|
 |
|
|---|
OF MARIHUANA INCARCERATION (PART A)
In previous sections we've calculated (as best as possible) the number of prisoners presently being incarcerated by the State of Oklahoma for Marihuana and the costs per prisoner of doing so. Here in this section we turn our attention to some of the other more mundane (yet still financially important) residual costs (both positive and negative) associated with prison incarceration. NOTE, yet once again, that this report deliberately avoids moral issues (example, is prison labor, really nothing more than another word for slave labor, etc.) and deals solely with the financial issues involved. And then ONLY those directly revolving around the actual incarceration.
6.0 --- EXAMINING THE NEGATIVE (FINANCIAL) IMPACTS
---- OF MARIHUANA RE-LEGALIZATION:
In any situation such as this; Obviously there are going to be some winners and some losers. Listed below are some of those, who will ACTUALLY loose revenues as a result of re-legalization. This in turn translates into LOWER State revenues as a result of re-legalization.
6.1 - OKLAHOMA’S PRIVATE PRISON GUARD INDUSTRY:
Already major private prison stocks are in turmoil over re-legalization, with some (Motley-Fool) headlines reading:
“Will Marijuana’s Decriminalization Ruin This (private prison) Company?”And let’s fact it, it stands to reason that many now incarcerated in our state prison system will simply NOT BE THERE, after re-legalization. And strictly from a business standpoint a loss of any (ah) market share, is not good for business. Which in turn “might” have a negative impact on their corporate profits, which in turn “might” mean lower corporate taxes paid to the state/local government.
“Prison Stocks: What Happens When Marijuana Is Legalized?”
We use the term “MIGHT” because these (private prison) corporations seem to be able to take care of themselves; --- as can be seen from this list of corporate donations (obtained via open records) given by them to Oklahoma politicians:
As per the Tulsa World (newspaper), the top (currently serving) recipients from the private prison were: [15]NOTE for those of you who don’t live here, those (by Oklahoma standards) are BIG BUCKS. Thus we can rest assured that they will figure out a new way of filling up their prisons. Maybe new laws against wearing green shoes or something like that.
Gov. Mary Fallin $38,250
House Speaker T.W. Shannon $35,950
Sen. Clark Jolley $29,301
Treasurer Ken Miller $17,500
Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb $14,500
Insurance Commissioner John Doak $12,250
Sen. Rob Johnson $11,250
Sen. Don Barrington $9,635
Sen. Dan Newberry $8,750
Rep. Todd Thomsen $8,400
6.2 – PRISONER LOSSES AS LOCAL REVENUE LOSSES:
Should re-legalization occur, it becomes obvious that “some” percentages of prisoners who are now under incarcerated for Marihuana Law violations will be released. This in turn will mean less need for catering/food servers, private contractors, delivery drivers, suppliers, etc. Which in turn will impact local communities where state prisoners are being housed, etc. WHICH in turn will lead to a lowering of both local as well as State governmental tax revenue, etc.
Thus less incarceration (while being good for the overall economy of Oklahoma) will have some (we feel) relatively minor negative impacts on some local communities. The exact impact at this time (while minor) is hard to determine and can be measured only after the fact (meaning only after re-legalization has taken place).
6.3 – OKLAHOMA CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES
---- Aka Slave Labor:
Here (once more), this report avoids moral issues and deals SOLELY with the financial impacts of incarcerating individuals for Marihuana use. It simply from all outward appearances it appears that approximately one-third * of all state prisoners are employed performing some sort of “For Industrial Use” ( which is a nice term for slave labor) function.
QUESTION: What would happen if part of this population of laborers were removed? Other than the obvious, (lot’s of people running around a may-pole or something like that), pragmatically speaking it is also obvious that the prison Industries will take some kind of a financial hit. But just exactly by how much:
- This report estimates that approximately 6.5% of our entire prison population would not be there were it not for the existence of the anti-Marihuana Laws.
- We also have made the presumption that approximately one-third (1 / 3) of the entire prison population is engaged in some form of "Prison Industry Labor Function."
