What does legalising cannabis do to a city?

A cool person in Colorado doing something cool. Image: Getty.

It’s 4/20, a.k.a. National Weed Day: the day that a heady smog rises above every capital city, and hard currencies are replaced by fistfuls of crushed Doritos. In anticipation of 4/20, states in Australia and the United States have blazed up early, by announcing their plans to (partially) legalise cannabis.

Such decisions are made at national and state level. But, while advocates used to cite data collected from cannabis convivial countries like the Netherlands and Uruguay, a move towards legalisation in many U.S. states has lead to a spate of research at city level.

So, with this in mind, what impact does legalising cannabis have on a city and its infrastructure?

Economic benefits and drawbacks

Established weed welcomers have been long been aware of the economic benefits of legalisation: in the Netherlands, tax on coffee shops alone nets the government over €400m per annum. This is despite efforts by city councils to curtail the number of people who can buy and smoke cannabis.

Since Colorado legalised cannabis in November 2012, the state capital Denver has seen a “gold rush” of tourists, investment and new residents. A recent report from the Drug Policy Alliance found that the opening of just two dispensaries in Denver created 280 jobs and an economic output of $30m in the first half of 2014. There has also been an impact on the city’s housing market, with rent prices increasing by 9.6 per cent in 2014 and real estate prices rose by 10 per cent.

That said, these numbers are only impressive if a city actually wants drugs tourists and half its workforce priced out of the housing market.

And even though the sale of cannabis has benefited the Dutch economy, in October 2011 the border-city of Maastricht started banning foreigners from buying and smoking it. City authorities declared that drugs tourism was causing major traffic problems and disrupting residents’ ability to use the city. More recently Amsterdam, has started closing coffee shops in an attempt to make its central tourist district a bit more classy (elitist) and less sketchy (fun).


Less petty crime, more serious crime

Colorado legalised cannabis in 2012. Two years later, arrests for possession were down by 95 per cent in comparison to 2010. (You can still be arrested for carrying more than one ounce at a time.)

In theory, fewer arrests means less police time spent harassing teenagers suffering from pink eye. That in turn means fewer tax dollars spent on processing (in New York City the average possession charge costs $1000-$2000); fewer non-violent, first time offenders in prison; and an economy that benefits from not having a large proportion of its potential work force behind bars.

This theory holds true for cities that have legalised cannabis in the last five years. But! There has been a slight increase in serious crime. Not enough for residents to retreat into gated communities and start hoarding Fray Bentos pies; just enough for anti-legalisation advocates to start getting twitchy.

In 2015 burglaries at Denver cannabis businesses made up 2.5 per cent of attempted robberies in the city. And local police report that the number of “marijuana related crimes” are on the up – although there’s a gaping chasm of information about how these crimes were “related” to cannabis).

It is(n’t) easy being green

By now, it’s hopefully clear to everyone that people who illegally grow cannabis are basically the Hufflepuffs of crime. But, apparently, smoking something grown in weird Barry’s asbestos-ridden attic isn’t always 100 per cent safe. Legalisation means regulation – and while there’s something rather endearing about the idea of furtive farmers taking over an old Debenhams building, the potential for large electrical fires isn’t quite as cute.

In built up areas there is a real danger that herb happy Hufflepuffs might accidentally endanger hundreds of residents. But even if a city does decide to eliminate this risk, the issue of energy consumption remains. Cannabis cultivation uses a massive amount of water and energy, something that Californian residents are starting to notice is taking a toll.

Water use by cannabis farms is already impacting some city residents’ water supply. Increased consumption will place greater pressure on politicians to consider the environmental impact of legalisation, too.

 
 
 
 

Which British cities have the bestest ultrafast broadband?

Oooh, fibre. Image: Getty.

The latest instalment of our series, in which we use the Centre for Cities’ data tools to crunch some of the numbers on Britain’s cities. 

Between the dark web, Breitbard News and Donald Trump's Twitter feed, it's abundantly clear that terrible things often happen on the internet. But good things happen here, too - like funny videos and kitten pictures and, though we say so ourselves, CityMetric. 

Anyway. The government clearly believes the internet is on balance a good thing, so it's investing more in improving Britain's broadband coverage. But which cities need the most work?

Luckily, those ultrafast cats at the Centre for Cities are on hand with a map of Britain's ultrafast broadband coverage, as it stood at the end of 2016. It shows the percentage of premises which have access to download speeds of 100Mbps or more. Dark green means loas, pale yellow means hardly any. Here's the map:

Some observations...

This doesn't quite fit the pattern we normally get with these exercises in which the south of England and a few other rich cities (Edinburgh, Aberdeen, York) look a lot healthier than the cities of the Midlands, South Wales and the North.

There are elements of that, sure: there are definitely more southern cities with good coverage, and more northern onse without it. But there are notable exceptions to the pattern, too. Those cities with very good coverage include Middlesbrough (88.0 per cent) and Dundee (89.4 per cent), not normally to be found near the top of anyone's rankings. 

Meanwhile, Milton Keynes - a positive boom town, on most measures - lingers right near the bottom of the chart, with just 12.9 per cent coverage. The only city with worse coverage is another city that normally ranks as rich and succesful: the Socttish oil capital Aberdeen, where coverage is just 0.13 per cent, a figure so low it rings alarm bells about the data. 

Here's a (slightly cramped) chart of the same data. 

Click to expand.

If you can spot a patten, you're a better nerd than I.

One thought I had was that perhaps there might be some correlation with population: perhaps bigger cities, being bigger markets, find it easier to get the requisite infrastructure built.

I removed London, Manchester and Birmingham from the data, purely because those three - especially the capital - are so much bgiger than the other cities that they make the graph almost unreadable. That don't, here's the result.

So, there goes that theory.

In all honesty, I'm not sure what could explain this disparity: why Sheffield and Southand should have half the broadband coverage of Middlesbrough or Brighton. But I suspect it's a tempory measure. 

All this talk of ultranfast broadband (100Mbps+), after all, superseded that of mere superfast broadband (just 24Mbps+). The figures in this dataset are 10 months old. It's possible that many of the left behind cities have caught up by now. But it's almost certain we'll be hearing about the need for, say, Hyperfast broadband before next year is out.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook