothing."Â Which means passage of the initiative will net nothing.
And if you buy into this, please see me for beach front property on north 1st st in the Tropical City of Yakima.
Hilarious bit of fiction binff, but I live in the real world. The fact is that the medical marijuana program is so mismanaged and without supervision that kids are running around with cards for acne. There have been no reviews of any "doctors" to ensure that the cards are just not being sold to the highest bidder and there has been no enforcement. And you want me to believe potheads (which include dealers, but that's what they are) will pay taxes?! Ridiculous. It is ridiculous to think that someone operating outside the law and getting 100% of the profit will voluntarily give up a percentage of that profit, especially if no one is enforcing the regulations. Who's going to stop them? If it's cops, then you just proved my point that it won't reduce the strain on law enforcement. If it's regulators, then all one has to do is look at the medical marijuana system to see how often they investigate, which is never. So who's going to stop the illegal dealer who feels like he doesn't want to pay taxes.
Â
You still haven't answered the question of DUIs and how you are going to regulate people under 21 not getting MJ or how your are going to penalize people who sell to people under 21 or if you are going to enforce the law if a person under 21 has MJ. Again, who's going to enforce? Cops? Again, your argument of "savings" is illusory.
Â
The fact of the matter is the new regulatory system would not be fully funded by taxes. If the State is charging $20 a bottle for booze just to cover that regulatory system, the allegation that a few cents per ounce of MJ tax will cover the new regulatory system is a pipe dream, voodoo math and economics.Â
Â
There are no pros to MJ. It's a drag on the economy and there is nothing productive about it. Not a nation on the face of the planet has major MJ crop which is used for non-drug use. Why? Because it's a crap plant which has no use.Â
Â
Finally, the old alcohol argument. If the pro-MJ forces would stop being obstuctionist about getting good data on MJ use and effects, the it would be demostratively proven that MJ is worse than alcohol and tobacco. But you pro-MJ forces refuses to fund blood test for impaired drivers, and the keeping of data regarding MJ. More over they kill any study which indicates MJ is bad or attack the individuals who show it's bad. Also, if it's only as bad as alcohol, then why legalize it at all?Â
Â
And why does the pro-MJ crowd want to make it legal to drive under the influence of MJ?!!! The fact of the matter is, that the pro-MJ crowd doesn't care about the public, the kids, or drivers.Â
Â
If the pro-MJ crowd was really serious about protecting the public, they would make driving under the influence of MJ illegal, they would allow mandatory blood tests for impaired drivers, they would fund the testing, pay for new positions at the labs, they would allow the State to keep data on MJ and driving. They would pass laws to make it legal to sell to minors and fund law enforcement to enforce sales to minors. They would make it illegal to smoke outside the home, in public areas and sidewalks.Â
Â
But alas, the initiative does none of that. Why? Because they don't want it to. Hence the $2 billion in extra money is a pipe dream.Â
@georgeG -The "new regulatroy system" would be funded by the taxes when the marijuana is sold, not funded from other money.
Â
-You say you doubt potheads would pay their taxes, but the taxes would be taken when the product is sold. Â They wouldn't have a choice.
Â
-Illegal dealers would stop selling because going to the  store would be safer, legal, and easier.  Just like you wouldn't buy alcohol illegally even though its cheaper.  Illegal dealers would be totally put out of business.
Â
-Of course there would be laws against selling to kids, it would be handled almost identically to alcohol. Â Stores would card people when selling, unlike drug dealers who don't card.(who as I mentioned before would be completely put out of business.)
Â
-You say you don't want to walk down the street and smell it? Â Well that would be illegal too, just like drinking in public.
Â
-You say extra strain would be put on law enforcement, but fail to mention the burden that would be taken off of them because all of the marijuana dealers are put out of business, and since possession of certain amounts would be legal, they would have to waste time busting people with small amounts on their person. Â Freeing police to go after more important criminals like rapists, murders, thieves, etc.
Â
- You failed to mention any pros, like increased tax revenue and an incredible amount of jobs in both retail and agriculture.Â
Â
-I get the impression that you are biased against marijuana. Â You should ask yourself, is marijuana more dangerous than alcohol in anyway? Â The answer is No. Â No one has ever overdosed on marijuana. Â Alcohol is physically habit forming, marijuana is not. Â Alcohol is far more imparing both mentally and physically.
Â
Â
Â
One other thing. I doubt pot-heads are responsible enough to pay taxes, not to sell to kids, and to keep it in the home. I don't like it when I have to walk down the sidewalk and choke on the second-hand smoke of a cigarette smoker, I don't also want to get high off when walking behind someone smoking pot on the sidewalk. When the pro-pot movement shows some responsibility and respect for other people's rights, then I'll support legalization. Until then, I'm voting no.
People that want to legalize MJ living is a dream world. First, the $2 billion number is pure fantasy.Â
Â
The pro-MJ crowd like to say, "Oh, we would save money."Â But they fail to tell us that hey, a whole new regulatory agency would need to stood up and enforcement of the new regulations would require hiring enforcement agents, thus doing the same thing that law enforcement would be doing.Â
Â
Next, standing up a regulatory agency is not cheap, just look at how much we pay in "fees" for alcohol.Â
Â
Next, if the fees and taxes are like what is imposed on alcohol, then why would illegal dealers stop selling when they know they undercut legal dealers. Thus, the "revenue" alleged to be gained by legalizing pot is illusory.
Â
Next, the pro-MJ crowd forgets that law enforcement will still to enforce driving while under the influence laws, and with legalizing MJ, more people will be driving impaired and causing more work for law enforcement, and higher fines and jail costs. Unless, of course, the pro-MJ crowd wants to go back on their promise to keep it in the home.
Â
Additionally, there still would need to be law enforcement and regulatory action to prevent sales to kids. Unless, of course again, the pro-MJ crowd wants to go back on their promise to not to sell to kids.
Â
Finally, like typical pot-heads, they fail to see reality.
Can we all show some smarts and legalize this natural substance finally? It should have been legalized decades ago. I'd much rather smoke a joint than drink alcohol or smoke a cigarette with the negative effects that they have and I am fairly sure there are hundreds if not thousands out there that would agree with me. I'm voting yes and hope to be the first in line to purchase a gram of the finest smoke while supporting our state at the same time when I-502 passes. Here's to two hits and a pipe dream!!
 @My name is It was legal 100 years ago but religious progressives believed that young women were being seduced into prostitution they made it illegal on the Federal level. It was the same for cocaine and heroin.
Â
Until you change the Federal Laws it won't matter what states do.
 @MarCar55 Brainwashed!