- Thus it stands to reason that: [6.5% / 3 = 2.1%]
Meaning that the total Prison Industrial System will only suffer a minor loss of approximately 2.1% of the total prison population or 6.5% of that dedicated towards its work force. Translation; ---The losses will not be that great.
But did they actually make rope out of HEMP? In reply to our inquires on the subject we received the same-old, same-old of, “we are sorry sir, but we don’t have any records that go back that far." Meaning, they long ago destroyed the evidence, meaning --- HELL YES, THEY USED HEMP. |
|---|
* Note, this is at best a technical quess-tumate. The reality of the situation is that a prison facility is so completely integrated that it is almost impossible to determine exact figures.
6.4 - LOWER REVENUES DUE TO LOWER
---- DRUG FORFEITURE ASSET SEIZURES:
While not normally associated with direct prison incarceration, because “Civil Drug Forfeiture Asset Seizures” are NOT normally included elsewhere, we are forced here to take them into account. For like speed traps of old and parking tickets today, they have now become a major means of raising monies for local Oklahoma governments. Quoting an (unnamed and out of state district attorney); “I’m spending most of my time doing fund raising for the counties court/police system, as opposed to doing my job.”
Simply put, many court/county offices run off of Drug Forfeiture Asset seizure funds. Thus anything that will put a damper on this governmental revenue stream will obviously have a negative impact on local as well as State governments. And (fortunately or unfortunately) re-legalization will have a very negative impact, one that is already been felt by narcotic police officials in other states. EXAMPLE: Within weeks after Washington State re-legalized Marihuana, the following article ran in the Wall Street Journal:
The article, (while not saying so directly) makes it clear the Marihuana arrests made up an incredibly disproportional amount of those (easy-breezy) seizures.“Pot Legalization Crimps Funding of Drug Task Forces” "A drug task force in Washington's Snohomish County has historically been funded in part by cash, cars, houses and other assets seized from marijuana purveyors. But with recreational pot becoming legal in the state, this funding is going up in smoke. . . . "
“Revenue From Seizing Marijuana Growers' Assets Dries Up” [16]
Here in Oklahoma, the use of Drug Forfeiture Asset Seizures are legendary. According to the website
--- http://fear.org/legisas.html:
“Oklahoma gets a ‘D’ in Policing for Profit report, Institute for Justice:And one has but to read local headlines to know that this is happening:
Oklahoma has terrible civil forfeiture laws, and its statutes give law enforcement significant financial incentives to seize property. To forfeit property in civil proceedings, the government typically must show that property is related to a crime and subject to forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence. In all civil forfeitures in Oklahoma, owners are presumed guilty and must contest forfeiture by proving they did not know property was being used illegally. Worse, law enforcement receives 100 percent of the proceeds from civil forfeiture. When assets are seized by the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control, the Bureau can agree to share the proceeds with other law enforcement agencies. . . . more “
“Prosecutors return $21,227 more to Interstate 40 travelers --- An Oklahoma district attorney has dropped efforts to keep funds found in three more cases where money was taken from travelers during drug stops.” [17]For obvious reasons nether local nor state governmental officials want to discuss the issue too much so we have no firm figures on the subject. HOWEVER, on the positive side (as discussed elsewhere), it should be noted that court costs, police time etc., as well as other administrative costs will drop and thus somewhat offset funds losses from drug crime asset seizures.
“Outsourced Oklahoma 'counterfeit cops' suspected of illegal property seizures“ [18]
6.5 – OTHER NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON TAX REVENUES:
Here in Oklahoma, an individual is arrested for Marihuana once every 45 minutes. Obviously, there’s BIG profits to be had in defending as well as prosecuting them. However, it is felt that those lawyer, bail bondman, legal clerks etc, (being successful individuals) will simply broaden their horizons into other activities that are equally as profitable. Thus such individual/corporate income tax revenue losses can be ignored.
