Edmon de Haro
Marijuana may soon be getting a dramatic regulatory makeover in the United States. In May, the US Department of Justice submitted a proposal to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I drug—a status it shares with heroin and LSD—to a Schedule III drug. The move wouldn’t legalize marijuana for recreational use but would put it in the company of substances such as ketamine and anabolic steroids, which are considered to have moderate to low potential for dependency. It would also recognize marijuana as a drug with accepted medical applications and could affect the tax status of marijuana companies in states where pot is legal.
Would the effects of such a change be generally beneficial for society? To consider this question, Chicago Booth’s Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets polled its US panel of economic experts.
Daron Acemoglu, MIT
“Legalizing marijuana in places where it’s illegal, without interfering with state policies that have already legalized it, would be an improvement. There is no evidence that legalization has led to big negative effects, and further legalization would reduce criminal involvement.”
Response: Agree
Judith Chevalier, Yale
“My understanding is that the compliance costs required for research labs to study the efficacy and harms of Schedule I drugs are much higher than for Schedule III. Lowering the barriers to such studies, given the widespread use of cannabis under state laws, seems a worthy policy goal.”
Response: Agree
Erik Hurst, Chicago Booth
“Most states already allow medical marijuana use. So, in most states, it will have no effect. It may be best to decriminalize completely.”
Response: Disagree
Fiona Scott Morton, Yale
“The relative dangers of these drugs are now well known. Marijuana is legal in many states.”
Response: Agree
Nancy Stokey, University of Chicago
“Direct effects: lower costs for sellers through a tax change, and an upward shift in demand. Hence, sales will increase, leading to more and better targets for armed robberies, since it will still be a cash-only business. There will be winners and losers. On net, ambiguous.”
Response: Uncertain
Chad Syverson, Chicago Booth
“Schedule I for marijuana is a decades-old mistake that created massive enforcement costs (direct and spillover). Moving away from it helps. Further moves in that direction may be optimal.”
Response: Strongly agree
Chicago Booth’s Jean-Pierre Dubé discusses the benefits of personalizing fines according to people's means.
Should Billionaires Pay Higher Fines?
When New York introduced a deposit law, retailers raised prices on consumers.
The ‘Bottle Bill’ Price Boost
Economists consider how the technology will affect job prospects, higher education, and inequality.
How Will A.I. Change the Labor Market?Your Privacy
We want to demonstrate our commitment to your privacy. Please review Chicago Booth's privacy notice, which provides information explaining how and why we collect particular information when you visit our website.