By Vivian Mateos Zúñiga and David A. Shirk

Scholars and legalization advocates have argued that the legalization of cannabis would help curb drug flows from Mexico and weaken criminal organizations south of the border. However, there is little empirical research examining how the legalization of cannabis for medical and recreational purposes at the state-level in the United States has affected production levels and flows of cannabis from Mexico. To examine the theory that drug legalization reduces the incentives and profits for international drug trafficking organizations (DTOs), the authors draw on a mixed methodological approach that includes descriptive and inferential statistical analysis of data from the U.S. State Department, archival research using primary and open-source documents from U.S. and Mexican government and media sources, and interviews with U.S. officials and security experts to analyze trends in seizures and legalization. Drawing on this information, we employ a series of statistical tests to examine the relationship of greater legal access to cannabis in U.S. states—measured by the percentage of the population living in states with access to legalized medical or recreational marijuana over time—to illegal eradication and seizures of drugs by Mexican government and U.S. border authorities. We use this measurable outcome as a proxy for illicit drug production and transshipment in Mexico. We find a substantial and statistically significant decrease in the amounts of cannabis apprehended by Mexican and U.S. border authorities in relation to the rate of legalization in the United States using our measurements of drug legalization. At the same time, the authors find additional statistically significant evidence that, as legal access to cannabis has increased, flows of other illicit drugs increased simultaneously, suggesting that criminal organizations have diversified into other drugs to remain profitable, particularly heroin and methamphetamine. Our findings do not find any evidence that cocaine has been significantly affected, for reasons we discuss.   

Volume 19, Number 1 January 2022 San Diego: Justice in Mexico, University of San Diego, 2022.

By Katharine Neill Harris, Christopher F. Kulesza

Roughly half of the U.S. population now lives in a state that permits recreational cannabis use and sales. Still, the criminal legal system continues to play a primary role in determining who receives treatment for cannabis use. It remains the single largest treatment referral source, and in 2019 more than 100,000 people who were admitted to treatment for cannabis use were referred by a legal entity. This raises questions regarding the extent to which individuals who interact with the legal system are monitored and punished for cannabis use in the post-legalization era. Moreover, the issue has not been addressed by state legalization measures. We examined trends in legal system referrals to treatment for cannabis use in legal and nonlegal states from 2007 to 2019. We also tested the relationship between recreational cannabis legalization and legal system treatment referrals for Black, Hispanic, and white adults and juveniles. The legal system’s practice of requiring individuals to participate in drug treatment warrants scrutiny because of its potentially negative and long-lasting consequences. While mandated treatment may be appropriate in some cases, the legal system often requires treatment participation from individuals who do not meet the criteria for a substance use disorder, and it does a poor job of connecting those who do have substance use disorders with appropriate care. The legal system’s limited efficacy in this arena is problematic because mandated treatment carries the possibility of additional legal consequences if program expectations are not met. The harmful effects of legal involvement include fewer education and employment prospects, reduced earning potential, destabilized family structures, negative mental and physical health outcomes, and diminished quality of life. Communities of color are disproportionately targeted by drug enforcement and disproportionately impacted by its collateral consequences. Recreational cannabis legalization (RCL) is intended to remedy, in part, the harmful and racially disparate effects of cannabis prohibition. However, the continuation of compulsory treatment for cannabis use, and the legal involvement it entails, is a potential pathway through which the systemic harms and inequities of cannabis prohibition can persist. The problematic nature of this arrangement is enhanced when it occurs alongside a commercial cannabis industry that profits from greater levels of cannabis use 

Houston, TX: The Baker Institute, 2023. 44p.   

By Alex Brill, Brian J. Miller, Stan Veuger

Federal legislation to legalize, regulate, and tax cannabis could have significant impacts on the federal budget. While the specific details of any potential cannabis legalization legislation are unknown at present, such reforms are likely to affect both tax receipts and federal outlays through a wide range of mechanisms including excise tax collections, changes in the size and composition of the labor force, and the major federal health care programs. We identify the main federal budgetary implications of legalizing cannabis and estimate their likely magnitude where possible.

AEI Economics Working Paper 2023-16 Updated March 2024   Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 2024. 41p.