7.0 --- EXAMINING THE POSITIVE (FINANCIAL) IMPACTS
---- OF MARIHUANA RE-LEGALIZATION:
In the previous section we examined some of the negative residual financial effects of re-legalizing Marihuana on the prisons system. Here, in this section, we do the opposite and examine some of the positive financial effects of doing so. Specifically as it relates to the physical incarceration of state prisoners.
7.1 --- FOSTER CARE SYSTEM
--- CHILDREN TAKEN AWAY FROM PARENTS
Once more, this report tries to avoid all moral issues. Here we simply state it as a fact that at the present time CHILDREN ARE being taken away from their parents solely because one or more of their incarcerated parents are (using the systems own words) “Addicted to Medicinal Marihuana.” Thus forcing the Oklahoma taxpayer to bare yet another financial burden.
How Many Children Are We Talking About?The answers are; We don’t know, and We Don’t Know. For just like the exact numbers of those being incarcerated for Marihuana, the prohibitionists are doing a good job of covering-up the exact numbers. But one thing is sure, more than just a few children are involved; with the following criminal codes appearing over and over again AS ADDITIONAL CRIMES (allegedly) committed by Marihuana Addicts:
Just How Much Money Are We Talking About?
“POSSESSION OF CDS IN THE PRESENCE OF A MINOR”
“CHILD NEGLECT”
“CONTRIBUTING TO DELINQUENCY OF MINORS”
“CHILD ENDANGERMENT”
|
|---|
The justification (the given logic) for doing this, seems to be that Medicinal Marihuana is an illegal “CDS” and as such reason enough. According to a letter we received from the Oklahoma’s Bureau of Narcotics:
“. . Anyone that has witnessed how small children are forced to live in deplorable conditions with little or no parenting, care, nurturing, or attention would never support the decriminalization of this drug-addicted lifestyle. Often, these homes are full of children left to take care of each other while their parents are under the influence of drugs or sleeping off a drug binge. As many as 84-percent of the children in the Oklahoma Foster Care system today (March 29, 2011) come from homes where one or both parents are drug addicts. And all admit they started on marijuana when they were teenagers.”Note the claim that “As many as 84% of those children ; (were taken away from parents who) admit they started on Marihuana” Thus their logic for both taking away children from (what they would term), Medical Marihuana addicted parents, as well as the continued existence of the anti-Medical Marihuana laws. In other words, they are in effect saying is that they are actually helping out the little kiddies by taking them away (at taxpayer expense) from their Marihuana using parents; ---EVEN if the ONLY offense by those parents was using Marihuana and not moving to Colorado where it’s legal.
It is of interest to note that the math itself makes no sense. The following response is taken mostly from our website:
--- http://reefermadnessmuseum.org/chap04/Oklahoma/OK_InAnswerA.htm
"The above statements (while having a great bumper sticker shock effect) are nonsensical and provide a good example of why WE HERE IN Oklahoma are now being seen as such a laughing stock elsewhere. Here, for the sake of argument, let us pretend that (their numbers) are accurate and examine the math behind the figures.Thus, it can be safely assumed that whatever reasons those individuals had for getting themselves into that situation, --- their past use of Marihuana (for whatever reason) simply wasn’t one of them. However, be that as it may, let us once again return to the subject at hand; -- The economic burden placed on the taxpayer due to the present day policy.
On June 2012 there were a total of 9,131 children in Oklahoma’s foster care system. [19]
Of which the claim is that 84% come from drug bingeing parents. Thus the total number of children effected being only 6,893 (84% of the total).
Still a very high (and very tragic) number, HOWEVER, one that breaks down quickly after.
According to US census (Jan 2011) there are a grand total of 918,849 children under the age of 18 living in the state of Oklahoma. Or a total of 434,793 family units each having an average of 1.8 children each. [20]
A statistic that (again while tragic) constitutes less than even 1% of the totals.
Now according to the latest Pew Research Center poll : “48% -- Roughly half of adults say they have ever tried marijuana”. [21] Even the “National Institute on Drug Abuse”, admits that at least 33% of all Americans over the age of 12 have used marijuana somewhere in the past. A statistic that (realistically speaking) many of us find VERY LOW, but in any case; What does that do to their bumper sticker statistic? If Marihuana were the case of ALL these problems than shouldn't 50% of all our children be within the Foster Care system?
