The Devil is Always in the Details, Isn't It?

I haven't had a chance to digest the new research report that RAND did for Vermont on  marijuana legalization.  On first glance, it looks like a pretty even-handed and thoughtful piece, and clarifies the fact that there are downsides to both legalization and prohibition of marijuana.

Over at Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform, Doug Berman has some thoughts that I entirely agree with:

    I am certain policy-makers and advocates for and against reform will find this RAND report "useful" in various ways, and I have already required students in my Marijuana Law, Policy & Reform seminar to review the RAND report with an eye on how its analysis might impact consideration of various marijuana reform proposals emerging in Ohio.  But I continue to wonder if (and worry that) there is ultimately a strong disaffinity among most marijuana advocates to seriously engage with the kind of "wonkish" cost/benefit analysis that the RAND report represents.

    I sense that supporters of marijuana reform are often eager to deny that there are any significant costs likely to result from reform, and likewise that opponents of marijuana reform are often eager to deny that there are any significant benefits likely to result from reform.  Consequently, I suspect (and fear) that the most ardent participants in policy debates on both sides may not want something like the RAND report at the center of reform discussions because it presents a more nuanced account of costs and benefits than advocates may want to acknowledge.

I hope to have my own thoughts about the report after I have time to read it closely.