AND AT THIS POINT, WE ARE (YET AGAIN), FACED WITH YET ANOTHER STATISTICAL HURDLE, if not an out and out nightmare. It appears that we are expected (yet again) to believe that no exact records of EXACTLY why the Children have been taken away are kept. Especially of those children who have been taken away from their parents solely because they were caught using Marihuana. Thus we don’t know the exact number?
Even private non-profit Children’s groups shy away from the subject. A matter of some hilarity as some of these private children’s protective group leaders, actually run away from the subject; --- It’s almost like holding a cross in front of a vampire. Thus, like so many other things surrounding the subject of Marihuana, we have been forced to simply relay of some educated guesswork.
THE NUMBER OF AFFECTED CHILDREN:
Note, the following is at best a technical guess-tument, however for now it does provide us with the best figures available.
- According to "Oklahoma's Bureau of Narcotics" ; "As many as 84-percent of the children in the Oklahoma Foster Care system come from homes where one or both parents are drug addicts." Note this statement was made back in 2011.
- And according to the Oklahoma's DHS (annual report) back in 2011 we had roughtly 9,131 children physically within Foster Care.
- Therefore we can tabulate the following:
[ 0.84 x 9,131 = 7,670 ]
Meaning that a total of 7,670 children were techically in Foster due to so-called "Drug Addicted Parents."
- Next as 5% of ALL Oklahoman's incarcerated under State authority are there SOLELY for Marihuana related crimes. It therefore stands to reason that at least 5% of all so-called "Drug Addicted Parents", are actually Marihuana cases. Or:
[ 0.05 x 7,670 = 384 ]
Meaning that a total of 384 children were might be in Foster due to the anti-Medical Marihuana Laws.
THE COST OF MAINTAINING A CHILD IN THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM
- COSTS (percentage) OF OKLAHOMA’S DHS (Department of Human Services), BUDGET
TBD – unknown due to various logistical factors (plus lack of cooperation from the DHS)
- COSTS PER FOSTER CARE CHILD
TBD
NOTE At the present time the O.V.L. is putting together a seperate white paper on the subject of the Foster Care System as it relates to the anti-Marihuana laws. Specifically to answer the above questions. However, it will be many, many months until it is finished.
7.2 --- LOST INCOME TAX REVENUES:
-- AS A DIRECT RESULT OF INCARCERATION
As previously tabulated, we have determined that 5% our total prison population is being incarcerated solely for marihuana and Marihuana related crimes. And that another 11% are being incarcerated (at least in part) for Marihuana. As each one of these prisoners only counted (for economic purposes) as being 1/4 of a prisoner, we therefore have a total of 2,065 prisoners (or 7.75% of our total prisoner population), essentially there for Marihuana.
Now making use of states average individual income of $24,046, [22] which translates into an average state income tax liability of $681. This in turn means that the total figure (in lost income tax reviews) comes out to approximately.
[ (2,065 State Prisoners) x ($681) = $1,406,098 ]
Thus the state is loosing approximately $1,545,870 per year due to Marihuana prisoner incarcerations.
7.3 --- STATE SALES TAX REVENUE LOSSES:
-- AS A DIRECT RESULT OF INCARCERATION
The state of Oklahoma (this is the state government of and by itself), has a 4.5% sales tax. [23] Which according to the state income tax forms comes out to $40 per taxpayer. [A sum so low that many of us find very hard to believe, but because it’s the official number, let’s just go with it] Thus:
[ (2,065 State Prisoners) x ($40) = $82,600 ]
Not an extremely large sum, but again we are only talking about the State Government’s share of the lost sales tax revenues.
7.4 --- LOST FARM REVENUES & TAX MONIES:
Oklahoma’s landscape (flat grassland planes) makes it a perfect place for Industrial Hemp growth, which does NOT REQUIRE even half the water needed by other crops. [ At the present time Oklahoma is in the middle of a very serious drought ] Additionally, it is very resistant to insects, easy to plant and cultivate with existing farm equipment, etc. AND best of all, given Oklahoma’s weather cycles, farmers can realistically harvest three whole growths per year.
BUT what does this mean in terms of LOST tax revenues to the state of Oklahoma? The truth be told, no one can really tell. There simply are too many other factors related to weather patterns, human resistance to change, commodity prices, etc. However, realistically speaking it is obvious that the more choices a farmer has the greater that farmer’s ability for more profits, which in turn leads to higher taxes paid, etc.
To quote a 1900 newspaper article:
“Henry Nelson, who owns a fine farm four miles west of Oklahoma City, has 40 acres of fine hemp. At the present price of hemp Mr. Nelson believes that his crop will bring him an average of $65 per acre, or a total of $2,600. Hemp raising is a new experiment in Oklahoma.” -- El Reno News (Okla.), Nov. 15, 1900 p6However, that was then and this is now. According to a letter received from one of our former Federal (Okla.) Senators:
“In 1970, Congress effectively banned production of hemp, but did not ban the fiber, oil, and other components that cannot be used to grow the plant. As a result, the U.S. currently imports about $10 million worth of hemp products a year. China is the primary supplier of hemp fiber to the United States, and Canada is the primary supplier of hemp seed and oilcake. Approximately 30 countries permit production of hemp. . . . . The scientific literature raises enough concerns, however, that I would not be in favor of legalizing hemp at this time. My concerns are increased by the fact that some of the most vocal proponents of legalizing hemp are also proponents of legalizing marijuana. This leads me to question the intentions of some of those who wish to grow hemp. . . . I believe the risk related to illicit production of marijuana outweighs the potential benefits from hemp farming. Therefore, I will support the importationlegal hemp substances, while opposing the cultivation of hemp domestically due to the risk of disguising marijuana production as hemp production. . . Best wishes.” . . .Senator [name withheld]And so there we have it in a nutshell. The powers that be are not so much against farmers per say as they are against setting 5% of our state prison population (those in jail solely for Marihuana related crimes) free. However, in terms of state revenue increases, due to the lack of modern day available statistical data, it is all but impossible to establish a number. Here it is enough to know that some revenue losses (maybe major, maybe minor), are taking place.
7.5 --- OTHER PRESENT-DAY STATE REVENUE LOSSES:
Obviously there are numerous other factors of our present-day policy of incarcerating our citizens for Marihuana, which have a negative influence on expenditures. However, like lost farming income, they are (at present) a bit hard to actually tabulate and thus (for the purposes of this report) must be ignored at the present time. Here our only goal is to point out that they do exist and do have a negative impact on our state finances.
FOOTNOTES:
[15]- http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/private-prisons-contribute-thousands-to-oklahoma-political-campaigns/article_f5ddca24-72e5-5c81-849b-031ac6c7c978.html
[16]- Wall Street Journal article - Pot Legalization Crimps Funding of Drug Task Forces Revenue From Seizing Marijuana Growers' Assets Dries Up” – ( Jan 9, 2014) By Zusha Elinson
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304753504579282940412941998
[17]- Prosecutors return $21,227 more to Interstate 40 travelers - An Oklahoma district attorney has dropped efforts to keep funds found in three more cases where money was taken from travelers during drug stops. By Nolan Clay July 28, 2013
http://newsok.com/prosecutors-return-21227-more-to-interstate-40-travelers/article/3866713
[18]- As per Russia Today :
http://rt.com/usa/contractors-pose-oklahoma-police-aclu-818/
[19]- http://newsok.com/number-of-children-in-oklahoma-foster-care-system-rises/article/3697125
[20]- Table ST-F1-2000 – 2000 census – released Sep 15, 2004
-- http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/40000.html
[21]- http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/marijuana-use-increased-over-the-last-decade/
[22]- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
[23]- As per the Tax Foundation :
http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-sales-tax-rates-2014
 PRISON REPORT PREVIOUS SECTION |
|
 PRISON REPORT NEXT SECTION |
 PRISON REPORT BACK TO MAIN INDEX PAGE |